Sun Agrees to Talk to IBM over Open Sourcing Java 451
comforteagle writes "Sun has agreed to meet with IBM to further discuss the issue of open sourcing Java with them. 'Sun is closely evaluating the effectiveness of the process.' Could Sun be coming around to actually doing this?"
Not very important for me (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Interesting)
Once chosen, I like how strict the OOP was, and the tools that are available.
Java / .NET / Strict OOP (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent publicity. (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing that needs to be said is that this is worth millions of dollars in free publicity for IBM. There are many programmers who, before IBM started supporting Open Source, would not have considered working for IBM.
I'm not saying that IBM is asking for Java to be Open Source because of publicity. But that support has a wonderful side-effect for the company.
It's great to have a large organization like IBM that can use its voice to do something that has long been needed. The world needs better GUI support for Java.
We need true native Java compilers, so that it is not easy to de-compile [program-tr...mation.org] Java, as it is now. (I get the impression that GCJ [gnu.org] merely makes calls to libgcj, as the home page says, and is therefore easy to decompile. Does anyone know if that is true?) Business logic is very easy to steal through de-compilation.
Re:It's realism, not idealism. (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Out of 7 JVM's on multiple OS's only ONE JVM displayed gui development poorly. That was Microsoft's JVM. All the rest looked EXACTLY the same. Some were slower than others, but only the Microsoft one acted plain wrong.
2. When I used an X/Y layout manager stuff would not behave as expected. When I went to any other layout manager they worked well.
My issue is with point one above. I had a HUGE battle because "The Microsoft JVM was already loaded on every machine". The developers who were not Microsoft lackies had to fight hard to get another JVM loaded. For everyone who wants an "Open Source JAVA", I have the question. What happens when Microsoft ships a version that is poisioned and acts differently? We the client side Java developers will have to make a choice, and unfortunately for a lot of shops that would mean using Microsoft's Java.
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not very important for me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not very important for me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Informative)
Because the BSD license allows you to keep your fork secret, that's why. This allows someone like MS to come along and make a fork that puts the original at a disadvantage, and keep their changes secret (and/or patented) and effectively bar all the Free versions from being compatible. However, under the GPL they would have to publish their source, allowing the Free versions to quickly and relatively easily adapt to any such changes.
Re:Not very important for me (Score:4, Interesting)
Using the GPL guarantees that any non-private forks can later be merged (consider gcc/egcs). Practically speaking there are few incentives to maintain a separate fork.
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Informative)
Only the calls to the underlying OS would have to be in GPL-ed code, the actual win32/.NET would not. There is nothing in the GPL to prevent GPL code calling proprietary closed code. So, MS takes GPL java, add a few classes with close integration to windows, add that whole package (including all java source) to windows and bingo: a polluted MS only java variant!
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Informative)
With an Apache-style license, companies like Apple could incorporate the Java implementation into their OS, but would not be able to call it Java if they made any changes to the source. Sun (and possibly IBM) could then charge for performing compliance testing on a particular implementation, and allow use of the Java trademark to any implementation which passed the tests.
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called the "Java Compatability Kit", and is what JVM implementations are tested against in licensing to get that spiffy Java logo. IMHO, they should be more strict about how well an implementation performs against the JCK, and include more graphical tests ( though of course those are the hard ones to write ).
The key is you only see the JCK after you've agreed to license Java and paid some cash. That's the only *direct* way Sun makes money on Java. If you're asking them to give that up, I Sun's shareholders will have to ask you why, and what they're going to get in return... this will likely be what the IBM conversation consists of- how to give the JCK to one open-source implementation and still keep commercial ventures going to Sun for compatability certification.
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Insightful)
I would imagine Sun would act as a gatekeeper if Java went open source. Anything code that breaks compatibility would not be included in the "offical" Java feed.
As the grandfather post stated, this is more about portability than anything.
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Insightful)
This hasn't been a problem with C, so why should it be so with Java? Sure, everyone and his brother has implemented non-standard extensions to C in their compilers --- but almost no one uses them. If you care about portability, you'll stick to the standard, and if you don't care about portability, odds are you don't care very much about Java.
If you're really into "write once, run everywhere," then an open source Java ought to be a major goal. Java doesn't run on my box, for example, because it doesn't come with my distro, and my past experiences with configuring it have been so unpleasant that I don't bother anymore. If I really could just run Java programs -- exactly as I can currently compile C programs without worrying about installing the compiler toolchain manually -- I'd probably use some Java programs.
(And yes, I know non-trivial C programs require modification to run on new platforms, but that's because C programs interface directly with the operating system without the buffer of a VM -- and the VM certainly isn't "write once, run anywere," now is it?)
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Funny)
This hasn't been a problem with C, so why should it be so with Java?
My God, man, have you ever tried to move STL code between compilers???
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Insightful)
That will be news to a lot of people. A lot of software uses ms, borland, or gcc specific hacks and alterations. For example, the linux kernel won't compile without gcc or icc (now that intel implemented gcc compatibility changes to compile the kernel). How about microsoft's vc++ not implementing the scoping in for loops right? vc++ doesn't follow the standard so standard code breaks. There are a bunch of other things like this around.
Okay, use Python as an example (Score:5, Insightful)
Python [python.org] is copylefted and is somewhat more comparable to Java than C. It has is own VM and is bytecompiled. It consists of not only a language, but also a rather rich library layer. And it is mostly "write once, run everywhere"; unless you specifically create/use extensions which are platform-bound. But the vast majority of Python programs are extremely portable.
Any Python has not suffered from any forking issues! Nor has Microsoft corrupted it via it's usual extend/embrace strategy. But Python is really *free*, unlike Java.
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Interesting)
And methinks this is where IBM is even more on SUN's side than SUN itself.
Think what needs to be the replacement for mountains of COBOL on mainframes.
I'm no expert on Java, but every time I look at it I get visions of gaggles of mainframes. (No I don't mean clusters. Clusters are a cheap hack to pretend to a non-existant level of reliability).
NOT free enough (Score:5, Interesting)
apt-get install j2sdk-1.4.2
Now it is not. Of course having source available and having the right to mofify and distribute your own version (f.e. optimized for athlon or modified to conform to debian-standards) of java would be a HUGE bonus, but it is not THAT necessary.
--Coder
Re:NOT free enough (Score:5, Funny)
You managed to incorporate Debian, Free software and apt get into one troll that the
Re:NOT free enough (Score:5, Informative)
where does it say that?
from jdk 1.4 on my machine:
B. License to Distribute Software. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including, but not limited to the Java Technology Restrictions of these Supplemental Terms, Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without fees to reproduce and distribute the Software, provided that (i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified (unless otherwise specified in the applicable README file) and only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs, (ii) the Programs add significant and primary functionality to the Software, (iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software (unless otherwise specified in the applicable README file), (iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or notices contained in the Software, (v) you only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, and (vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software.
Re:NOT free enough (Score:5, Informative)
But they can't distribute the jre/jsdk by itself.
Re:NOT free enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Howabout the "non-transferable" bit? If I give my mandrake CDs to someone, have I infringed the java license?
Howabout "for the sole purpose of running your programs" -- (a) they're not my programs, they were written by various GNU authors, and (b) java would be included just because it's useful, and not to make any other particular program run
Howabout "you only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests" -- how am I supposed to know what Sun is interested in, and am I supposed to modify the distribution CDs based on that guess?
Howabout "you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs..." -- I'm supposed to provide insurance for sun, at my own cost, against any damage caused by the people that I'm giving distro CDs to for free?
And as for "that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software." -- err, which programs?
Re:NOT free enough (Score:5, Informative)
Quite important for me (Score:5, Interesting)
Many people believe RMS is too hardcore about sticking to his guns on this issue, but I do believe he has a good point. Many programs are "free" for temporary use, and Java is one of them. Other examples of superficially free software are Windows Media Player and Adobe Acrobat, for which there are no guarantees of future freedom. These programs, like Java, introduce standards and structure that other people build on. If the freedom of these platforms was to be compromised, many poeple could stand to lose a great deal of work. The only way to guarantee the possibility of future support is to open source it.
Re:Quite important for me (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not true. The API's are fully documented and there is nothing preventing their implementation. Those API's are decided on by the JCP which is a community process.
Open sourcing Java would give people an implementation, it would not significantly affect the characteristics of the language. I don't see the openness of Java being significantly different than that of C/C++/C#/Ada; the languages are tightly controlled by a small group with anyone free to implement the standard to whatever extent.
What is the difference between the relationship of Java to the JCP and C to ANSI? You and I can't directly influence either; but we are free to implement either language.
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Insightful)
I have. It's not free enough to be included with Debian or FreeBSD.
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Insightful)
It is still a mystery to me why Sun developed their own logging API's when LOG4J [apache.org] was widely used and accepted.
Hopefully a more open approach to Java would help projects that are housed at Jakarta [apache.org] and SourceForge [sourceforge.net] actually make it into the JDK instead of sticking us with inferior rewrites.
The logging API is just one example. Imagine if the JUNIT [junit.org] implementation of assert was used, and if SWT [eclipse.org] could be combined with Swing/AWT to create better/superior user interfaces. I think Java could grow in leaps and bounds with an open approach.
Another good example of this would be the JDOM [jdom.org] project. How long has it sat in the JCP? While in the meantime Sun implemented their own INFERIOR XML libraries.
The JCP is too political, and needs to modified/done away with. Let the people decide the direction of JAVA!
Just my
--Ryan
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Informative)
The standards are driven and approved via the Java Community Process [jcp.org] which includes many people and organizations.
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Interesting)
"We're not suggesting Sun open source its directory software or proprietary stuff. Java is already in the JCP [Java Community Process]. It is already a community process that many people have contributed to. It's a mistake to look at it as though Sun is the sole author, and this is not any of their proprietary products."
Re:Not very important for me (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not very important for me (Score:4, Interesting)
Benchmarks:
Overall, according to this benchmark, Java scored slightly higher [bagley.org] than scripting languages. But if you consider memory usage [bagley.org], Lua/Python/Perl/Ruby all blow Java out of the water.
Re:Not very important for me (Score:4, Insightful)
Two+-year-old benchmarks? That don't, as far as I can tell, take into account startup time? One of the main ways Java is used is in persistent environments. Comparing Java's performance from the command-line is like ... like comparing the speed of running a perl script from the command-line to a similar script running under mod_perl.
I'm not going to come out and assert that Java now beats Python at, say, the word-count test, since of course Python's had two years to develop, too. However there's hardly anything conclusive about 'speed' in these tests, as thorough as the guy seems to have been.
Um. An? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait... an .. implementation?
Rick Ross, president of Javalobby Inc., of Cary, N.C., an association of Java developers with more than 100,000 members, said, "On the surface, Rod's reply indicates a clear willingness on IBM's behalf to invest in an independent, open-source Java implementation that would benefit everyone"
What? Two Javas? This sounds weird. Obviously an open source implementation will grow and respond to demand rapidly and outpace something proprietary, yet it sounds like there will still be a proprietary version. Can anyone shed light on this? I'm confused.
Re:Um. An? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then there will be enough libre programmers to make decent libre IDEs etc, and the proprietary Java will wither away (and Sun with it).
Though I hope Sun doesn't die, because they can stand up against Microsoft.
Re:Um. An? (Score:5, Interesting)
This, aside from Sun withering away, is what I see, too. Or possibly worse, a fork. Anything added to the OSS that finds its way into Suns would likely fall under the GPL, how's Sun feel about that? Clearly Sun and IBM have some things to sort out.
Re:Um. An? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Um. An? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Um. An? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Um. An? (Score:4, Insightful)
Eclipse may catch up at some point, but so far even the 3.0 milestones aren't as good as IDEA. I'd explain why, but honestly, I think if you tried IDEA for a few weeks, you'd agree with me. I'd say IDEA is (currently) almost inarguably better.
Anyway, Eclipse has bigger goals than IDEA does, so it's understandable that it's taking them a while to surpass IDEA.
There may be other IDEs that are better than Eclipse, too, but those are the only two I've tried.
Re:Um. An? (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies will make the same choice they make with other dual licensed OSS projects.
Re:Um. An? (Score:5, Insightful)
It benefits Sun because A) it keeps Free Software advocates off their backs, and B) it promotes the continuance of Java, a flagship product, and one of the ways they as a company become known to many others.
It benefits IBM because it A) improves their image with the free software community, B) helps keep them in a leadership position for corporate attitude towards open source, C) it keeps investor opinion high.
IBM may already have Java libraries ready... (Score:5, Informative)
The response from Sun engineers I talked to always amounted to some version of - 'those APIs are the result of too many meetings between vested parties, for political reasons it would be nearly impossible to extend them in the way you want'.
At the same time, I spent some time talking with my counterparts at IBM (at conferences.) Over and over again I discovered (through completely non NDA conversations at these conferences) that they already had rewrites of just about all of (if not in fact 100%) the libraries. They had already rewritten everything from scratch so they could make the needed extensions themselves, they just didn't have permission to give them to anyone else. (So I had to do the same, at least for all the java.security and JCE stuff I needed...)
So its entirely feasible that IBM has had for years a parallel implementation of all the libraries, and releasing them as open source would be relatively trivial. The only issue holding them up is the Java license terms regarding package naming, i.e. I believe they would need explicit permission to release packages named 'java[x].*'
Re:IBM may already have Java libraries ready... (Score:4, Informative)
or this : Linux JDK [ibm.com]
or this : OS/390 JDK [ibm.com]
or... heck, they even have a separate IBM Windows JDK... probably others...
Let's just say IBM has licensed Java for years and leave it at that, OK ? You can download so many versions of the JDK and JRE from IBM it makes your head spin. Nobody has done as many JVM implementations and research as IBM, probably not even Sun. In doing so, they have likely re-written the JDK several times.
Two Java's (Score:5, Insightful)
The Java language specification [amazon.com] is already avaliable in the open, just like the JVM spec [amazon.com]. This means that anybody could write a complete java implementation, open source. The open source version could not evolve faster than the Sun spec(because it would not be a real JVM then), but the optimization and bug-tracking processes could go faster (if it gets the same kind of support Apache has).
What is interesting here is that Sun would participate directly.
I think it only makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not surprised at all. Quite pleased, actually.
Re:I think it only makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think it only makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
- The Java language is an open specification -- you are free to implement it.
- Sun/IBM are thinking about releasing an open-source implementation.
- An open-source implementation by definition has an open-source license.
- Any Java implementation is a platform because it provides a runtime environment, libraries etc.
- An implementation of Java may not use the 'Java' mark unless it is compatible with the spec.
What is confusing or perplexing here? I think it's obvious what most people want -- an open-source (hopefully GPL!) Java implementation. Obviously we also want it to conform to spec.Sun reply (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently they don't understand IBM's position on Linux
Microsoft's Stand? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just wondering (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just wondering (Score:5, Insightful)
Not an issue, not even for the most retarded PHBs.
Re:Just wondering (Score:5, Interesting)
It's being done quite successfully with MySQL, so Sun would be remiss if they didn't at least explore their options. IBM has proven that they will support open source (as it furthers their ends as well), and doing this for Java would help with their server offerings as well.
Really, I can't see how everyone won't win.
If done right... (Score:5, Interesting)
But, it could work...
This could be very good indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This could be very good indeed (Score:4, Informative)
This used to be the case, but I'd say these days the VM implementations are about equally matched [nist.gov], at least for number crunching.
My guess would be that... (Score:5, Insightful)
What they may attempt is to persuade IBM to understand their side and perhaps even join them in keeping Java a closed environment.
It will be interesting to see how this will all turn out in the end.
Stop beating up Sun (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun is in trouble... nothing is really working for them. The Opteron is going to kill the Sparc, and they don't make much money off software. They need to figure out ways to make money from what they're doing or they're going to go under and take a lot of really cool stuff with them when they do.
I am personally an old fan of Sun. I think they're a great company. Their lukewarm support for SCO (I personally think they were just straddling the fence so they'd be on the winning side no matter what) is disturbing, but I understand their desire to stay out of the way of a litigous monstrosity like this. I want Sun to survive.
Sun has done a great job with Java so far. If they had opened it in the beginning, it would have been embraced, extended, and extinguished by you-know-who and we'd now have Microsoft Java.NET for Windows. Cross-platform Java would be dead. Sun did the right thing, and have been great stewards over this wonderful technology.
So, as we call for them to OSS Java, please keep their interests in mind. They deserve some reward for developing such a wonderful thing. We should not just blindly beat up on them for no reason, and we should keep in mind that IBM may have entirely selfish reasons for "leaning" on Sun here.
(IBM has done the community some great favors, but that doesn't entitle them to some kind of blind religious allegence.)
why? (Score:5, Insightful)
But even their sexy servers aren't all that attractive anymore as the intel line gains more ground on them. And really, the the only reason for buying 24+ way SMPs was due to limitations in oracle clustering. And now they're moving away from that.
Java's fine - if you like heavy, ponderous languages. A few years ago I worked at a system integrator and performed a study of our productivity - it actually took us longer to create an application in J2EE/Oracle in 2002 than it did in CICS/DB2 in 1987. The only good thing I can say about java is that I suppose it's better for large application development than c or c++, and it runs on more platforms than
So, now what's Sun left with? Overpriced hardware and cumbersome software. Should we be deferential with them because of all that they've done for us? Please - they spin so much hype it's disgusting, and their sales team is almost as sleazy as that of sybase or oracle.
Re:Stop beating up Sun (Score:4, Insightful)
You use too much "we" in this message. Try using the word "I" and thinking for yourself.
Mad Hatter (Score:5, Interesting)
Could this venture open up doors for Mad Hatter to become a part of IBM's fleet of products? Any thoughts?
Re:Mad Hatter (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM is quite interesting to watch. They've largely thrown their weight behind Linux. The also holding the high cards at the Java table. They are trying to leverage their chip advantage to get Sun to meet their demands. Iterestingly, they also are a big investor in the whole Novell/SuSE/Ximian deal, the people leading the
My take on the situation: Linux is at the point where it needs to rally behind a driving force. I'm all for choice and all, but you don't beat Microsoft by constant infighting and fractured ideas. As the old saying goes, united we stand but divided we fall.
I think IBM should outright buy Sun. Sun is failing and would be a cheap aquisition. Waiting any longer will just give Microsoft a bigger advantage as the
On the development side, I believe it would be tremendous if IBM (with Sun and Ximian under their wings) would step up and iron out both Java and Mono, along with providing a tight IDE with Eclipse. This could make Linux the development platform of choice.
Of course, development isn't worth much if you don't have an installed base to deploy to. With Novell/SuSE/Ximian, IBM could generate a nice, consistent, integrated desktop environment and provide the corporate sway in convincing businesses to switch from Microsoft.
In short, I think IBM has the most incentive to see Microsoft fall from dominance. They've shown their willingness to get behind an open platform. The community should show their support and get behind IBM. It will yeild the greatest long term benefit.
Re:Mad Hatter (Score:4, Insightful)
I think anti-trust might be an issue here. These companies are already pretty huge. Even if an acquisition was announced, the sheer amount of work needed to unify all the product lines is enormous. That would scare investors and IBM's share price would crash.
Crossing my fingers! (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article - "Sun officials planned to meet with IBM as early as Thursday to discuss the merits of whether the company should work with IBM on an independent project to create an open-source implementation of Java."
Well...perhaps they've seen the benefit of the OpenOffice project.
Took them long enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Took them long enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Have you looked at a mobile phone recently? Every new phone comes with Java. That suggests almost every new phone means a royalty payment to Sun. Mobile phone sales are back on the up thanks to mobile multimedia content - mostly delivered through Java. I suspect Sun are raking it in.
Re:Took them long enough (Score:5, Insightful)
I might be wrong, but I just don't see them making any gross profit directly from selling Java royalties.
GCJ - The gnu compiler for java (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GCJ - The gnu compiler for java (Score:5, Informative)
Wouldn't it be smarter if IBM started with their own SDK/JVM [ibm.com]? If IBM wants open-source Java so bad, let them open their SDK and JVM.
Re:GCJ - The gnu compiler for java (Score:5, Insightful)
It will get faster to an complete Open Source JDK if they can get Sun to agree to release the class libraries under an open source license.
Note that it would make sense for Sun to do it because they will have to spend less money on fixing an enhancing Java.
Open Source (Score:5, Interesting)
<offtopic>
Does anyone know if there are implementations of NeWS available as open source now? Has anyone working on one of the "X Is Icky - I have a Better Way" window systems looked at NeWS for a model? Enquiring minds (however enfeebled) want to know.
</offtopic>
Re:Open Source (Score:4, Informative)
Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the only downside is that ESR is going to try to take credit for it, and he will be insufferable after this.
Not a lot to read into this (Score:4, Informative)
What they HAVE basicly said is "We have officially turned to look at the road that may lead to an open source java". This isn't the first step on the road to Sun being involved in an open source java. But it's the precursor to that step, so I think anyone interested in java will take note.
Just my 2c
OpenSource susbtitute of agreement between company (Score:5, Interesting)
Do they arrive to a private deal? Or they arrive to a deal with the benefit of everyone, in opensource-way?
Petition (Score:5, Informative)
Yay! (Score:5, Interesting)
We want Java's greatest supporters on one line, so they can face the growing competition of C# instead of bickering among themselves about whose VM/Gui toolkit/IDE/Compiler is the best.
Getting an OSS Java is just a nice bonus.
Where has Sun ACTUALLY said this anywhere (Score:4, Insightful)
IBM has put Sun in a corner (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, you can't really say "No", can you ?
Think about it.
If you did, you'll sound unreasonable & stubborn. People may suspect you have something fishy going on, that absolutely prevents you from even talking about it.
So you are forced to say "Ok, lets talk".
Standard management tactic.
IBM has a $96 share price with 166 billion market cap. When they say "Lets talk about it", someone worth only 5 bucks a share and two quarters of operating losses is forced to say "ok".
Read the Article Closely (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM is urging Sun to create an open-source implementation of Java, not necessarily open source its current implementation. Sun's current Java implementation is loaded with tweaks and advanced features (generational garbage collection, HotSpot, etc) that would not be available in such a scenario. The open-source community developing this new implementation would have to develop these features on their own or hope that Sun will donate some or all of their work out the goodness of their heart.
As such, this move by IBM doesn't seem to have any short-term beneift. Furthermore, IBM isn't pushing this new open-source implementation to be the implementation of choice. Instead, they are saying that like the J2EE specs, there should be a free and open-source implementation of the J2SE specs. Whoopie.
Sun and IBM Questions (Score:5, Interesting)
The specifications are controlled by the JCL. Sun has a never-used veto power that allows them to keep control of the trademark. Can this be more "open"? Java is a programming language being designed by a committee. Do you really want everyone in the world to be on the committee?
Are they talking about the StandardEdition, or every version of Java? If SUN will lose the revenues from the cell phone makers, this is not feasible.
Are they talking about releasing the JVM under the GPL? Why does IBM need SUN to help with this? IBM has their own JVM that was faster than SUN's JVM (from my own experiences using JVM 1.3.) Is there a reason that IBM cannot GPL their version? IBM has been trying to wrest control of Java from SUN for years. Could IBM GPL their JVM and force the issue for SUN?
Is the issue that SUN should be the one to dual-license the code so that GPL'd code changes can be added to the commercial branch? I am not clear about the legality of that.
The only real issue seems that OSS needs a freely redistributable JVM to include with Linux distros and other software. OSS is good so debugging can see further down, although that can be difficult when the layers change language. A GPL'd JVM might be forked over features as well as implementation, but implementations have already forked, and Sun can control the features by not allowing their trademark to be used for non-compliant VMs. Please reply with clarifications.
IBM , troll or Arch angel? (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course they definitely aint in the MS (bad) league by my standards, they've done more good than bad for the technology as far as i know.Ok so they wanna make a few bucks on the way, thats not all that bad is it? I'd say angel(maybe i just like the color blue.)
Money (Score:5, Interesting)
Fair's fair IBM. If Sun offers Java then perhaps you should volunteer WebSphere!
Hopefully, this will help improve J2EE... (Score:4, Interesting)
Let Java Go! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll join an open source effort (Score:4, Interesting)
If Sun and IBM work on an Open Source Java, I'll work at merging the project I maintain with their efforts.
http://www.rxtx.org
Sun's license issues have been problematic for our project. I look forward to an Open Source Java.
Too Free? (Score:5, Interesting)
These corporate IT shops think they have leverage over the big-$$ vendors by virtue of the fat checks that they can hold back (sometimes true, sometimes not). No check, no leverage, no support.
The reality is that much of IT is about budgets, not technology. Senior managers still work with money long after whatever technical skills they had are gone, so that's the club they use on vendors.
IBM virtual machines (Score:5, Informative)
IBM has 3 systems that can execute Java programs:
- The oldest JVM is the base for the current generation of products and is derived from Sun code, but contains significant changes to the JIT and garbage collector. See
https://www6.software.ibm.com/dl/lxdk/lxdk-p
- A newer product JVM (internally called J9) was developed from an IBM code base. See http://www.ibm.com/software/wireless/wme/features
- A third (Jikes RVM) has been developed principally for research use and is written in Java. It is an existing open source project that uses GNU Classpath libraries and is popular with JVM researchers. It is not complete, mostly because Classpath is not complete. It is capable, with only the Classpath libraries, of running substantial programs such as Eclipse. See http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/jikesrvm/
This is an IBM move against Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is whether Sun will buy into this. There are some advantages to Sun but there are also some disadvantages. One immediate advantage to Sun is that IBM push into the enterprise environment can help Java tremendously.
I'm going to get flamed for saying this but, if the status quo is retained, I think
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Talk is cheap (Score:4, Funny)
Re:this would be great... (Score:5, Informative)
Other
Re:this would be great... (Score:4, Informative)
Too little? (Score:5, Insightful)
When there are conventions of 25,000 Mono developers, ala JavaOne, you can talk about Java being "too little."
Re:Sure they might (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously. Something everyone here seems to miss is this : has Sun really made money from licensing Java? Has it? In the long run? Really?
I would doubt it very much. Java to Sun is like the iTunes Music Store to Apple. They don't really make money on it, they might break even on it, but the plan is to make money on things it supports.
Sun makes money sellling servers and services around Java, like Apple makes money selling iPods and computers that use iTMS. Only not quite as successfully, IBM has maybe made more money from Java than Sun has...
There's also a great deal of ambiguity here as to what the heck might be open sourced. Does it mean there'll just be one open-source implementation which will be tested against the Java Compatability Kit for free, and other commercial ventures will have to continue licensing from Sun? Does it mean that not-for-profit ventures can get a copy of the JCK free? What would the license be like?
A big part of the problem here is that one of the strong points of Java is having a standard API with expected behaviors across all platforms. What Sun will ( and should ) _not_ allow is some arrangement where I can grab the source, add some random API or change some existing API behavior to something non-compliant with the JCK, then release it as "x-man Java" or something. That would be very, very bad, and very likely kill Java. They might as well give MS a version and tell them "add all the system-specific OLE/ActiveX/.NET crap extensions you want, we don't mind! Call anything you want Java, that's cool!" Did I mention not going to happen?