McNealy Answers: No Open Source Java 761
comforteagle writes "Sun CEO Scott McNealy has finally answered the long awaited question that has been on the minds of open source and Java developers. Will Sun open source Java? No. He stated today that Sun sees no solution solved from open sourcing Java that isn't already addressed."
Open Source is a verb? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Open Source is a verb? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Open Source is a verb? (Score:4, Insightful)
The porting will be done by Sun's Java team using a Java IDE and Java compilers on thin-client boxes powered by Java.
The fascinating thing is that these things all exist and are developing at a furious pace.
McNealy answered, "You are missing the point."
Well, a lot of people on Slashot seem to be missing McNealy's point, so I guess that makes things even.
The source for Java is available for download. You are free to make a Java clone, as long as you don't call it Java (just like Microsoft has done with C#/.Net). You can join the Java Community Project and influence how Java is developed. Are the possible risks for Sun worth what little more Sun could gain by Open Sourcing it? Doubtful.
Re:Open Source is a verb? (Score:5, Funny)
"Googling" is another popular one.
"I was up all night Googling your mom."
Re:Open Source is a verb? (Score:4, Informative)
How can we fracture it? (Score:3, Interesting)
But seriously folks...
God strike me down for saying it, but he's right. Java as a core language is fine. It's libraries are decent. What's more, it is infinitely extensible through the addition of third party libraries.
Why would you need an open source Java?
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because many distros will not ship non-free software by default. This greatly limits the usefulness of Java as a general development language for Linux applications. They are shooting themselves in the foot on this one.
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:5, Informative)
The license does not prohibit redistribution. Debian has just decided the license doesn't suit them is all. That's Debian's issue not Sun's.
For the record here are the re-distribution clauses from the 1.4.2_04JDK:
Linux VPS hosting *with* Sun JVMs [rimuhosting.com]
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:5, Insightful)
That, for instance, does not sound like a term that any distro would be particularily happy with (or, in the case of a community effort like Debian, even possible).
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:4, Informative)
That's useless (Score:5, Insightful)
I read this as SUN forbidding Debian to package their JVM in a Debian package.
do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software
This would mean Debian wouldn't be allowed to ship with gcj, Jikes RVM, JRockit, Kaffe or whatever. To me it sounds quite unreasonable for SUN to want to be able to veto what can go into Debian.
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
So SUN wants Debian to pay their legal fees? Silly Debian for not wanting to do that.
To me these terms sound quite unreasonable, I know I wouldn't want to adhere to them if I could decide what went into Debian.
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:5, Funny)
*silence*
*the OSS judges confer for 10 minutes looking confused*
*cough*
Someone gets up and yells, "Burn the witch!!!"
Problem solved.
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't that say more about Linux than it does about Sun?
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like I indicated in another post, there is nothing to stop Microsoft from having their own "windows-only" forked version of Java. And nothing to stop from the GNU/Debian crowd to have their own "puritanical" version. And nothing to stop from IBM to have their own "enterprise-ready" version of Java.
If you notice, even in case of Linux, Linus and a handful of others actually maintain the core kernel code. In case of language, it would be difficult to have this kind of a central point of control - the forking would be really hard to control, and would only lead to more confusion and more complexity, not to mention serious incompatibility issues - all of which flies against the very principles that Java has been built on.
Given that, why aren't linux and perl fractured? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your argument doesn't hold water. Where are all the forks of linux? Just because its a language does not mean it will fork and fracture. Perl isn't forked to hell. Nor is python. Nor are many open source languages.
If sun truly believed in open source (and I don't believe they do), then this would be a great step forward for them.
And McNealy's challenge to IBM to open source db2 is silly too; sun makes no money from selling java licenses (duh, they're free), where as IBM does make money from db2.
Re:Given that, why aren't linux and perl fractured (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm NOT starting a flame war here - but Microsoft does not really consider Perl or Python to be a serious contender as Java.
What do you think really inspired Visual Studio
Right now, Java gives people the freedom of platform - if in any way killing it or changing it in a way that makes it beneficial to MSFT, they WILL do it.
Re:Given that, why aren't linux and perl fractured (Score:4, Insightful)
Sun does make money from Java. They license certification tools so that people can claim 100% Pure Java Certified and use the java logo. They make money from licensing the source code, they make money from licensing distribution rights for the JRE and JDK.
While you can distribute the JRE, you can only do so if you aren distributing it for the purpose of running your application.
You cannot distribute the JDK unless you pay for that right.
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it forked, it would become some other language, and people could decide to use it or not based on its merits. However, those in the Java camp would know where to look for the Java they want.
Furthermore, example proves this point. We have languages like Perl, Python, Ruby and countless others that are doing just fine in the open source world.
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure about that? I seem to recall a long lawsuit over that exact matter.
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that Sun's problem or the Distro's problem?
Someone who doesn't know enough to install the JDK on their computer on their own from a package that is already included in their distro (just not in the 'free' section) probably wouldn't be able to develop in it. If you like java, you can install it, you can use it.
Maybe the linux distributors should be a little more open regarding what programs they would like to include.
Look at sourceforge. The number of open source projects written with java is huge.
It's not sun that's going to lose out by not open sourcing java. I'm not trying to sound negative. People are deploying java apps on linux all the time. Especially web applications.
It seems like the OS community wants sun to do it out of principle. None of the arguments made really hold up in my opinion.
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:4, Insightful)
They refers to the distros that are so caught up in the OSS religion that they won't ship a useful and decent free (as in beer) language because it's not fee (as in liberty), right?
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:5, Insightful)
And no, this is Sun:s problem, not the distributions. A good deal of people that would have been using Java for their applications are instead happily using Python, Perl, C/C++ or, rarely but increasingly often,even Mono/C# for their development. Those people were Sun's to loose, and they did.
Right now we have the situation that even Sun is doing all their GNOME contributions in C/C++, as Java is not acceptable as part of the core desktop at this time (neither is Mono/C#, of course - no need to start a flamewar here). In fact, we will likely see Python (and maybe Perl) accepted as core technologies for the desktop (for both GNOME and KDE) long before we see Java - and by then, it may be too late for Java no matter what happens. Of course, that is a problem for Sun (and for dedicated Java developers), not for the distros or for the general user/developer population.
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the driving forces behind Java's evolution was the fragmentation of the C++ camp.
They're called standards. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sun's JVM is just a reference implementation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:2)
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Go open source with DB2 and then you can tell me what to do with my assets," was McNealy's response to IBM.
Hmmm... Now there's an idea I could get behind. Maybe. Although I'm not sure how much a database product would benefit from community involvement. IBM has already ported it to just about everything. The free (as in beer) aspect would probably kill off Oracle and SQL Server pretty quick, though.
Re:How can we fracture it? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just about specs. Implementations matter. If Sun's reference implementation isn't open source, the language isn't really free.
I can understand Sun's initial reluctance to open-source Java years ago -- Microsoft would have (probably successfully) embraced and extended Java, as they indeed tried to do. At the time, the closed license was beneficial.
Here's the compelling reason for Sun to open-source Java now -- Microsoft no longer has an incentive to embrace and extend Java. They've done an end-run around the Java license by reimplementing a virtually identical language and calling it C# instead of Java. Microsoft will keep pushing C# over Java, and they're already successfully stealing away significant mindshare from Java. Microsoft has proven their ability to (illegally) leverage their monopoly position to acquire new markets. I hate to say it, but in the battle of C# vs. Java, the smart money is probably on C# unless something changes.
Making the Sun reference implementation completely open-source would change the rules of the game. Microsoft might try to subvert it again, but there really wouldn't be any point; C# does the job equally well. More importantly, the rest of the industry would embrace Java even more than it already has, and it could serve to steal mindshare back from C# despite Microsoft's monopoly advantage. This is a compelling reason to do it.
"Go open source with DB2 and then you can tell me what to do with my assets," was McNealy's response to IBM.
I have no doubt this remark was sarcastic on McNealy's part, but suppose IBM takes it seriously? If IBM wants Java open-sourced badly enough, would they consider making DB2 open-source as a sort of trade? If IBM responded with an offer to enter into a contract at Sun for both Java and DB2 to be open-sourced together (and conditionally on each other), would McNealy take IBM up on the offer? Or would he just find a new excuse to refuse to relinquish control over the code?
It seems that Sun still hasn't learned their lesson from the NeWS debacle of the late 80s. While NeWS was clearly superior technology at the time, X11 was free in every sense. And it mattered. NeWS fans (including me) could see the writing on the wall, and complained that Sun should make NeWS as free as X11. ("Open Source" wasn't a term coined yet, of course.) Of course, Sun refused, and NeWS died a slow and terrible death at the hands of an inferior (but free) competitor. Even now, Sun shows little interest in making NeWS free, when its value as an "asset" is zero. Will Sun maintain a similar deathgrip on Java until it too lands in the dustbins of history, while the world settles on C# instead of Java, as with X11 and NeWS?
Sun, learn from your mistakes. There was a time when Java's license prevented abuse by Microsoft, but that time has passed. C# is Microsoft's new approach to "embrace and extend" Java, and the only effective way to counter it is to make Java fully open-source now, before C# inexorably crushes Java. The writing is on the wall yet again -- don't let Java die the same lingering death that NeWS suffered!
OI CLUELESS... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry to be blunt here but I really get annoyed at people who just don't look at the market and think their
Fearless Sun Leader pokes at IBM (Score:5, Interesting)
http://gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/25400-1.html [gcn.com]
"Go open source with DB2 and then you can tell me what to do with my assets," was McNealy's response to IBM
Re:Fearless Sun Leader pokes at IBM (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fearless Sun Leader pokes at IBM (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, but you're ignoring his point. Presumably you (or whoever) is hassling Sun to open source Java but isn't hassling IBM to open source anything it invented. Yet, I guess this year/month/week, we like IBM (SCO seals that, in a way). But we're mad at Sun for not open-sourcing Java. But we can't say what, exactly, we will gain from open-source Java that we don't have now (other than the ability to fork or otherwise hassle Sun with dilution and increased risk of being MS-swamped).
So, someone please tell me what we are missing out on by not having Java source code?
Re:Fearless Sun Leader pokes at IBM (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM certainly has invested a lot of money in java and now they are feeling uneasy about it. you would too if you spent billions of dollars on a technology completely controlled by one of your competitors. They want to help Sun open source java so they can continue to pour money into it.
If Sun does not open source it I predict IBM will
Big mistake. (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at perl for example. Do you think it would be where it is today if it were closed source? It would probably be some hack that about 2 guys use. But no, it's on the standard distribution of just about any UNIX-like OS out there, and many websites use mod perl with Apache to get some great results (including /.)...
Imagine where Java would be if it were open sourced. I think that most desktop software could even be developed for Java and run the same on any platform. No more Microsoft monopoly. You could buy a program and run it on OS X, Linux, Windows, or whatever. How? By being open sourced, it would probably become so efficient and powerful that nobody would want to waste their time natively compiling stuff for this system or that.
Yeah man, he's making a big mistake.
Re:Big mistake. (Score:5, Insightful)
some amazing solutions would show up for Java that will probably never appear with it being closed source.
like what?
so is Java
You could buy a program and run it on OS X, Linux, Windows, or whatever.
you can do just that with any Java app today
I code in Java for a living. I don't think open-sourcing it or not has anything to do with Java's current problems in the marketplace. Just my 2 cents.
Re:Big mistake. (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, it would only make it worse - Opensource it and you will have serious issues with version control and compatibility.
As it is, getting enterprise level applications running together in Java is not an easy task - bring in more forks and incompatibility and you will kill the language.
Sometimes, standardisation through a central point of control can be a good thing.
Re:Big mistake. (Score:3, Insightful)
If only you were right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Big mistake. (Score:5, Insightful)
My answer is "Java on the desktop", where it has been an abysmal failure. Yep, there's three or four applications you can point at that are the exception... now show me 20 or 30 common Java desktop applications.
Imagine Java + QT or Java + GTK. I'm a Python partisan and frankly pretty much hate Java, but you know, stick a decent, time-test GUI toolkit on it and I might consider developing with it in the future, especially in light of the other improvements being made to it.
(Being able to program in Java without making me gag would probably improve my employability long term, though I'm still running successfully with "if I never learn Java I'll never have to program in it" without limiting myself as much as you might think...)
Re:Big mistake. (Score:5, Interesting)
Another poster already pointed out how java already meets all the criteria you posit as possibly attainable by java [only] were it open source. But I just wanted to point out that your post is wild speculation; you have zero knowledge about what Perl would be were it not-open source or what Java would be were it. As such, your post is devoid of any meaningful insight whatsoever, yet it attained +5 Insightful status before my very eyes.
I can only hope that meta-moderation repairs that; meanwhile no one has indicated any single (likely) benefit to Sun or Java programmers that will (likely) come from open-sourcing Java, without just staing this claim tautologically. Yet many, such as yourself, have strutted about empty arguments encouraging Sun to open Java source. I don't get it. Why?
Re:Big mistake. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that ultimately it'll probably make it a better language, but it will take plenty of time for the benefits to realize themselves, and in the mean time, as the language get stagnant, it'll probably be eclipsed by C#. Look at Netscape/Mozilla for example. Open sourcing Navigator ultimately led to a better browser, but how long did it take before a version 1.0 of Mozilla was finally released? During that time, while Navigator was stuck in 4.x limbo, IE overtook it easily. Furthermore, despite Mozilla being open sourced, its evolution is guided closely by Mozilla.org. Java have a similar guiding entity, it's called JCP (Java Community Process). A board anyone can join and contribute to. Besides, Java's API's are clearly documented, and other companies can make a compatible JVM (IBM, Apple, and BEA all did). And the sources for the classes included with the JDK's are freely available.
Look at perl for example... But no, it's on the standard distribution of just about any UNIX-like OS out there, and many websites use mod perl with Apache to get some great results (including
This logic doesn't explain the tremendous growth Java has enjoyed on the server side. J2EE technologies are implemented widely on the Internet, and there are plenty of web applications (and tools) build using Java (Tomcat, Ant, etc.).
-B
No solution solved? (Score:2, Insightful)
Just like Windows XP & IE (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Just like Windows XP & IE (Score:3, Insightful)
Compare it against the competition of the day. IE 4-6 blows Netscape 4 out of the water.
Now since it has achieved ubiquity, IE has stagnated and is behind the times.
Java is Suns last trump card (Score:5, Insightful)
It is sad that they don't want to open up java, but really, in the end, it comes down to business strategy. And at this point in time, it just doesn't make good business sense for Sun to throw away their last trump card.
Re:Java is Suns last trump card (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Java is Suns last trump card (Score:5, Interesting)
2) You can make your own JVM.
3) You can make your own libraries.
4) Your java code can be open source.
What does making java "open source" mean? It means making the standard open. Why does the core java standard need to be open when you can write your own open source libraries? Sun already has a community process for adding features.
I know some distros and die hard GNU people dont like it just because its license but most people dont care about that and dont even ave a problem buying software when its warranted.
Re:Java is Suns last trump card (Score:3, Informative)
> 2) You can make your own JVM.
> 3) You can make your own libraries.
> 4) Your java code can be open source.
All these things are true, but the one thing you can't do freely is call any of these things "Java(tm)". That requires having your product pass compliance testing and be certified *by Sun*. The compliance kits are not free (in either sense) and the certification process has a price tag attached as well.
This may not seem like a big deal to the indiv
Java is open (Score:3)
Ultimately the reference compiler, VM and supporting libraries are not open source - but they are just the reference ones. Nothing stops people from making a truly open source version ala blackdown.
Sun's rate of 'new features' has been more methodical enterprise-paced than the typical open source project,
Don't let Sun die. (Score:5, Insightful)
By all means, ask for x86 support. But DON'T KILL SUN. Now is not the time to ask for Java to be open sourced. It would be a good thing, however, to extract from them, some promise that as Java evolves, some earlier version can be open-sourced.
McNealy can't see it because he's not looking. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun has quite a history of inventing new interfaces, then abandoning them because competing open standards achieved more traction in the marketplace. If they're not careful, C# will do exactly that.
Re:McNealy can't see it because he's not looking. (Score:3, Funny)
Best described as "embarrasingly amateurish" and "made motif look like Venus de Milo".
Re:McNealy can't see it because he's not looking. (Score:5, Insightful)
And Sun has already said that NFSv4 will have all the APIs & design stuctures open for interoperability
A boatload of IPv4 & IPv6 code. Structures & design for journaling file systems. etc.
I could go on.
Sun, of any of the major vendors who are tarred, rightly or wrongly, with the non-FOSS brush are about the most standards compliant & interoperabily friendly company out there.
Re:McNealy can't see it because he's not looking. (Score:4, Informative)
Like it or not, Sun is a big contributor to open source.
Mono implements C#. Mono is free. (Score:3, Informative)
C# and MSIL have a free implementation [go-mono.org]. Whether this qualifies those technologies as "open" or not depends on your definition of "open."
Re:Mono implements C#. Mono is free. (Score:3, Interesting)
Java has a free implementation [slashdot.org] too. The difference is in Mono's case some of C# is open. Of course, some is not, and those are the APIs which Microsoft will change without warning to break everyone.
Now, Sun do a lot of annoying things, but when they break their APIs, they do tell everybody what has changed and how to deal with it.
Re:Mono implements C#. Mono is free. (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, the point is this: yes, some core C# packages, some of the cil and clr have been submitted and accepted by ecma. Howeve
What is Sun? (Score:3, Insightful)
So... (Score:2)
I can already hear the 'a million pissed off geeks didn't help Dean'...
How would it benifit Sun ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How would it benifit Sun ? (Score:5, Insightful)
We like open source...but not THAT much! (Score:4, Interesting)
SUN still contributes to OO.org stuff so we can't really rip them on that. However, they remain at the very least lukewarm to OSS. They offer Linux because their customers ask for it, they say. They package a Java Desktop where the word "Java" seems a bit out of place...I think banking on name recognition more than anything else. They killed off the cobalt servers. Just not very Open Source-friendly as far as their PR campaign seems to be going.
Open Source Java? A stern no is the answer. I guess they'll still need to hang on to something while the boat sinks. Might as well be a cup of strong hot coffee.
Come on now, it's really M$ (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's face it if M$ can release their own nasty versions of java before, they can do it again.
Some other Sun musings (Score:5, Funny)
Unix will be back. Really, it will! Everything is beautiful! Don't worry! Be happy! Customers will return to Solaris one day! After all, if schwartz said it, [newsforge.com] it must be true.
and even scott is a believer:
The "fad will wear off, and big business will come back [techtarget.com] to solaris".
Sun, don't worry, everything is great. Everybody else should wake up and smell the java [newsforge.com].
This is good in a way (Score:3, Interesting)
We would probably end up having a dozen versions of Java out there, and various "java distributions" - and there would be no particular standard. There would be a pseudo-standard enforced by Sun, and say, IBM - but there is nothing to stop Microsoft to go ahead and make a non-standard version of it and popularize it.
Okay, now Java is not going to be Opensource - but does that preclude IBM contributing to Java in any way at all?
Re:This is good in a way (Score:4, Insightful)
There is something that is call historical momentium... if you show decent leadership at the start of an OSS project you most often won't be forked....
As long Sun didn't OS-it under a BSD license I doubt MS would touch it with a very long poll, doubley so now that they are pushing their own CShit.
Re:This is good in a way (Score:4, Insightful)
You won't be forked by Opensource folks - you maybe forked by corporates who benefit from killing Java or making it unusable.
Or restricting it to a select platform or two using popularity as a trump card. You know what am talking about here.
If not open source, how about a different license? (Score:5, Insightful)
1.) RedHat couldn't put a JVM in their desktop OS w/out including the Java license in anaconda and having the end user agree to it at install time. As a result, RedHat couldn't set up Netscape and Mozilla to run Java applets seamlessly and out of the box.
2.) FreeBSD couldn't include Sun's JDK in the ports tree out-of-the-box. An admin pays $$$ for cut CDs or spends time to download ISOs so that they don't have to do a network install. When they find go to build Java on FreeBSD they are told by the ports tree to go "agree to Sun's license and download the JDK from http://java.sun.com/blah/blah/blah". Not only is it annoying to have to download an extra component that isn't included on the ISO, it leaves a poor taste in the admins mouth for Java. And come on - admins are the last people developers want to irritate.
I can understand Sun's position with not open sourcing Java. Although relatively uninformed on the topic, I don't see any prevailing reason to make it open source - there are open source implementations of the JDK other than Sun's - go with them. But for cripes sake change the farking license.
It is a sad sad statement that I, as an enterprise java developer of 6 years, am unable to get applets to work appropriately on my Linux desktop.
Re:If not open source, how about a different licen (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, they've impressed the hell out of me. Redhat's been trying for yea
Sun Hates All Admins (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If not open source, how about a different licen (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the crux of the issue with RedHat is that:
a.) Sun wants you to download Java only from Sun
b.) RedHat wants to redistribute Java via the RedHat end user license.
The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I don't understand why Sun can't just let "other people" (RedHat, FreeBSD, etc) distributed their binary code without checking in at Sun.com first.
As a java developer who earns an income based upon Java's success, I really want to see Java succeed on the desktop because it opens up more development avenues for me and other java developers. And I think that Sun has an interest in java succeeding on the desktop as well (their Java Desktop would seem to indicate this). With technologies like Flash that are so nice looking, so easy to install, and lots of times already integrated on your platform - you would think that Sun would be doing __everything_in_its_power__ to help foster the growth of java on the desktop.
I would think Java would be out there lobbying Dell and Compaq pumping them to install WebStart on their desktops. Or put in an up-to-date JRE into IE. Or . . . put in a stinking applet viewer into the Mozilla that ships with the Linux distro most commodity users install.
But they don't. Instead they sit back, come up with a dozen or so mime-types that represent a Java Applet, make it prohibitively difficult to install the correct
Come on Sun. Wake up! I want java to succeed on the desktop as much as you do. You guys clearly haven't figured out how to make Java pervasive - maybe us assclowns at home can figure it out. Just give up the EULA rights to Java so that one of us can figure out how to do, patch it into a vanilla distro (like Fedora), and let you reach the end users you've failed to reach since you came up with applets years ago.
There's nothing like knowing a solvable problem exists that you can't even begin to troubleshoot because some asshat lawyer somewhere wants you to sign their EULA instead of the one from another company (which is frequently the same stinking one).
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Incedentally, isn't it strange how the Java API can evolve so much and yet despite the holes in POSIX no one has even considered changing it.
Well if they're going to be that way about Java (Score:4, Interesting)
That'll show them.
Note for the sarcasm-impaired: Move along, now.
Correction... (Score:4, Informative)
...no Open-Source SUN Java.
People being impatient have already generated GCJ [gnu.org] and Kaffe [kaffe.org] working on open-source implementations of Java. Neither are yet as complete as the 'full' Java, but are in progress.
Is there a 'standard' for the Java language itself, in the same way that there is for "C#"? If not, could it be because Sun doesn't want to make it easier for Open-Source folks to create a complete implementation?...
Re:Correction... (Score:3, Informative)
Why, yes there is, as a matter of fact. Every aspect of the Java language, including its libraries, are completely specified, and community participation is welcomed under the Java Community Process.
I must admit that I can't see any standard for the
Business Case for Open Sourcing Java? (Score:3, Interesting)
One might argue that open sourcing the JVM and/or the Java standard libraries might be useful to allow people to create their own distributions for their specific platform, rather than doing a complete rewrite. I can see that being useful for platforms that aren't a priority for Sun.
The question is, though how would Sun make money from any of this (mind you, I doubt they make any money from it right now). Can anyone explain how Sun could benefit from open sourcing Java?
Re:Business Case for Open Sourcing Java? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Business Case for Open Sourcing Java? (Score:4, Informative)
I personally wasn't aware of the degree to which this was an issue until I installed FreeBSD. Sun doesn't supply a native JVM for it, and it's current license puts a lot of restrictions complicating the optimization of a free JVM for FreeBSD.
You can get it running, but you have to jump through hoops, agreeing to Sun's source license, and then downloading it from Sun's site before you can compile a version for your PC. After you apply patches created by someone that worked very hard to get the thing to run on your OS, the compile process takes a long time.
The worst part, though, is that it is slow on FreeBSD compared to other operating systems running on the same hardware. Very little can be done until Sun truly open sources Java.
The primary solution people have taken to is creating patches to solve the problems Sun's code has running on different platforms. This has several drawbacks. One is that the patches take time to develop, creating a lag in versions. The second is that the patched versions rarely get true testing, so you can only hope it works with your application, and that something unexpected doesn't surprise you down the road. Most people creating these patches don't have access to Sun's highly priced compatibility test suite.
The irony is that the compatibility Sun want's to maintain is eroded already by Sun's reluctance to both open source Java and make the test suite more accessible. This decision also decreases the platforms that Java can run on, the opposite of one of Sun's stated goals.
A lot of people take it for granted when they install a pre-compiled JVM downloaded from Sun's website on one of the operating systems Sun happens to support. Let me know, please, when Sun releases a FreeBSD JVM, and solves problems the OpenBSD people have had getting it to run correctly.
If Sun Microsystems suddenly dies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't say "Oh that won't happen." We've heard that before -- and it did. The question now is alot of their code "who's going to maintain/support it?"
Re:If Sun Microsystems suddenly dies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Likely, someone would buy the company and all of its assets, seeing a very profitable future in owning the rights to a popular language, OS, and hardware platform.
Don't say "Oh that won't happen." We've heard that before -- and it did.
FUD and balderdash. People have been waiting for Sun to fail for 20 years. They haven't. Why not? Because they're not as stupid as people think. They do stay behind the curve, but they're always savvy enough to catch up without getting left behind.
There is ZERO evidence of Sun failing in the forseable future. Even in that imaginary situation, someone would come in and buy the assets. FUD.
One big benefit (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, I can see their point of view also. Java is Sun's creation and giving it away does lose them a shiny badge of honor, since they wouldn't be able to market Java success as their own. And, open source APIs tend to advance so quickly that not-so-old APIs become obsoleted and incompatible. Open sourcers tend to be up to date with versioning, but this can become a big problem in corporate settings where a customer demands Java version X.1 for their environment, but your product ships with Java version X.2 (or vice versa). Java has essentially been backwards compatible since it's inception, disregarding the new classes.
Fair Enough (Score:5, Insightful)
The open-source community is more than capable of building it's own Java clone e.g. Kaffe and supporting Java technologies e.g. gcj if it wants to, and Sun have every right to hold onto their Java implementation, if they feel it best suits their business goals.
I know I am quite happy using the Java packages provided by Sun and IBM, and agree with McNealy in that IBM should shut their mouth about open source Java unless they are prepared to open source their technologies as well.
Sun is most likely concerned, and rightly so, about the prospect of IBM pulling an 'Eclipse' on the core JVM.
IBM is a ruthless, anti-competitive mega-corporation, and it is easy to forget that in light of the SCO debacle etc., where they are portrayed as the good guys.
I dont think the community at large has any real stake in this particular battle - The Java standards are open, we are free to implement them in whatever way we see fit. If you want to see open source Java, then support the open source Java efforts like Kaffe, and leave Sun alone.
Normally, i'm quite a Sun-detractor, but I think in this case, they are being unfairly beaten up on about an issue that is quite clearly a non-issue.
If you want Java you can get it for free, and if you want to implement a VM that runs Java code, you are also free to do that, supported by detailed information and specification by Sun.
I doubt most of the people baying for blood over this issue would have any interest in improving Java were it to be released as open source, and it's not like there arent plenty of existant open source Java-related projects that couldn't do with your help anyway.
Re:Fair Enough (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM should just open source their VM under a different license and not call it Java.
They can't or else they already would have done so. IBM's JVM is based on Sun's code and thus they have no rights to open source it. What IBM (and others) can/should do is financially support the Kaffe and GNU ClassPath projects, which are clean-room Java implementations written by people who have never been tainted by exposure to Sun's "community source" licensed JDK code.
As a
Another MS Reason (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember the recent lawsuit over this exact issue of MS "extensions" of Java? In January 2001 MS settled that suit. Companies don't settle suits they're likely to win. Making Java open source would simply void the settlement. Check out this site: http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/
McNealy is a wise CEO not to give the competition the tools to destroy his company.
Scott, wake-up! (Score:3)
So, I guess the .NET C# competition is already contained by, by, by what?
Someone else has provided links to the discussion from Havoc Pennington on the future of the Linux desktop. Havoc is discussing the alternatives. And none is very satisfactory. Open-Sourcing Java would have a catalystic effect and would solve OUR problem. But, maybe Scott just doesn't care because he is thinking he has finally found a way to dominate the desktop market and we are supposed to sit-down, wait, see and applaude!
Huh? There's a proprietary Java? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm confused.
I guess you could reverse-engineer kissme [sourceforge.net] or SableVM [sablevm.org], if you had to... but why bother making or using a proprietary JVM, when there are so many good (and improving!) free ones?
Why does anyone *care*? (Score:5, Insightful)
* The specs are open (the big problem with MS is that they work hard to make it a pain in the ass for anyone to make compatible software).
* The specs are all that should be needed. There is *tons* of open source software out there that is RFC-compliant. Guess what? The RFCs don't come with free, public domain reference implementations. They just describe a standard. For *decades*, people have been quite happy with a nice open standard. Who needs the source?
* Sun's JVM is good, but not great. There are lots of people working on JVMs out there -- there is *no lack* of open source JVMs. There must be at least thirty JVMs out there, not counting variations produced by a single company. AFAIK, IBM's JVM is the highest-performance thing out there (for Linux at least) and if we're demanding that something be open-sourced based on the fact that it's really good, I'd like to see IBM open-source theirs.
* It works fine. We have had no problems with the current system. Sun has not tried to leverage their JVM to screw people over, and I don't see how or why they'd do so in the future.
* There is no good alternative. What are people going to threaten Sun with, switching to
* There is a good set of tools to support Java out there.
* There are open-source alternatives that will probably take over eventually anyway. GCJ is slowly moving along. Why, aside from some kind of symbolism, do people care about using Sun's JVM? Just let GCJ get up to speed and get nice native-code Java builds. Instead of trying to beg for favors from Sun, why not work on GCJ? Sun probably spent more developing the language, docs, and marketing Java than they do developing their particular JVM implementation, anyway.
Given a choice between having Sun's JVM open source or not...yeah, sure, I'd prefer to have it open source. But if I really can't stand using a closed one, I can download Kaffe or one of the other JVMs on freshmeat. I'm not going to avoid Java because one JVM happens to be closed-source. If I avoid Java, it would be for high resource usage and issues with the language, not for some silly political issue.
Reason to use Java? (Score:3, Interesting)
Python is a far more productive language than Java, even if it executes slower. For the small parts of code where execution performance is an issue, you can use Pyrex or C or hell, even Java. But why use Java for the larger part of the program?
Also note the Python VM is smaller, lighter and starts up more quickly.
Even in terms of portability/compatibility, it seems that Python is better on many platforms (Windows, GNU, and a few more).
Answer Consistent with McNealy's Past Behavior (Score:4, Insightful)
Do people remember the "Open SPARC" fiasco. SPARC was going to be open. Anyone could build systems that were compatible and run Sun's OS. Well, such systems got built. Resellers started carrying the systems because they were eqyual to SUn's and cheaper. McNealy closed done the initiative.
Remember how Sun fought against Motif? It did everything it could to kill it (except share its technology) and then "discoverd" and adopted Motif when more than 50% of its customers had switched to Motif, rejected Sun's solution and were demanding Sun provide support.
Remember how Sun's attemp to control UNIX, with its AT&T deal forced its competitors to form the Open Software Foundation and actually cooperate (for a while).
Remember that Sun built an x86 verison of its OS and was selling it. As the Intel platform became a serious server challenge to Sun's proprietary hardware, Sun dropped the product.
Get the idea? Expect no cooperation from McNealy. And, if he ever seecooperating, be VERY, VERY, VERY suspicious.
Java more open than Linux... (Score:4, Insightful)
Java currently has several core implementations
Sun, Blackdown (OSS), IBM
J2EE has several implementations
SAP, Oracle, IBM, Sun, JBoss(OSS), BEA etc
J2ME has several implementations
Sun, SavaJE etc etc
How come there is only one Linux Kernel that is recognised ? Is it because the JCP with its reference implementations and verification kits creates a more open environment than Linux can hope to.
Lets put it this way... why is 802.11b/g etc successful ? Because its open source, or because there is an OPEN STANDARD with defined compliance kits ?
Java is like 802.11 & Ethernet... a success by being an Open Standard. Its only the implementations that should be OSS, like Blackdown and JBoss already are.
This is bad because... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, let me put it this way:
Yes, there are existing efforts at making a Free Software JVM/Java implementation - notably GCJ and Kaffe - and it is perfectly legal to do so. However, the big problem is reimplementing the whole Java API. Java has probably one of the biggest unified API's ever. Creating a compatible and stable implementation is not only a massive job, but also such an effort will be forever playing catch up! GNU Classpath [classpath.org] is an admirable effort, relied upon by pretty much every GPL Java implementation, but just look at all the core stuff missing from the API!
If Sun GPL'd all its API, we could have a functional 100% free Java implementation right now, and they could still keep their own JVM tech proprietary, maybe sell it as a high performance option or something. Also, think of the improvements and bugfixes you'd get with thousands of people hacking on the class libraries?
As for forking the language, I think Sun could use its existing Community infrastructure to help tie development together and prevent this. Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, etc are all open languages, yet forking is not a problem with them! As for Microsoft somehow doing evil stuff with Java - they have C# doing a good enough job at eroding Java already!
Another advantage to opening Java would be that distributions could include it in the base install. As it stands, if you want to run Sun's JVM, you have to go to their website seperately and download it. Even their download procedure itself can be a pain (especially on a server)!
Other people have blamed distros themselves for "religious" attitudes, but the fact is they simply aren't allowed to distribute JVMs, without at least adding all kinds of EULAs etc to the installer.
In my opinion Sun should:
If Sun opened it up, Java could become the base language of GNOME as detailed here [ometer.com]. Think of how cool it would be to use a well established, modern language to write GNOME apps? And Sun would get even more of a foothold with their language.
Re:Can't you see? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yeah, going nowhere because the Free and open source development model has stifled development.
Java Applets? (Score:3, Insightful)