[FoRK] Fwd: [Processing] download the new beta release!

Michael Silk michaelslists at gmail.com
Thu May 19 20:57:33 PDT 2005

You can submit patches/etc to Sun now, can't you? You can review their
source (for runtime + compiler (seperate download)), and submit a RFE
or Bug. From what I've seen, it's pretty responsive.

I still don't get what the problem is _now_. Only what-if's for Sun
dying. And if that's the only concern, then I like I said I don't know
enough about what that would involve w.r.t jvm's  (as you point out)
etc, to comment.

-- Michael

On 5/20/05, Luis Villa <luis.villa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Michael Silk <michaelslists at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hang on though. Java's code _is_ "open" (you can view it), you just
> > can't re-distribute it. I actually _like_ this system. It makes it
> > easier for me to distribute my java code around - don't have to worry
> > about hundreds of JRE's and different-behaving API's.
> Nor do you have to worry about hundreds of different libcs, or
> hundreds of different openoffice file formats, or hundreds of
> different bashes. The notion that open source == rampant incompatible
> forking is mostly FUD- I'm not going to say it doesn't happen, but it
> typically happens when:
> * upstream is unresponsive to patches/improvements (which may or may
> not be the case for Sun; their track record on openoffice is abysmally
> poor, but even in that case (where no one except Sun distributes stock
> openoffice, because it sucks so much) file format compatibility is
> still maintained.)(Note that this is /currently/ the case for
> Sun+Java, which is why Linux programmers have to worry about Jikes,
> gcj, and other implementations that may or may not be compatible. If
> Sun freed Java, those would all quickly go away and cease to be a
> problem.)
> * the language or libraries are designed in such a way that proper
> versioning is difficult/impossible- c++ ABI compatibility in GCC is an
> important historical example of this biting free software in this
> case. As far as I know, Java is fairly sanely designed in this sense,
> though I've heard a few horror stories between official JVM
> micro-versions.
> * upstream is actively hostile towards stability. this is the case
> with the linux kernel, but isn't likely to be a problem for Sun.
> Luis
> > > Let me put it another way- if Sun's Java strategy was actually free
> > > software/open source friendly, they could very, very easily open
> > > Java's code- it would be the best way to reduce fragmentation and
> > > increase code quality (which are always their claimed excuses for not
> > > opening it) because it would focus all energy on one implementation,
> > > instead of the 3-4 that are now floating around. That they don't open
> > > the code- *the best path towards their claimed goals*-  indicates to
> > > me and many others that their rhetoric and their actual strategy don't
> > > match, and that mismatch inspires a distrust that no amount of claims
> > > about what they would or wouldn't do to free java implementations can
> > > match.

More information about the FoRK mailing list