Gosling introduces discord in his view of Harmony

Discussions

News: Gosling introduces discord in his view of Harmony

  1. James Gosling, in an interview with DevX, said: "It's often difficult to get a good picture from the open source community of what they actually object to in what we're doing," referring to Apache Harmony, a project meant to produce an open-source J2SE implementation.

    In the article, Mr. Gosling also says:
    We've got several thousand man-years of engineering in [Java], and we hear very strongly that if this thing turned into an open source project - where just any old person could check in stuff - they'd all freak. They'd all go screaming into the hills.
    Many have focused on this statement as being the linchpin of his opinion of Apache Harmony and open source in general, pointing out that many excellent open source projects use a gatekeeper approach to source repositories, where code is examined closely by experts before being accepted, in a sort of technical meritocracy.

    Further, while Harmony is intended to be an open source JVM, it's not intended to replace Sun's JVM, but merely offer an alternative for those who wish an open source product.

    It's hard to argue with James' central point - that Harmony may be a project in search of a requirement to fulfill, apart from the desire for an open-source JVM, and that that requirement is not likely to entice many enterprise-level customers to use Harmony in place of a commercial JVM.

    However, it sounds like he doesn't understand the political motivation behind an open sourced JVM, or how the most effective and popular open source projects function.

    What do you think of the problem? Which consumers do you think will be most interested in Harmony, and why? The interview opens with a statement about what the open source community objects to in what Sun does now; how would you answer that statement?

    Threaded Messages (93)

  2. Discord within SUNW?[ Go to top ]

    http://weblogs.java.net/blog/kgh/archive/2005/05/thoughts_on_the_1.html
  3. What he knows will happen is Apache will produce a better JVM which runs on more platforms. Windows, Linux and Solaris are not the only platforms around. There is also MacOS X, FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD which are all unsupported by Sun and JVM releases on those platforms tend to lag far behind the Sun releases.

    Meanwhile, the Mono implementation of the .NET runtime is screaming along on various non-MS platforms and many feel it is more suitable than dealing with Sun licensing and Java.

    I feel Gosling is a dinosaur and he just does not get it. He should have been put out to pasture a long time ago. His old ideas just do not fit with our current reality.

    Have you read his blog lately? He just writes about t-shirt contests and meaningless garbage. He has not technical assets left to share. His opinion on the matter should be moot.
  4. Thats not what history says.

    Its not like Java was invented yesterday. The OSS community have had 10 years to get an implementation of the specs in place and have consistently failed to match the quality and performance of the vendor driven VM's and class libraries.

    If OSS feel there is a need for an open source Java implementation then please quit whinining to SUN about opening their source quit telling us how brilliant this current vapourware is _going_ to be and just write the damn thing (assuming developers can be dragged away from HURD :)) so we can judge for ourselves.
  5. In order to work on the JVM and use the compatibility toolkit you must get direct permission from Sun and that is not an easy task. Sun is more concerned with protecting legacy IP with licensing and litigation than increasing their revenues through innovation. I am sick of it.

    And history tells us what? Consider Log4J vs 1.4Logging, or Xerces vs Crimson, or iPlanet vs Tomcat, or Sun JVM vs Apple JVM. It seems others can and do produce better implementations than Sun on several occasions. And those are just what came to mind in an instant. Sun has a cultural Dogma which prevents them from adapting to the pragmatic realities today. Clearly there are advantages to Open Source and they are being realized by corporations every single day. Sun, or Gosling specifically, just does not want to admit it. It is no wonder alternatives like Ruby on Rails or .NET 2.0 are so appealing to more and more people.
  6. Tomcat is Sun[ Go to top ]

    Sun is more concerned with protecting legacy IP with licensing and litigation than increasing their revenues through innovation. I am sick of it.And history tells us what? Consider ... or iPlanet vs Tomcat, ... It seems others can and do produce better implementations than Sun on several occasions.

    Please explain how Sun can increse their revenues through innovation when the JDK is FREE? Not FREE to Sun as they have had to pay their developer to work on Java for the past 10 years.

    As for Tomcat, you do realize most of the code to Tomcat was is written by Sun and donated? My friend work on both Tomcat 4.0 and 5.0 as a paid Sun employee.
  7. Opinions...[ Go to top ]

    When you (or at least participate in) invent something in the magnitude of value of Java then I might take notice of *your* opinion - in the end opinions are only interesting if qualified by experience and acheivement.
  8. Well, from my experience, I don't think that many corporations will even consider Harmony as an option. Harmony's main target audience, in my opinion, is the 'Free Software' people. Those who see free software as an ideal, not a tool.

    But there are already other efforts for these folks, namely gcj, kaffe, etc., and adding another project to this ecosystem is a step backwards, not a step forward.

    I wish the Harmony project lots of luck on their effort. I don't think I'll ever be interested in using it, though.
  9. Well, from my experience, I don't think that many corporations will even consider Harmony as an option. Harmony's main target audience, in my opinion, is the 'Free Software' people.

    I think your comment is history repeating itself. I remember hearing tech managers say exactly the same thing about Linux four or five years ago, Tomcat and JBoss two or three years ago, etc. I'm not saying this project will be a Tomcat, as it'll require a lot of good work, good community effort, etc.

    As to Gosling's comment about any-old-contributor, if people have to be voted in by the project leaders, then won't we know more about the people contributing to Apache's JVM than Sun's?

    Jason McKerr
  10. When they are done implementing the j2se 5.0 stack, Java 7.0 will be out the door (this is a huge undertaking!)

    Besides, they don't even aim to support j2me and j2ee.

    This must be the biggest waste of time ever witnessed since Microsoft Bob.
  11. J2EE support[ Go to top ]

    Besides, they don't even aim to support j2me and j2ee.

    Bear in mind that Apache is already working on a J2EE implementation.

    -Patrick

    --
    Patrick Linskey
    http://solarmetric.com
  12. J2EE support[ Go to top ]

    Besides, they don't even aim to support j2me and j2ee.
    Bear in mind that Apache is already working on a J2EE implementation

    ...which is even stranger, considering JoNAS and JBoss. And I've yet to meet people having real-world licensing issues with these products.
  13. J2EE support[ Go to top ]

    Besides, they don't even aim to support j2me and j2ee.
    Bear in mind that Apache is already working on a J2EE implementation
    ...which is even stranger, considering JoNAS and JBoss. And I've yet to meet people having real-world licensing issues with these products.


    I think the original poster was referring to an implementation of the J2EE code, you know servlet/jsp api's etc... not an implementation of a J2EE container.
  14. J2EE support[ Go to top ]

    Besides, they don't even aim to support j2me and j2ee.
    Bear in mind that Apache is already working on a J2EE implementation
    ...which is even stranger, considering JoNAS and JBoss. And I've yet to meet people having real-world licensing issues with these products.
    I think the original poster was referring to an implementation of the J2EE code, you know servlet/jsp api's etc... not an implementation of a J2EE container.

    When people download JoNAS og JBoss, they get the whole J2EE package, even though Tomcat et. al. are not integral parts of the respective products.

    There isn't room for another open source j2ee solution. There are plenty and they are good. And only R.S. junkies care whether the j2ee impl' is open source or not. What matters is that it is good and free, as in free beer.
  15. J2EE support[ Go to top ]

    And only R.S. junkies care whether the j2ee impl' is open source or not. What matters is that it is good and free, as in free beer.

    What's good and free today may not necessarily be free or good or even available tomorrow (hint: "bait and switch"). If that happens, your options will be very, very limited since you do not have any rights other than to use the software. Many regard R.S. as a visionary, certainly not without a reason.

    --
    Igor Zavialov, Factoreal Corp.
    Factoreal Web Service API for Financial Data
  16. J2EE support[ Go to top ]

    And only R.S. junkies care whether the j2ee impl' is open source or not. What matters is that it is good and free, as in free beer.
    What's good and free today may not necessarily be free or good or even available tomorrow (hint: "bait and switch"). If that happens, your options will be very, very limited since you do not have any rights other than to use the software. Many regard R.S. as a visionary, certainly not without a reason.--Igor Zavialov, Factoreal Corp.Factoreal Web Service API for Financial Data
    +1
  17. Tomcat

    Before tomcat what were my choices? The JVM from sun is good and works. What is my reason for switching? Not that I think competition is bad, but it seems a waste to me.
  18. FUD?[ Go to top ]

    Surely this is mostly FUD from the revered Mr Gosling -

    Apparently if Apache build an open source JVM, chaos will ensue immediately because:

    1. Just any old person could check in stuff
    2. Enterprise will run for the hills because of (1)
    3. In the open source community, if you actually care about being legally clean, it's a nightmare.

    Of course 1 isn't true, that's why there are devs and committers, and 2 isn't true because, well, surprisingly, enterprises really do use open source (I know - my enterprise is one), and 3 isn't true because, well, it's FUD - e.g. there could never, ever be a legal issue with patents in commercial software, only open source software? I don't think so.

    Perhaps Mr Gosling was recently eaten by an escaped M$ marketing droid? I think we should be told.

    Yours

    Dan Shannon
  19. FUD?[ Go to top ]

    Surely this is mostly FUD from the revered Mr Gosling -Apparently if Apache build an open source JVM, chaos will ensue immediately

    I don't think he is saying that if Apache builds a JVM that people will go screaming. I think he is saying that if Sun OpenSourced the JVM then enterprises would go screaming, which I don't think is true. On the other hand I don't really see the use in opensourcing Java either.

    It seems to me that there is mostly indiference to Apache's JVM. I doubt that it will ever catch up.
  20. I think the problem for linux vendors is the inability to redistribute the JVM. I haven't been following the changes to the Sun Licensing terms too closely, but hopefully that is fixed. But it is not just the redistribution of the JRE but also the JDK that can be an issue. If one wants to run uncompiled JSPs one still needs the JDK not just the JRE. Allowing redistribution of the JDK without having to talk to a bunch of Sun lawyers would make the JDK available pre-installed on a wide array of low cost linux PCs, especially in the developing world. Don't tell me they can always download it. Try that on a 56K line before suggesting that.
  21. The problem linux vendors and low cost hardware vendors have with Java is that it cannot be redistributed. Everybody seems to be discussing the merits in creating a new JVM. Why can't Sun make their JVM redistributable for free? If they allow that, every linux distro will have java in it and every developer can be assured that their Java program will run on Linux distros. Linux will be de facto desktop/laptop in the developing world as can be seen in the proliferation of sub $250 PCs running Linux being built and marketed in India. But if Java is not going to be on these boxes because of licensing issues with Sun, developers like me who are interested in these markets have no option but to look elsewhere at Mono or PHP. Sun is missing the big picture here, just like most of the people discussing this here. People, look beyond the 300million or so users in the US and to larger markets with close to 3billion users that are yet untapped.
  22. The problem linux vendors and low cost hardware vendors have with Java is that it cannot be redistributed. Everybody seems to be discussing the merits in creating a new JVM. Why can't Sun make their JVM redistributable for free?

    They have. Some Linux distros include Java.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!
  23. The problem linux vendors and low cost hardware vendors have with Java is that it cannot be redistributed. Everybody seems to be discussing the merits in creating a new JVM. Why can't Sun make their JVM redistributable for free?
    They have. Some Linux distros include Java.
    Peace,
    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!
    Care to explain what you mean by "Java" there? I'm assuming you don't mean something that passes the TCK.
  24. Care to explain what you mean by "Java" there? I'm assuming you don't mean something that passes the TCK.

    He certainly does. For example Red Hat Enterprise Linux Advanced Server comes with the IBM JRE.
  25. How about JRocket?[ Go to top ]

    How about JRocket? I think you can re-distribute it.... Read section 2 & 3.

    http://commerce.bea.com/products/weblogicjrockit/50_eula.jsp


    Lars
  26. How about JRocket?[ Go to top ]

    How about JRocket? I think you can re-distribute it.... Read section 2 & 3.http://commerce.bea.com/products/weblogicjrockit/50_eula.jspLars
    I think that, even if BEA were to give the OK for an open source operating system to bundle JRockit under those terms, the terms are actually unacceptable to the developers.

    How well would this sit with any open source project?:
    (iv) you agree to defend and indemnify BEA 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 JRockit distributed by you.
  27. Care to explain what you mean by "Java" there? I'm assuming you don't mean something that passes the TCK.
    He certainly does. For example Red Hat Enterprise Linux Advanced Server comes with the IBM JRE.
    And does that also apply to the free RHEL clones? I mean, RHEL isn't exactly your mainstream free distro.
  28. Care to explain what you mean by "Java" there? I'm assuming you don't mean something that passes the TCK.
    He certainly does. For example Red Hat Enterprise Linux Advanced Server comes with the IBM JRE.
    And does that also apply to the free RHEL clones?

    I don't know. I suspect not.
    I mean, RHEL isn't exactly your mainstream free distro.

    I think this is irrelevant. It shows that Java can indeed be shipped in Linux distros. Any issue is with the licensing that some Linux distributions choose to impose on packages they include.

    (SuSE Linux Enterprise also installs the IBM JRE).
  29. Any issue is with the licensing that some Linux distributions choose to impose on packages they include.
    Absolutely. So the question is then "Should there be an effort to supply TCK-compliant java to such distros or should they just suffer from their lack of flexibility?". In my opinion, that target audience is big enough to justify the effort.

    On another note, I was under the impression that there were Sun/IBM legal issues that prevented IBM's java from being easily distributed. What is it that allows it to be bundled with RedHat and Suse and what is IBM's stance on redistribution? (Obviously it's more lax then Sun's)
  30. Any issue is with the licensing that some Linux distributions choose to impose on packages they include.
    Absolutely. So the question is then "Should there be an effort to supply TCK-compliant java to such distros or should they just suffer from their lack of flexibility?". In my opinion, that target audience is big enough to justify the effort.

    This matter interests me a lot. There seems to be a considerable volume of comment about the need for a 'free' Java, but I have yet to see any evidence (other than statements of opinion) that there is a significant
    number of developers that really care about this. In my view, the popularity of Java as a development language would seem to demonstrate that this is not that much of an issue.
  31. In my view, the popularity of Java as a development language would seem to demonstrate that this is not that much of an issue.
    So you're saying that we don't need to bring java to free operating systems because it's already popular enough? But Harmony isn't a service to the existing java community, it's a service to the open source communities that don't have java for some reason. There isn't much benefit to those that are already happily using java in it's current state, or at least that's not the goal (as I see it).
  32. In my view, the popularity of Java as a development language would seem to demonstrate that this is not that much of an issue.
    So you're saying that we don't need to bring java to free operating systems because it's already popular enough?

    Java has already been 'brought' to free operating systems. Linux is one of the most popular deployment platforms for Java.
    But Harmony isn't a service to the existing java community, it's a service to the open source communities that don't have java for some reason. There isn't much benefit to those that are already happily using java in it's current state, or at least that's not the goal (as I see it).

    Yes, but I wish someone would actually show me such an open source community that simply can't possibly develop using Java as currently licensed. The way I see it, Harmony would not be meeting a 'need', simply fulfilling a 'want'.

    I have no personal objection to Harmony - I would happily use if it was fast enough - but I can't see any significant practical (as against political) reasons for the project.
  33. In my view, the popularity of Java as a development language would seem to demonstrate that this is not that much of an issue.
    So you're saying that we don't need to bring java to free operating systems because it's already popular enough? But Harmony isn't a service to the existing java community, it's a service to the open source communities that don't have java for some reason. There isn't much benefit to those that are already happily using java in it's current state, or at least that's not the goal (as I see it).

    The reason why most Linux distros do not bundle java is because Sun's binary code license doesn't let them:
    [snip]
    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 and only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs
    [/snip]
    All Sun really has to do is to change the wording in this sentence, and all linux distros with the exception of source
    based distros like Gentoo would be able to distribute Sun's JRE. That's the real reason why they only ship with Classpath or Kaffe instead. All the distros like RHEL that do bundle Sun's JRE had to get an explicit distribution license from Sun. Linux is gaining ground on the desktop and many of the new linux desktop applications are being written in Mono, when they could've well been written in Java, if it were not for these distribution issues. That is a good enough reason for Harmony, isn't it?
  34. All Sun really has to do is to change the wording in this sentence, and all linux distros with the exception of sourcebased distros like Gentoo would be able to distribute Sun's JRE. That's the real reason why they only ship with Classpath or Kaffe instead. All the distros like RHEL that do bundle Sun's JRE had to get an explicit distribution license from Sun.

    I've asked for a clarification from Sun on this. My assumption is that they want the JRE going out to everyone, but it's dangerous to assume anything in this industry ;-) .. however, if they do want it being distributed, then they need to be actively making a case for its distribution.

    I disagree that this is the "real reason" why the JRE isn't distributed. I think it has more to do with these two things:

    1. The various distributions don't bother to ask Sun.

    2. The various distributions don't really want to include the JRE.

    I could also be absolutely wrong.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!
  35. I've asked for a clarification from Sun on this. My assumption is that they want the JRE going out to everyone, but it's dangerous to assume anything in this industry ;-) .. however, if they do want it being distributed, then they need to be actively making a case for its distribution.

    I disagree that this is the "real reason" why the JRE isn't distributed. I think it has more to do with these two things:

    1. The various distributions don't bother to ask Sun.

    2. The various distributions don't really want to include the JRE.

    I could also be absolutely wrong.
    Well, that is one of the biggest reasons anyway. Many distributions like Debian and Knoppix are run by volunteers. It's unfair to expect them to negotiate a distribution license from Sun - it would also set a bad precedent for them, as they don't do it for any other product right now. Also, each linux distro has their own packaging system, and they would like to include the JRE in their package process. Again, they would need an explicit license for Sun to do that. Alos, there are some more gotchas in the binary license:
    [snip]
    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.
    [/snip]
    Do you really expect a group of volunteers to indemnify Sun? And then they can't distribute Kaffe or Classpath if they distribute the JRE because of this:
    [snip]
    you do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software
    [/snip]
    I'm actually one of the people who would probably never need to use an open source JRE as free in beer is fine by me, but I think Linux + Java could be a great desktop combination, if only Sun put in some minimal effort toward making it happen.
  36. but I think Linux + Java could be a great desktop combination, if only Sun put in some minimal effort toward making it happen.

    You mean like Sun Java Desktop System"?
  37. You mean like Sun Java Desktop System"?
    We were talking about licensing issues of distributing Java on Linux distros. Sun's JDS is not part of that discussion because Sun can do whatever they please with their own Linux distro as they own Java. Do you believe that other Linux distros don't matter?

    Sun negotiated a deal with HP and Dell to bundle Java with Windows desktops? Why can't Sun do the same thing with the Linux distros? Is it because other Linux distros are potetial rivals to JDS and/or Solaris? Or is it that Windows is more important to them than Linux?
  38. Sun negotiated a deal with HP and Dell to bundle Java with Windows desktops? Why can't Sun do the same thing with the Linux distros? Is it because other Linux distros are potetial rivals to JDS and/or Solaris? Or is it that Windows is more important to them than Linux?

    Did they pay HP or Dell to distribute the JRE? Or did HP or Dell pay to distribute the JRE? I'm curious ..

    I have asked your question to someone at Sun, though, so perhaps we'll get to the bottom of this question. My question is whether those various distros have made any attempts to get permission to redistribute the JRE. (i.e. Have they bothered to try, or do you think it's Sun's responsibility to do the legwork to give away free software? ;-)

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!
  39. I have asked your question to someone at Sun, though, so perhaps we'll get to the bottom of this question. My question is whether those various distros have made any attempts to get permission to redistribute the JRE. (i.e. Have they bothered to try, or do you think it's Sun's responsibility to do the legwork to give away free software? ;-)

    Thanks Cameron. Not to nitpick here but it's not free to distribute standalone, and thats the whole problem! Even if you distribute it with a java program it can only be used to run that java program! It's just annoying that nothing has been done about this distribution issue for so long. About as annoying as TSS not having the ability preview my posts before submitting them :)
  40. Thanks Cameron. Not to nitpick here but it's not free to distribute standalone, and thats the whole problem!

    I'm curious why you say it's not free to distribute standalone. I don't know one way or another, so I really mean that I am curious ;-)

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!
  41. Thanks Cameron. Not to nitpick here but it's not free to distribute standalone, and thats the whole problem!
    I'm curious why you say it's not free to distribute standalone. I don't know one way or another, so I really mean that I am curious ;-)Peace,Cameron PurdyTangosol, Inc.Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!

    I think the relevant part of the JRE license is:

    "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 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,"
  42. Thanks Cameron. Not to nitpick here but it's not free to distribute standalone, and thats the whole problem!
    I'm curious why you say it's not free to distribute standalone. I don't know one way or another, so I really mean that I am curious ;-)Peace,Cameron PurdyTangosol, Inc.Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!

    Well I think we've established that Sun's standard JRE license does not permit you to distribute the JRE standalone. Suse signed a cross-licensing agreement with Sun where Sun agreed to let Suse bundle the JRE while Suse agreed to let Sun use it's distro to build JDS. Redhat had to license the JRE inorder to distribute it with RHEL (specifics unknown). The HP and Dell announcement simply said that they had licensed Sun's Java. When a vendor says they licensed a technology, it usually means money changed hands, unless it's a cross-licensing deal, does it not? My point is that ANYONE who wants to distribute Sun's JRE standalone needs to negotiate a license with Sun. And most Java developers don't seem to realize that.
  43. The problem linux vendors and low cost hardware vendors have with Java is that it cannot be redistributed. Everybody seems to be discussing the merits in creating a new JVM. Why can't Sun make their JVM redistributable for free?
    They have. Some Linux distros include Java.Peace,Cameron PurdyTangosol, Inc.Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!

    The silly thing as far as I'm concerned is that they don't *all* do so. Why does everything have to be open source from the ground up? It's great in an ivory tower sense, but this is the real world...
  44. BEA JRockit can be redistributed for free, and is already part of some commercial Linuxes like Red Hat, Suse and Red Flag. There is a "distributor must inform BEA" clause and some other caveats in the license which has so far stopped it from being included in some distros - Debian is one example. This may well change in the future.

    Henrik Ståhl
    JRockit product Manager
  45. BEA JRockit can be redistributed for free, and is already part of some commercial Linuxes like Red Hat, Suse and Red Flag. There is a "distributor must inform BEA" clause and some other caveats in the license which has so far stopped it from being included in some distros - Debian is one example. This may well change in the future.

    Well thats not enirely true. You need to sign an agreement with BEA inorder to distribute JRockit. And AFAIK, Redhat and Suse bundle JRockit with only their enterprise products. Besides, I believe you have a similar indemnification clause. Still, it's definitely a step above Sun's JRE license. Also, forgive my ignorance, but I always thought that JRockit was designed to only run server side applications like Weblogic Server on Linux. I guess I need to read up on JRockit and you need to do some better marketing :)

    I'm not so concerned about deploying Java on Linux in the enterprise, because in a controlled environment you can download, license, and install whatever you need to. I would very much like to see Java used for Linux desktop applications instead of Mono, and I believe that will start to happen if every Linux distro comes bundled with a fully functional JRE. I look forward to the day when your license changes to make that happen, but till then, I'm going to root for Harmony... Go Apache!
  46. To any other JRE provider reading: Debian and other distros that are run by volunteers can distribute a JRE only if:

    1. The JRE ships with a license that says it's free to distribute with no caveats.
    2. The distro does not have to indemnify the JRE provider.
    3. The distro is allowed to repackage the JRE as an RPM, DEB or a TGZ.
    4. The distro does not need to sign any agreements.

    Then you can say the JRE is truly free to distribute :)
  47. But it is not just the redistribution of the JRE but also the JDK that can be an issue. If one wants to run uncompiled JSPs one still needs the JDK not just the JRE.

    Tomcat 5.5 only requires the JRE as it is bundled with the Eclipse compiler.
  48. not anyone can checkin[ Go to top ]

    Let's get real here. Not anyone can check in code in apache projects. The person has to be responsible and voted in by committers. I wish the harmony guys good luck. it is a grand goal to shoot for and will likely take several years.

    peter
  49. Senior citizens, here referred as 'old persons' are welcome to contribute, too.

    Now you young freaked-out woodpeckers can proceed to have fun screeming in the hills. :)

    cheers,
    dalibor topic
  50. A couple months ago, Kodak brought Sun to a court for pattern dispute in Java. At the end Sun paid 93 M to Kodak.

    Java, as a big thing, may use many many patterns. Kodak probably is not the only one has interest in it. Many other patterns may be owned or licensed by Sun. If other party want to write another Java, it must make sure that it has already owned/licensed all the patterns or is ready to pay for it.

    Personally, I do not like software patterns. But I can not do anything about it.

    Perfecting J2EE!
  51. Suing Open Source Projects[ Go to top ]

    Name an Open Source Project that has been sued for patent infringement. I can't think of one. People sue people with money. Like IBM getting sued for the whole Linux / SCO thing. If Apache did get sued it would be the demise of the suing company. They would have Groklaw, the FSF, and the EFF all over them (IBM would probably help out too).
  52. Suing Open Source Projects[ Go to top ]

    Name an Open Source Project that has been sued for patent infringement. I can't think of one. People sue people with money. Like IBM getting sued for the whole Linux / SCO thing. If Apache did get sued it would be the demise of the suing company. They would have Groklaw, the FSF, and the EFF all over them (IBM would probably help out too).

    You are right. No one will sue Apatche. But Apache is for people to use. If there only a handful people to use it, it will not be successful. There must be a "distributer" to make it available for people. If RedHat want to distribute it, RedHat must prepare for this issue.

    The issue exists. How will it happen, I do not know.

    Perfecting J2EE!
  53. s/pattern/patent/g no?
  54. How out of touch[ Go to top ]

    Here is what I have to do in Linux to get applets to work:
    http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/faq#q2.2
    (ln -s /usr/java/j2re1.4.2_01/plugin/i386/ns610-gcc32/libjavaplugin_oji.so)

    Fedora 4 now includes Java (non Sun), Eclipse, Tomcat, Struts, etc. How is this bad?
    Makeing it deployable is good.

    What about Xbox360 and PlayStation 3, anyone else want to write Lookingglas apps for it?

    Evolve primates, this is the real convergence:
    http://primates.ximian.com/~edasque/projects/Tutorial/glade2.html

    .V
  55. Openness is the key![ Go to top ]

    I would rather "just any old person could check in stuff" and know who it was and what they changed then have somone from Sun "check in stuff" and not know who it was or what they did. And why do enterprises use Apache, Linux, JBoss, etc. and not go "screaming into the hills"? Openness is always better for the consumer. Sun, please stop trying to justify your stance on this and just be honest about how you think Open Source Java negatively impacts Sun. Then maybe we will listen.

    I wonder if Sun will give Harmony a scholarship TCK? ;)
  56. Any old person?[ Go to top ]

    "Any old person"?
    .
    .
    .
    How old is Mr. Gosling?
    ;-)

    Rias A. Sherzad
    sherzad.com
  57. Take a look around you. Do you see Ant? It's open source. Do you see Tomcat? It's open source. Do you see Xerces? It's open source. Xerces is even in the Sun JDK and every other JDKs. So even the Sun JDK contains open source. Deploy ing on Linux? Open source (and Free Software.) Developing on OS X? Your JDK was compiled with GCC, again Free Software.

    So you can just go ahead and screaming into the hills, right now.
  58. Harmony is another example of persons coming together just to work or be against something because it's just there. What are these persons hoping to acheive by developing another jvm, that by the time they are through, the Sun JVM will be light years ahead in terms of quality, support, and features. I mean Sun has this JCP thing going, that allows persons, companies or groups to participate in the future direction of the java technology platform. They also have a couple of licensing options available to let you take a look at the source and report any problems. Harmony seems like a duplication of effort and a waste of time and energy by those advocating for a project like this. They should channel those energies into participating into the JCP. What benefit would I gain in using an open source jvm? Call me paranoid, but I love the idea of big companies and smart people coming together to work on technology that anybody can freely access. Sun and others have done an excellent job so far in advancing the java technology platform, and as a developer I fear that persons advocating open source java are just out to eventually fragment it and cause confusion.
  59. Please check the recent problems with OpenOffice & Java to find at least one reason for this to be a good idea. Of course it might have been more interesting in the old days of 1.1 where the VM and SE development process wasn't as open and agile as it is since recently.
  60. Big Waste of Time and Energy[ Go to top ]

    Please check the recent problems with OpenOffice & Java to find at least one reason for this to be a good idea. Of course it might have been more interesting in the old days of 1.1 where the VM and SE development process wasn't as open and agile as it is since recently.

    These problems are almost entirely the fact that: (1) Linux distros won't ship a Sun JVM and (2) GCJ, etc, are way behind Sun's implementation. The solution here is for Linux distros to fix their licensing/packaging models or for GCJ, etc, to improve greatly. OpenOffice vendors should not have to hold their technology back to the lowest common denominator -- which in this case are open source JVMs.

    Having worked with other major Java vendors (i.e. those who license from Sun), I'd guess that it will take a long, long time for any open-source Java to catch up. Even when/if it does, each version will inevitably lag each Sun JVM release by more than 6 months. Finally, the end result will all have serious compatibility issues with Sun's JVM in the details that are so important for large software efforts.

    Why? Even given that the Sun JVM licensees get all the source code, those that do any major tinkering with Java take 6 months or more to release after Sun does. Many of the releases from such licensees have major compatibility issues.
  61. Call me paranoid, but I love the idea of big companies and smart people coming together to work on technology that anybody can freely access.
    The problem is how you define "freely access". I don't think anyone has any serious gripes about the quality of Sun's or BEA's or IBM's java implementations but, for much of the open source world, access is not free enough.

    Of course it's nice to have a place for open source developers to contribute ideas about virtual machine technology (the implementation, not the java standards) but that, I think, is mostly a fringe benefit with the main goal being more useful distribution rights.
  62. .. for much of the open source world, access is not free enough.

    I don't agree. There are thousands and thousands of Java open source projects, which goes to show that Java is (by most measures) the most popular platform today for developing open source software for.

    For the "software libre" movement, access is not "libre", and therefore Sun's approach is anathema, but that generally is not true for people using / writing open source. RMS and FSF (for example) are not part of "the open source world", they are part of "the free (as in libre) software movement".

    (Sorry to pick nits .. but I felt it worthy of clarification.)

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!
  63. The wrath of RMS[ Go to top ]

    Honestly, sometimes I get the feeling that RMS and FSF think "they are open source." RMS deserves some credit for what he has done, but sometimes he puts his foot all the way up his mouth. Of course, I eat my shoe regularly by accident, so it's only human error.

    Open source java is a completely different animal that FSF open source. Not everyone prescribes to the GPL view of the world.

    peter
  64. .. for much of the open source world, access is not free enough.
    I don't agree. There are thousands and thousands of Java open source projects, which goes to show that Java is (by most measures) the most popular platform today for developing open source software for.

    For the "software libre" movement, access is not "libre", and therefore Sun's approach is anathema, but that generally is not true for people using / writing open source. RMS and FSF (for example) are not part of "the open source world", they are part of "the free (as in libre) software movement".

    (Sorry to pick nits .. but I felt it worthy of clarification.)

    Peace,
    Cameron PurdyTangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!

    It's not only about catering to FSF's detestation of Sun's licensing. There are others who refuse to bundle proprietary software. OpenBSD, for instance, won't use httpd 2.x because of the differences between the first and second Apache licenses (or so I'm tole). Now, of course that's a horrible example because Harmony will also be under the apache2 license but it goes to show that more people than just the FSF reject software based on licensing issues, even if the creators allow them to bundle it.

    I think that even though there may not be a single target that needs Harmony, the combination of all the other platforms that can be reached makes it worthwhile. Hopefully this will be a base from which people can start bringing a TCK-verified java implementation into the BSDs.

    I think people should also keep in mind that Harmony isn't a from-scratch implementation. The ideal situation is that it will simply be a place to bring together various current incomplete implementations to finish them off. It'll be unfortunate if incompatibilities between the apache license and the gpl or other licences cause extra work, but that's just one of the unfortunate realities of open source development. If it were up to me, all the java implementations would be under a bsd license so that anybody could mix and match any of them.
  65. Instead of "wasting time and energy" on something that is already there, i think the Apache/jakarta group should "waste time and energy" making an open-source-java-CMS system to rival the PHP ones. Its one gap that needs to be filled and still waiting to be filled.

    Regards,

    Saqib

    http://galaxy.sagadc.com/
    - Web Services in 15 Minutes -
  66. Or, write one yourself[ Go to top ]

    Why wait for others to do it for you, when you can write one yourself. My philosophy is, if you aren't willing to do it yourself, then don't expect someone else to do it for you.

    :)

    peter
  67. Java is losing marketshare to PHP and .NET. I think harmony may be Java’s only chance to save its marketshare from PHP. The problem is that it is much more convenient for to get a PHP app up and running than a java application. It's not because PHP is superior in any way, but it’s due to the fact that Sun's licensing makes it very difficult to distribute an official JVM. I think every reader here knows that setting up Java is not that difficult, but it is a multi-step process while PHP is installed by default on Linux and .NET is installed by default on Windows Server 2003. Making .NET and PHP more convenient for hosting companies and lazy administrators only ensures that new developers are drawn away from Java. I think that Java is genuinely at risk of becoming a legacy technology if left in the hands of Sun. Had harmony released a compiler and JVM 5 years ago, I think Java would dominate the open-source world and I think PHP would not likely be the dominant non-enterprise, non-windows web application platform. However, since Java is not installed by default on most Linux distros, open source developers have found it much more convenient to develop without Java.
  68. I don't get it[ Go to top ]

    Why does Java need to be the dominant platform? I do Java for a living, but honestly, I see no point in making java the solution to everything for everyone. Given that java will one day be replaced with something else, getting religious about Java doesn't really achieve much. Maybe some entertainment value, but beyond that, it's rather pointless.

    freedom is good and choice is good

    peter
  69. Java is losing marketshare to PHP and .NET. I think harmony may be Java’s only chance to save its marketshare from PHP. The problem is that it is much more convenient for to get a PHP app up and running than a java application. It's not because PHP is superior in any way ..

    But PHP _is_ superior in some ways, such as "it is much more convenient for to get a PHP app up and running".

    It's OK if Java loses some market share to PHP, as long as that market share is the market share that would get better benefits from PHP.

    Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

    And if Java should be able to do all those things, then maybe we should improve it to be able to do all those things ;-)

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!
  70. I don't, for sure. Nor our clientele was ever heard asking if there was an open-source JVM, and we have loads of big clients*, trust me.

    Who would win with an OS JVM, would you care to tell me? And, who's losing by not having one now?

    * Big ones, who
    a.) never consider PHP for anything... :) *2 Even when it is preinstalled with the OS
    b.) even go as far as to use EJBs.

    *2 would be nice if you could back your claim up with something.

    Java dominates OS, don't worry. PHP is a toy for websites, not a programming language.
  71. Java is losing marketshare to PHP and .NET.

    I think this is very hard to demonstrate. All these technologies are growing rapidly in use, and in different segments of IT. There are many projects which combine their use.
    I think harmony may be Java’s only chance to save its marketshare from PHP. The problem is that it is much more convenient for to get a PHP app up and running than a java application.

    This is what PHP is good for, but this use situation covers only a small fraction of what server-side development is used for. Comparing the installation of a PHP application with the simple upload of a WAR file into Tomcat, I would say that PHP applications can be far less convenient.
    It's not because PHP is superior in any way, but it’s due to the fact that Sun's licensing makes it very difficult to distribute an official JVM. I think every reader here knows that setting up Java is not that difficult, but it is a multi-step process while PHP is installed by default on Linux

    This depends what you want to use PHP for. Unless you want the specific version of PHP installed on a Linux distribution (and many PHP packages require specific versions of PHP and modules), setting it up can involve a messy combination of library installations, and reconfiguration and recompilation of both Apache and PHP. In contrast, Java installation is extremely simple.
    Making .NET and PHP more convenient for hosting companies and lazy administrators only ensures that new developers are drawn away from Java.

    Again, hosting services for scripted websites is a small part of server-side development.
    I think that Java is genuinely at risk of becoming a legacy technology if left in the hands of Sun.

    This is a strong statement. Is there any evidence that Java is not evolving and moving into new areas? Java is still in the uptake and growth phase of a technology.
    Had harmony released a compiler and JVM 5 years ago, I think Java would dominate the open-source world and I think PHP would not likely be the dominant non-enterprise, non-windows web application platform.

    The phrase 'non-enterprise' sums it up.
    However, since Java is not installed by default on most Linux distros, open source developers have found it much more convenient to develop without Java.

    This is a generalisation. There are a large number of open-source projects written in Java, so I don't believe it is a valid generalisation.
  72. Java is losing marketshare to PHP and .NET. The problem is that it is much more convenient for to get a PHP app up and running than a java application. It's not because PHP is superior in any way. However, since Java is not installed by default on most Linux distros, open source developers have found it much more convenient to develop without Java.

    PHP? Have you ever seen PHP code? - its terrible. Just because a monkey can get it up and running does not mean Java must become monkey friendly. And .Net! What about it? Its just the same MS crap in other clothing. Crap not in the sense of quality but crap in the sense of the whole MS bundle that comes with it. Mono? Get real - nobody cares except a couple of CS undergrads.

    Linux is cool but does not dictate development patters. Just because RMS is miffed doesn't mean anyone pays attention. Just ask Linus about Bitkeeper.

    Java is not losing ground, its gaining to many idiots. IMHO.
  73. Last time I checked, Gosling said nothing about keeping Harmony from being distributed. He simply said that if Sun made their JVM open source, that enterprises would go running for the hills. Is that true? Some might. Others would stay. Who knows.

    And everyone is getting up in arms about how Sun should make their JVM open source. Why not say that to BEA/IBM? Are their JVMs open source?

    You get something for free but blast it cause it isn't exactly what you want. Now you get your free JVM and it's open source. So why still blast Sun? You're getting what you want from someone else.

    Sun has its reasons for not making it open source. And how many people are actually going to go digging around in the JVM code? Do you think you'll have the first clue as to what it should and shouldn't be doing? The algorithms it should be using for GC? I'm having a tough time picturing a developer getting all itchy cause he cant submit code.

    And if someone is smart enough to make a suggestion, they're probably working on someone else's JVM. I do have to agree that the statement, "anyone can contribute" is just FUD. Like some high school student is going to submit code for a JVM. Please.

    As for the distribution issue, that's a separate issue and should be treated as such. You dont have to make a JVM open source to allow it to be redistributed by others. Ask Sun to modify their licence (good luck :). But claiming that because its not open source is the reason it cant be redistributed is rediculous. I could make it open source and not let anyone distribute it. The two are unrelated.

    And for those who say the Apache Group is wasting their time, maybe. Too early to tell IMO. Plus, wouldn't it be nice to see if someone _could_ produce an open source JVM? Its quality, performance, and ability to keep up with the JCP will be the test (BTW, they'll keep up with the JCP ... they are part of it you know). But I think the ability for our community to state that someone can and has implemented an open source JVM is just more power to us and the Java language.

    I'd say give the Apache Group their fair shot. They've produced amazing software before, and I doubt they'll fail here. Besides, competition never hurt the consumer.

    After all, no one here should be against Harmony. Isn't that it's purpose ... for everyone to get along ... in harmony?
  74. First, I would like to see that OS JDK shape up and catch up. Harmony is nothing but wishful thinking right now and likely to never materialize. It takes years to build a compatible JDK, and by that time, the train has left the station. Do not forget that there is 10 years of work in the latest JDKs and massive amount of improvements. I welcome anyone to try to copy that, and quite frankly I do not want another one-legged, slow-as-molasses, bug-ridden JDK around be that OS JDK or not.
  75. With the buzz recently about Harmony and about being locked into vendor specific implementations, there is one thing that bothers me quite much. Obviously the GNU community has already implemented a part of the JDK, they have somekind of bytecode gcc tool, and now, people from apache are going to start all that OVER! Open source developers will have to write again a new implementation of the J2SE librairies (which is not a very exciting task), simply because of the gnu license.
    I do understand the need of having an open source JVM, but not two of them. The open source licenses issues are in this specific scenario going to generate a fair amount of double work which IMO should have been spared.
    Are the phylosophical reasons behind the GNU license (vs the apache one) enough to justify all that extra work?
    Isn't at the end the real objective to be able to bundle in all open source distributions a working open source java implementation?
  76. Obviously the GNU community has already implemented a part of the JDK, they have somekind of bytecode gcc tool, and now, people from apache are going to start all that OVER!

    No they won't. Although no decisions have been made, the general concensus on the mailing list is that Classpath will serve as the library. There is also a lot of discussion about what current jvm implementations can be imported for use. That's not to say that stuff won't eventually be rewritten but nobody is seriously proposing a completely clean break.
  77. Open source developers will have to write again a new implementation of the J2SE librairies (which is not a very exciting task), simply because of the gnu license.
    I meant to include this quote in the above message too...
  78. Damn right ... or he chooses to ignore it ....

    We want an up to date open source vm so that if sun goes bust or gets bought out we aren't all caught with our pants down and stuck paying a fortune for a commercial only VM.

    Perhaps Sun gets made private some day and they decide
    that their main revenue stream will be from screwing the
    community .... How do I know ? Do I trust Sun ?? Yeah
    about as much as I trust IBM , Microsoft of Oracle ...

    And if you my friends trust Sun then you are some very
    naive people.

    Enterprise clients want certaintly and one of the certainties that they want is that they wont get
    taken to the cleaners at some point in the future.

    $800 per client licence ?? Far fetched ? Oh really ?
  79. And if you my friends trust Sun then you are some very naive people.

    Well, call me very naive then.
    Enterprise clients want certaintly and one of the certainties that they want is that they wont get taken to the cleaners at some point in the future.$800 per client licence ?? Far fetched ? Oh really ?

    I think the very wide use of Java in the enterprise demonstrates that this is wrong. There is very little evidence of doubts about the use of Java in this environment.

    If you don't trust Sun, then you had better not use any of the significant APIs that they have donated to the IT community over decades, such as NFS.
  80. And if you my friends trust Sun then you are some very naive people.
    Well, call me very naive then.
    Enterprise clients want certaintly and one of the certainties that they want is that they wont get taken to the cleaners at some point in the future.$800 per client licence ?? Far fetched ? Oh really ?
    I think the very wide use of Java in the enterprise demonstrates that this is wrong. There is very little evidence of doubts about the use of Java in this environment.If you don't trust Sun, then you had better not use any of the significant APIs that they have donated to the IT community over decades, such as NFS.

    NFS ... 1984 developed and licenced for free to the industry in order to make their standard the de facto standard ...

    Not a bad thing ( tm ) but not exactly done because they love everyone ... they did it because they wanted to be the
    ones that drove the standard ... making them leaders in
    that area.

    --b
  81. If you don't trust Sun, then you had better not use any of the significant APIs that they have donated to the IT community over decades, such as NFS.
    NFS ... 1984 developed and licenced for free to the industry in order to make their standard the de facto standard ... Not a bad thing ( tm ) but not exactly done because they love everyone ... they did it because they wanted to be the ones that drove the standard ... making them leaders inthat area.--b

    And what is exactly wrong with that? If you research further you will see that Sun has not just provided standards, but followed existing standards and encouraged their wider use. They helped encourage the growth of Unix use in the 80s, and also the use of 'open systems'. This was good business practice - help make certain standards and platforms widely used then compete to be the best implementor of these. This is the exact opposite of the approach of some companies who you say you distrust equally - Microsoft for example.
  82. If you don't trust Sun, then you had better not use any of the significant APIs that they have donated to the IT community over decades, such as NFS.
    NFS ... 1984 developed and licenced for free to the industry in order to make their standard the de facto standard ... Not a bad thing ( tm ) but not exactly done because they love everyone ... they did it because they wanted to be the ones that drove the standard ... making them leaders inthat area.--b
    And what is exactly wrong with that? If you research further you will see that Sun has not just provided standards, but followed existing standards and encouraged their wider use. They helped encourage the growth of Unix use in the 80s, and also the use of 'open systems'. This was good business practice - help make certain standards and platforms widely used then compete to be the best implementor of these. This is the exact opposite of the approach of some companies who you say you distrust equally - Microsoft for example.

    Who Sun are currently in bed with ...
  83. We want an up to date open source vm so that if sun goes bust or gets bought out we aren't all caught with our pants down ...... How do I know ? Do I trust Sun ??

    And the question I put back to you, is....do you trust FSF not to renege the more flexible use of GNU Classpath in Harmony, and demand that anything compiled against Classpath has to be free software, or indeed place ASF in a position where they effectively lose license control over Harmony, because ASF now has to relicense Harmony under a non-apache license rather than go through re-writing the GNU class libraries? Of course you trust them not to do this, but as you level these against Sun....it could still happen.

    In anything there has to be a certain amount of trust
  84. We want an up to date open source vm so that if sun goes bust or gets bought out we aren't all caught with our pants down ...... How do I know ? Do I trust Sun ??
    And the question I put back to you, is....do you trust FSF not to renege the more flexible use of GNU Classpath in Harmony, and demand that anything compiled against Classpath has to be free software, or indeed place ASF in a position where they effectively lose license control over Harmony, because ASF now has to relicense Harmony under a non-apache license rather than go through re-writing the GNU class libraries? Of course you trust them not to do this, but as you level these against Sun....it could still happen.In anything there has to be a certain amount of trust

    what a load of crap ... here it is in black and white.

    http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/faq/faq.html#faq2_1

    As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your version of the library, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.
  85. do you trust FSF not to renege the more flexible use of GNU Classpath in Harmony, and demand that anything compiled against Classpath has to be free software, or indeed place ASF in a position where they effectively lose license control over Harmony, because ASF now has to relicense Harmony under a non-apache license rather than go through re-writing the GNU class libraries
    what a load of crap ... here it is in black and white.

    No. That is only the current license. There is nothing to stop them changing it for future versions.
  86. do you trust FSF not to renege the more flexible use of GNU Classpath in Harmony, and demand that anything compiled against Classpath has to be free software, or indeed place ASF in a position where they effectively lose license control over Harmony, because ASF now has to relicense Harmony under a non-apache license rather than go through re-writing the GNU class libraries
    what a load of crap ... here it is in black and white.
    No. That is only the current license. There is nothing to stop them changing it for future versions.

    So then you fork it ..... do you think anyone will use it if
    they put a "use this vm and all your codes belongs to use" clause into the licence ?????

    Oh no !!! I said the fork word ... everyone knows that forking will destroy java by splitting it into multiple incompatable versions ... much like IBM 1.4 jvm and Sun 1.4
    jvm ( at least if you want to do anything with websphere ).

    --b
  87. Oh no !!! I said the fork word ... everyone knows that forking will destroy java by splitting it into multiple incompatable versions ... much like IBM 1.4 jvm and Sun 1.4 jvm ( at least if you want to do anything with websphere ).--b

    The point being discussed was not forking, it was trust and licencing. You said that you were distrustful of Sun because they could change Java licensing. The possibility that the licence of future versions of GNU Classpath could be also, more restrictive has now been established.

    And no, some issues with WebSphere (whatever they are) are NOT an indication of 'multiple incompatible versions', or 'forking', except if you wish to exaggerate things beyond the point at which reasonable discussion is possible.
  88. Oh no !!! I said the fork word ... everyone knows that forking will destroy java by splitting it into multiple incompatable versions ... much like IBM 1.4 jvm and Sun 1.4 jvm ( at least if you want to do anything with websphere ).--b
    The point being discussed was not forking, it was trust and licencing. You said that you were distrustful of Sun because they could change Java licensing. The possibility that the licence of future versions of GNU Classpath could be also, more restrictive has now been established. And no, some issues with WebSphere (whatever they are) are NOT an indication of 'multiple incompatible versions', or 'forking', except if you wish to exaggerate things beyond the point at which reasonable discussion is possible.

    Ok Steve,

    1) Sun currently provides a product for free ( as in beer ) to the java community.
    In return it receives leadership of the community and promotes it's own operating
    system ( Solaris ) and hardware ( Sparc based systems ) by ensuring that they recieve
    the best support from the platform ( java ).

    This generates revenue for them, so they aren't angels they are just following good
    business practice using platform dominance.

    They continue to do this in order to remain relevant despite the fact that IBM have
    beaten them on the high end, Linux on the low end and Microsoft on the desktop.

    Even Oracle are no longer loyal to them and continue to position themselves closer
    to Linux.

    2) We all depend on this platform ( java ) for our livelyhoods ( because appart from
    the astroturfers we are all java programmers ( devs/architechts/whatever ) ).

    3) If Sun got bought tomorrow by some asset stripper company they might decide that
    sitting on the IP was more profitable than selling servers ( not very ) or software
    ( hardly very successfull either ).

    4) I want an escrow mechanism to prevent us all being held at gunpoint by any such company.

    5) Now what is the problem with this ??? If Sun are really serious they should make an
    assurance to the community that they will open source java if they ever get taken over,
    poison pills are common in a great many companies so why can't Sun stand behind it's
    communtity and do the same.

    6) Websphere DOESN'T work with any jvm besides IBM 1.4. You can't run it, compile rmi
    stubs for ejb deployment, use it's ANT tasks or do anything of any use without it.....
    So it IS incompatable.

    7) Despite what some people may think when they are crying themselves to sleep at
    night, Gosling does NOT care about you, he may care about a number of things but
    Lemming do no inspire respect. I can be sure that he cares a lot more about his
    Sun (Nasdaq: SUNW) stocks than whether or not you have a job to go to in the morning.

    8) The sight of a charismatic person does NOT turn me into a sheep.

    9) So now Steve can you say that any of this is exaggeration ? There's my point,
    now make yours .... I'll read it in the morning after I get some work done.

    10) You sure are good to argue with ....
  89. 5) Now what is the problem with this ??? If Sun are really serious they should make an assurance to the community that they will open source java if they ever get taken over,

    I still don't get the point here. There is nothing to stop anyone open-sourcing Java - this is what Harmony intends to do. No matter what happens to Sun, the JVM is a published specification and there can be open source implementations.

    So why worry about Sun?
    6) Websphere DOESN'T work with any jvm besides IBM 1.4. You can't run it, compile rmistubs for ejb deployment, use it's ANT tasks or do anything of any use without it..... So it IS incompatable.

    I would say that it is WebSphere that is incompatible with different JREs and not the other way around. It is possible to use vendor-specific parts of a JRE if you want to tie in your product to a particular vendor. But, this does not mean that the JREs are incompatible, as it is easy to ensure that you don't do this, and if you don't, your software will run on different JREs. Even Sun's NetBeans runs on non-Sun JREs. Actually, even WebSphere runs on non-IBM JREs on platforms such as Solaris.
    7) Despite what some people may think when they are crying themselves to sleep at night, Gosling does NOT care about you, he may care about a number of things but Lemming do no inspire respect. I can be sure that he cares a lot more about his Sun (Nasdaq: SUNW) stocks than whether or not you have a job to go to in the morning.

    I don't assume to know what anyone I have no personal contact with really things or cares about. If I had to make assumptions, then, from what I have read and seen, I would assume he really cares about interesting and fun technologies.
    8) The sight of a charismatic person does NOT turn me into a sheep.

    Heh. Maybe this does happen with me! However, I have a huge amount of respect for Gosling.
    9) So now Steve can you say that any of this is exaggeration ? There's my point, now make yours .... I'll read it in the morning after I get some work done.

    Yes, I think it is. Open source has advantages, and it would be cool to have a fully open source Java, but I don't believe it is that important. Sun is a company that has provided a huge amount to the IT industry over decades, and they helped pioneer revolutions in the way we use computers and develop applications. All this seems to get forgotten as they get criticised because they don't follow the pure 'Free Software' faith. I support 'Free Software', but it is not the only way.
    10) You sure are good to argue with ....

    I hope so - I find it very useful and educational.
  90. 6) Websphere DOESN'T work with any jvm besides IBM 1.4.

    This is not entirely true. There are some features that require IBM libs, and IBM only supports it on IBM JVMs, but IBM does support it on Solaris, and IBM didn't write a JVM for Solaris.

    (If you look at the IBM distribution for Solaris, you'll note that it is actually a Sun Solaris Hotspot JVM, but compiled and packaged by IBM.)

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!
  91. Not entirely surprising[ Go to top ]

    Anyone who has been paying attention will have noticed that is in keeping with Mr Goslings recent comments. This thinly veiled FUD about the enterprise customers who will run in fear of open source, conveniently forgets how SUN's own business is being eroded by Linux. It seems he takes every opportunity to jab what he sees as the competition, anyone remember his rather misleading comments about SWT at an Australian users group http://onthethought.blogspot.com/2005/02/gosling-on-swt.html I think the fear is that if SUN were to open-source Java, SUN would become irrelevant in the IT industry...
  92. Not entirely surprising[ Go to top ]

    This thinly veiled FUD about the enterprise customers who will run in fear of open source, conveniently forgets how SUN's own business is being eroded by Linux.

    If Sun was so scared of open source, why are they open sourcing Solaris? Why do they sell Linux-based systems?
    I think the fear is that if SUN were to open-source Java, SUN would become irrelevant in the IT industry...

    How could this be the case? Sun is far more than Java, and not all Java comes from Sun. There are plenty of non-Sun implementations. Sun has made Java free (as in beer), so alternative, compatible, open-source implementations of Java are not going to affect their relevance or their profits.

    Sun open-sourcing Java is not the issue. Sun does not need to be the one to open-source Java; anyone can write an open-source implementation. IBM could do this. Sun is helping to control the definition of Java, which has led to Java being the phenomenally successful language/platform that it is today.
  93. Not entirely surprising[ Go to top ]

    Anyone who has been paying attention will have noticed that is in keeping with Mr Goslings recent comments. This thinly veiled FUD about the enterprise customers who will run in fear of open source, conveniently forgets how SUN's own business is being eroded by Linux. It seems he takes every opportunity to jab what he sees as the competition, anyone remember his rather misleading comments about SWT at an Australian users group http://onthethought.blogspot.com/2005/02/gosling-on-swt.html I think the fear is that if SUN were to open-source Java, SUN would become irrelevant in the IT industry...

    +1
  94. Divided we fall![ Go to top ]

    Personally, I'm happy to trust Sun with the custodianship of Java. Come the time that they fall (and all things fall eventually) I believe they will open up the license and release it to the OS community. Pointless not to because the OS community will build their own version pretty damn quick anyway.

    Right now, a divided Java community is a far greater threat to its longevity than any possibly nasties that may happen to/by Sun.