Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Java Programming Software Sun Microsystems

Sun to Fully Open Source Java 374

Dionysius, God of Wine and Leaf brings news that Sun Microsystems will be removing the last restrictions on Java to make it completely open source. Sun wants Java to be easily available for use in Linux distributions. We've discussed the steps Sun has taken to open-source Java over the past couple years. From Yahoo! News: "'We've been engaging with the open-source community for Java to finish off the OpenJDK project, and the specific thing that we've been working on with them is clearing the last bits that we didn't have the rights,' to distribute, Sands said. 'Over the past year, we have pretty much removed most of those encumbrances.' Work still needs to be done to offer the Java sound engine and SNMP code via open source; that effort is expected to be completed this year. Developers, though, may be able to proceed without a component like the sound engine, Sands said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sun to Fully Open Source Java

Comments Filter:
  • by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <> on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:23PM (#23176238) Homepage Journal

    Kudos to Sun for waiting so long to open source it. Had it been FOSS back when my company was trying to decide what language to standardize on, we might have picked it instead of Python. Thanks!

    • by Uncle Focker ( 1277658 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:36PM (#23176340)
      They've open sourced everything they had rights to do long ago. The only parts they didn't was due to stuff they had licensed and had no right to release the source code for. Seriously, how dare they not violate their contracts so that you could get code they had no right to release!
      • by abigor ( 540274 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:39PM (#23176360)
        He was implying that it would have been a big mistake to have chosen Java, and that in fact Sun did them a huge favour by making them choose a better language/framework instead. Of course, now that I've had to explain it, it's not funny anymore.
      • by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <> on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:52PM (#23176518) Homepage Journal

        They've open sourced everything they had rights to do long ago. The only parts they didn't was due to stuff they had licensed and had no right to release the source code for. Seriously, how dare they not violate their contracts so that you could get code they had no right to release!

        We were looking for something cross-platform, and at that time Java was every bit as proprietary as VB and other close dead-end languages. I understand why Java wasn't FOSS at that time, but that still made it ineligible as a serious contender for long-term development. Had Sun made Java's openness a goal a lot sooner, many companies (including mine) might have chosen it over whatever else they decided upon.

      • by Spasemunki ( 63473 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:58PM (#23176570) Homepage
        I suspect the poster is alluding to the fact that Sun's decision not to make Java more open from the beginning cost them a lot of position in the market. Sun thought that Java was going to be the Next Big Thing, and so kept the language under their tight control to prevent it being forked by competitors or used in manners that they didn't approve of. The result was that because of 1) objections to Sun's control of the language, and 2) Sun's priorities in terms of support for certain platforms and not others, Java lost a lot of ground in the back-end space to Python, Ruby, and others, and the space occupied by the applet was essentially devoured by Ajax. Sun was envisioning Java as having a ubiquity in the application space to rival that of C in the systems space, but it hasn't really reached that potential. The decision to push for a closed, tightly controlled language early on is a good part of what caused that.
        • by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @06:56PM (#23177020) Homepage Journal

          Sun thought that Java was going to be the Next Big Thing, and so kept the language under their tight control to prevent it being forked by competitors or used in manners that they didn't approve of.
          That's the official story, and it's true as far as it goes. But it's not the whole truth.

          The big problem has been Sun's corporate mindset. Until recently, key decision makers at Sun, both on the business side and the R&D site, seriously believed that they were smarter than everybody else, and had no need to listen to anybody else's ideas. That's why Sun stuck with SPARC processors so very long after it became obvious that commodity processors were the future — SPARC architecture is superior to x86, end of discussion. It's also why Sun's first attempt to move to commodity systems (by spending $2 billion for Cobalt Networks) was a total disaster: the Cobalt people couldn't get any respect from the rest of Sun, and quickly moved on. I can think of many other examples.

          I was a contractor at Sun/JavaSoft in '98, and saw this attitude all over the place. In some cases, I couldn't get access to the FrameMaker source for key specifications because the spec owners feared "forked" copies of the specs!

          The really sad thing is that many of these people were every bit as smart as they themselves thought they were. But their raw intelligence was often wasted, because you need a certain willingness to collaborate to create a real product.

          I recently came back to Sun as a regular employee. I like to think this intellectual arrogance is no longer a major problem here. Part of this is the example set by current upper management, which seems to understand the problems I describe. But the big reason: most of the my-way-or-the-highway geniuses have been hired away by Google.
        • by SirLurksAlot ( 1169039 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @07:52PM (#23177378)

          Sun thought that Java was going to be the Next Big Thing

          And rightly so considering the last 13 or so years of development in the industry.

          Java lost a lot of ground in the back-end space to Python, Ruby, and others

          I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this remark is probably only true regarding FOSS projects. Looking at this statement from a commercial development point of view is another ballgame entirely.

          Job search hits from

          Lets be honest, the industry as it currently stands runs on Java and .NET. This is not to say that OSS and the languages mentioned above are not gaining ground quickly, but I think its important to keep a historical perspective regarding the status of Java. Java really was/is the Next Big Thing, and it will almost certainly become the next COBOL in terms of the amount of code which will need to be maintained decades from now.

          • by hotfireball ( 948064 ) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @01:52AM (#23179624)

            Job search hits from

            Java []: 15786 jobs
            Python: [] 1395 jobs
            Ruby: [] 757 jobs
            C/C++ [] 6283 jobs

            BTW, same site says:
            Excel: 10742 jobs
            Coffee making: 22 jobs
            Micromanagement: 96539 jobs
            Yelling on Employees: 1 job (Junior Technolohist)

        • by anomalous cohort ( 704239 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @09:35PM (#23178060) Homepage Journal

          Java lost a lot of ground in the back-end space to Python, Ruby

          Uh, huh. A quick reality check over at dice shows number of jobs for java = 15831, number of jobs for python = 1396, number of jobs for ruby = 759. The same search over at Monster shows number of jobs for java > 5000, number of jobs for python = 1256, number of jobs for ruby = 663.

          tight control to prevent it being forked by competitors or used in manners that they didn't approve of

          Did we forget about this []?

      • by petermgreen ( 876956 ) <.plugwash. .at.> on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @08:27PM (#23177614) Homepage
        Long ago is a bit of an exaggeration, the first code drop was less than two years ago and the first drop of the majority of the code

        Sun was talking about open sourcing java for many years, but it was only fairly recently (december 2006) that they actually annouced the license they planned to use and gave us a little taste of code (not that said code was much use on it's own). and promised all of the JDK "except for a few components that Sun does not have the right to publish in source form under the GPL" would be released by march of the next year

        Then when it came we discovered that those few components included serveral major parts of the graphics subsystem. Progress to getting high quality replacements for those components and getting them into the official codebase has been rather slow and is still not complete.

        Also it was only last febuary that they opensourced anything from the java6 codebase, before that everything they released was from the java 7 alpha codebase, hardly ideal for production use (though a couple of linux distros shipped the code anyway because they considered it better than nothin).

        This article doesn't really tell us anything we didn't know already.
    • Please explain what Java and Python have in common other than the fact that they are languages and one is also a platform?

      • You can write cross-platform backend and user interface code with both, both of them run on Windows and Unix, and both support OOP. That made those languages pretty reasonable choices for our needs.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by turgid ( 580780 )

          What are the pros and cons of each when you have to interface with another language or platform?

          How do you deal with code written in C++ and PERL, for example? And, for a couple of years, Ruby has been a buzzword.

    • by RiotingPacifist ( 1228016 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @07:13PM (#23177134)
      Funny, last time i said Java wasn't fully open source, i got modded -1 []
      Dear moderators, i would like to take this opertunity to perform a little victory rickroll as seen here []

      For the record OO, also has a clause that stops it being fully GPL, thats why neo office code cant be used, because sun want to take open source contributions and use them in their proprietary version of open office

      Go on mod me down, it will only make me stronger
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by domatic ( 1128127 )

        For the record OO, also has a clause that stops it being fully GPL, thats why neo office code cant be used

        One part of this I don't understand and the other part isn't factual. If OO wasn't "fully GPL" then NeoOffice wouldn't exist in the first place. It is true that Sun only accepts contributions if the copyright is turned over to them but that in no way un-GPL's the software.

        As for NeoOffice, they contribute or at least attempt to contribute bugfixes under Sun's terms because bugs in the core OO code a

  • by Tenebrousedge ( 1226584 ) <> on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:26PM (#23176268)
    I would pose the following question to slashdot: how has Java being closed source affected you personally, and what effects do you see this having in the future?
    • by TheLinuxSRC ( 683475 ) * <slashdot.pagewash@com> on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:36PM (#23176336) Homepage
      It has affected me personally by being a pain in the ass to install (back in the day) and more than willing to step on any other Java implementation I may have (more recently - ie blackdown etc...). The main effect this will have on the future is to remove this pain because now the distribution will be able to include it in their repositories, thus accounting for conflicts and dependencies so I don't have to. The only problem is that I now almost never use Java and will actively look for similar programs that are not written in Java to accomplish the same task just so I don't have to deal with Java. Java could have been something 10 years ago. Now, it is too little too late IMHO.

      Also, if you read the article, you will see that the new and improved Open Source Java will be missing some features (ie sound). So this isn't so much open-sourcing Java as it is removing the last offending bits that cannot be open-sourced and hoping they will be coded back in.

      Just my $0.02.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by rjcarr ( 1002407 )
      I don't know if this will change with the announcement, but being a java developer that works on macs, I'd like to get whatever jdk I want, and not be forced to use what apple gives me.
    • by r_jensen11 ( 598210 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:37PM (#23176346)

      I would pose the following question to slashdot: how has Java being closed source affected you personally, and what effects do you see this having in the future?
      I don't really care too much about the proprietary-ness of Java. Since I'm not a Linux zealot, I just care that it does what I want it to do. I didn't care that VMWare is proprietary when I tried it out, nor did I care about propriety when I tried out Maya.

      I suspect I'm with the majority of /. here, but not with the vocal minority of Linux users (I have to specific Linux users because of the also [very] vocal Apple users.)
      • I agree. I have used Linux in one form or another since pre-kernel 1.0 days, *long* before it was 'fashionable, but it's just another tool in my opinion. I use Windows, Mac OS, Solaris, Linux...whatever tool suits my need at the time.
      • by Chandon Seldon ( 43083 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @06:39PM (#23176900) Homepage

        Since I'm not a Linux zealot, I just care that it does what I want it to do.

        Not caring about licensing questions probably means that you've failed to consider them in depth. That probably seems like a very reasonable choice - if you wanted to worry about legal issues you would have gone to law school - but it's also very short sighted.

        "Freedom" seems abstract and irrelevant until you find out that the elegant technical solution you want to implement is disallowed by the license of some component you're using. This rarely happens immediately, because you wouldn't have picked a tool if it didn't let you do what you initially wanted, but it comes up pretty frequently when you try to do something that you didn't initially consider.


        - You design your application using Oracle as the database. $20,000 a server seems fine - until you realize that the whole design would be more elegant if you moved a bunch of logic into the database and replicated it a bunch of times (say... at each client site). But $20,000 * 100 sites isn't in the budget, so you're forced to scrap the best technical solution for legal reasons.

        - You design a data entry interface in Flash. The project expands, and it turns out that it'd be more effective if the users used tablets rather than PCs to do their data entry. So you bring on a hardware team, and they tell you that ARM tablets cost 1/3rd what x86 tablets would cost. Sadly, there's no flash player on ARM - and with your budget it would have been a simple port, too.

        Far from being irrelevant and abstract, the issue of licensing is directly relevant to anyone selecting software to build anything important (software or any business process). Proprietary licensing means usage constraints - both explicit constraints like the limited set of Flash platforms and economic constraints like the per-server Oracle license fee. Developing on proprietary stuff is like working in a mine field - sometimes you have to do it, but it's sure as hell something you want to avoid.

    • by linguae ( 763922 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:42PM (#23176392)

      Before I bought my Mac in summer 2006, I was a FreeBSD user. At the time, FreeBSD users were not able to download FreeBSD binaries of the latest versions of Java due to a licensing agreement IIRC; instead, they had to either download a binary of the older version, download the Linux binary and use FreeBSD's Linux binary emulation, or download the source code of Java (with a very restrictive license) and compile it, which took a long time. Now that Java will be fully open-source in the near future, life for FreeBSD users (as well as other platforms where Java is unsupported) would be much easier, as pre-compiled binaries would be allowed to be distributed without Sun's permission. A lot of us don't have the time to waste multiple hours compiling software.

    • by SeePage87 ( 923251 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:46PM (#23176454)
      It's ok guys, I'll handle this.

      How has Java being closed source affected you personally
      I can't count the number of times I've cried myself to sleep thinking of the poor children who blindly agree to arbitrary EULAs which they are incapable of understanding.

      What effects do you see this having in the future

      Now those children blindly agree to the somewhat less arbitrary GPL which they are incapable of understanding.

      This is truly a magnificent day!

      • Somewhat less arbitrary?

        Can you link to GPL code at runtime? are you sure? Forget what RMS has to say outside the scope of the license, do you think you could reasonably sue someone under the viral clause for runtime linking to GPL code?

        What about the nVidia hacks? legal or no?

        All the places the GPL has been tested have been for obvious violations, it's the edge cases that make it arbitrary
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          I'm going to ignore you being a buzzkill long enough to tell you that, in this particular instance, Sun is using the GPL with the Classpath exception, which means that it's perfectly okay to link to it without invoking the viral clause.
      • by iapetus ( 24050 ) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @04:16AM (#23180150) Homepage
        Actually, Sun used to have my favourite EULAs in the computing world. Because they displayed them in editable text areas. The contracts into which I have entered with Sun in order to download Java are many and varied, as a result. And Sun still owe me upwards of $10m for using their software.
    • by Spasemunki ( 63473 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:48PM (#23176468) Homepage
      Hassle, more than anything else, sums it up. Installing the JDK or JRE is never as easy as installing other programs. Some distros won't include Java in their standard package repositories because of licensing constraints. You end up with two maintenance/upgrade processes: one for Java, and one for everything else. It's a pain if you have a lot of machines that need to run java- you're always manually copying around install tarballs and jar libraries that you can't just yum or apt-get out of the appropriate repo. Difficulty in Java installation is also a barrier for simple desktop Linux; at this point, Java should Just Work for any reasonable desktop experience.

      I suspect that the closed sourcing is also why support for Java on non-priority systems has lagged behind. It's been a while, but I used to support Java apps that were running on FreeBSD. At the time, the state of Java there lagged behind the big three (Linux, Windows, Solaris) considerably- the latest versions of of the JDK/JRE weren't always available, and when they were there were sometimes weird bugs lurking in them that would cause applications to puke. Support for other languages wasn't anywhere near as far behind because it was much easier for BSD developers to track changes in the source of languages that primarily targeted Linux.

      For that matter, despite Suns attempts at making Java a universal platform, support on some platforms has been better than others. My employer bought a 3rd party Java HR application for employees to use for leave/VK time reporting, with the promise that it would work for any system since it's Java (a lot of people have Linux or Mac). No such luck. It's interface is an applet that works on only certain versions of the JRE under windows. Maybe the vendor is just incompetent, but Java is supposed to simplify the writing of cross-platform applications. I strongly suspect that these kinds of problems are a consequence of Sun keeping the source closed: priorities on development of the JRE/JDK had to be constrained by Sun's resources and economic priorities. No matter how enthusiastic the user community on lower-priority operating systems, they couldn't fix problems themselves.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PitaBred ( 632671 )
        Generally the vendor is incompetent. Java won't prevent you from hard-coding "C:\Program Files" into any programs, and will work perfectly well with it under Windows. For most properly coded Java programs, cross-platform support is pretty much trivial though.
        • But even on windows, it worked for version (I think) 1.4 but not version 1.5; either they did some real digging in order to find forward-incompatible features, or the Sun-provided JRE broke some subtle assumptions about how code worked at the implementation level. Things went back to working under 1.6 on Windows- all of this without changes to the applet itself. That to me sounds like a JRE issue- I know that on FreeBSD, some JREs would segfault running certain byte code, while others had no problems. No
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by jhol13 ( 1087781 )

            Sun-provided JRE broke some subtle assumptions about how code worked at the implementation level.

            Funnily this has happened to me more often with C/C++ code than with Java.

            Just a bit faster machine -> bing!
            Just two cores -> bing!
            And with source you get the added benefit of new compilers! Bing bing bing!

            Most of the problems I have encountered with Java are exactly same: badly written un-tested programs which cannot handle slightly changed, sometimes concurrent, execution paths.

    • it's sort of a pain to install Java(tm) correctly on the linux distros i use because they use GCJ by default and it's tied to their automated update systems.

      Allowing distros to include it natively means one less step to getting a linux install with full blown Java off the ground and hopefully automated JRE/JDK updates.

      Also, with full Java included in the distro maybe things like Eclipse, Tomcat and the other Java centric software will start getting included.
    • by IGnatius T Foobar ( 4328 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:56PM (#23176558) Homepage Journal

      I would pose the following question to slashdot: how has Java being closed source affected you personally, and what effects do you see this having in the future?
      For one thing, we won't have to listen to RMS whining about it [] every time someone mentions the current version of OpenOffice.
    • by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @06:10PM (#23176660)

      how has Java being closed source affected you personally

      I installed ejabberd, an Erlang-based Jabber server on FreeBSD this week from ports. For some reason it needed a JDK to install. Normal ports installation didn't work because FreeBSD doesn't have a distribution license. I had to download the file manually, put it in the right directory, then go back to the Sun website, register an account there, log in, download a timezone update, and put that in the right directory too. Only at that point could I install it. And I didn't even want Java in the first place!

      The whole process was pointless (it's not like my manual downloading gained Sun anything worthwhile) and felt like a throwback to downloading Slackware floppy disk images back in the early 90s. Every other piece of software I've installed through ports has been downloaded and installed automatically, like it should. But because of this idiotic imaginary property idea, I've got to mess around trying to make the computer happy instead of it doing work for me. This is 2008, I shouldn't have to jump through hoops for bullshit reasons.

    • by nguy ( 1207026 )
      I would pose the following question to slashdot: how has Java being closed source affected you personally

      It's basically meant that Sun had free reign to ruin Java.

      and what effects do you see this having in the future?

      None. It's too late to fix Java.
    • I run only free software on my computers, so Sun's implementation of Java software was unavailable to me. I used other Java software as needed but I largely simply did without Java. The Java Trap [] has ended for this software (similar non-free dependency traps exist for other software). I think what Sun is doing is a fine thing and I look forward to trying Sun's newly liberated Java software.

    • by Trogre ( 513942 )
      Well perhaps we can start deploying it in nuclear control [] facilities?

      But seriously, it would be great to see working 64-bit implementations in various distro repositories.

    • how has Java being closed source affected you personally
      Not at all. I'm not an open-source zealot, and I choose the best tool for the job, whether it's open-source, proprietary, or personally written by my worst enemy.

      what effects do you see this having in the future?
      Zealots will stop whining. Sensible people won't really care.
    • I've never installed Java in my box, and I've never needed it...I must live in a different internet.
    • .. because I could safely ignore the language until such day as it became relevant. As to the future, now the language has a chance to prosper, if it can catch up.
    • It's much easier to package an application when you know that there's a real Sun java implementation available as /usr/bin/java on multiple platforms.

      Until now we have had to rely on the user downloading the correct JDK and installing it in the correct place.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Isomer ( 48061 )
      Java couldn't be installed by my distro, and while I could install it by hand, it's annoying to do by hand. And to make matters worse, to install by hand required you to play EULA hopscotch through Sun's site to download it.

      And because Java itself wasn't in any of the distro repositories, no program that depended on java would be in the repositories either. So any java program I wanted to run was going to be annoying to install, so I would often try and find an alternative in a more usefully supported lan
    • by pembo13 ( 770295 )
      Well I use Fedora, and not much Java... so I don't have any Java on my desktop... so if a site needs java, I simply hit the [x]
    • by mark-t ( 151149 )
      How it affected me personally was the fact that I wanted to run a 64 bit OS, but Java's browser plugin wasn't developed for it at the time, which I required, forcing me downgrade my system from 64-bit to 32.
  • MySQL (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JayAitch ( 1277640 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:31PM (#23176294)
    So this is to make up for MySQL? They giveth they taketh away.
  • by jdb2 ( 800046 ) * on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:40PM (#23176368) Journal
    Opensource developers have put an enormous effort into the GNU Classpath Project []which has almost reached 1.0 status and that aims to be a free implementation of the Java class libraries. Indeed, who can calculate the man-years that have gone into this project? I can't believe it will just up and die when Sun opensources Java. Will we have two diverging implementations or will they merge?


    • by leenks ( 906881 )
      Presumably they'll end up merging over time (one would hope). There are enough 'issues' with both of them that it seems the logical thing to do. That said, maybe everything will change if we ever get a Java3 and things actually get deprecated(!!!)
    • Classpath has been almost reaching 1.0 status for about six years now. I expect to see Wine reach 1.0 first.

      An Open Source Java would have been nice 10 years ago, back when somebody still cared.

    • Having poked through chunks of both the Sun JDK source and the Classpath source, I wouldn't trust the latter in a production environment. Sun has released some crufty stuff (JAI for instance), but Classpath is horrible pretty much across the board.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by setagllib ( 753300 )
      They're already merging in the form of IcedTea. However, this will be mostly unecessary when the full class library is opened.
    • by fm6 ( 162816 )
      GNU Classpath has been at it for nine years. That's a long time to get to 1.0. And even 1.0 doesn't target the complete Java 6 library (no javax packages). I'm afraid that the disappearance of Classpath rates a big "who cares?"
  • What, (Score:5, Funny)

    by Trogre ( 513942 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:41PM (#23176384) Homepage

  • Denix (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dnix ( 831940 )
    that's simply another clear intention of IT giants to exploit open source community! they opensource it only because they are realizing java is dieing! Look at this: []
  • by drDugan ( 219551 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:46PM (#23176452) Homepage
    While open source is good, the real issue is the license. The only mention in the article is some parts were not compatible with GPL(I assume v2). What will the license be for OpenJDK? Looking here ( and here ( it looks interesting...

    Does this mean the Classpath exceptions will be removed? Not clear. Kind of a problem for some if it is removed.

    FTA: "Once Java is 100 percent open source, it can be shipped as part of Linux, Sands said. Ubuntu has distributed Java as separately available commercial software, he noted. But once Java is fully open source, it can be offered as part of the free Ubuntu distribution and other Linux variants, Sands said."

    For me, and I assume most people interested in open development platforms - the real question about using Java will be around the license (once it is open source) and what that means in terms of success, options, and longevity for the projects we build.

    • They won't use the GPL, then? Seems like a reasonable solution to me, and there are tons of other licenses to choose from.

      For that matter, why the hell would they choose the GPL in the first place? Wouldn't that mean that anyone who uses the official Java class libraries has to make their software GPL?

  • It's fully open sourced, but it's also dual licensed. That means that Sun will still try to call the shots and set the direction for Java development, and that means that the numerous problems in Java won't get fixed.

    But it doesn't matter anymore anyway. Java is what it is at this point, and it's not going to get any better, only more bloated. You either love it or you hate it.
    • by mark-t ( 151149 )
      You mention Java having "numerous problems".. Not that I doubt there are numerous problems with it, but what specific ones did you have in mind?
  • Does this mean Microsoft will again be able to provide their Java virtual machine? []
    I'm getting tired of stripping [this week's version of] Sun Java off new PCs and installing the M$ VM, but it's necessary to get them running right (and to get rid of the coffee-cup "automatic update" marketing crapola).
  • by Slim Backwater ( 550617 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @06:49PM (#23176970)
    Great! Does that mean we might see a 64-bit plug sooner rather than later? We've been waiting over 5 years! []
  • Browser Plugin (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WarJolt ( 990309 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @07:36PM (#23177292)
    I know java is more than just a browser plugin, but maybe now finally I can run Java with my 64-bit browser.
  • by DraconPern ( 521756 ) <> on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @07:48PM (#23177358) Homepage
    How many times have I read that Sun is open sourcing java already? So has it happend? May be we should bet on how many more PR they can generate with the word 'Java' and 'Open Source' together....

Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.