The value of native java

[Kaimano]

All,

I was wondering around the value of embedding java within the operating
system and some of the most important applications, beyond the academic
exercise. I would rather focus on a better architectural design allowing
for a more flexible package inter-dependency.

The point of Java is "platform independency", if this requires more CPU
and memory, that is OK, they come cheaper than the work necessary to
maintain a parallel product line. If it is about license independence from
Sun, Sun have never hinted that they will create any problem in future, it
would all go to their disadvantage. Commercially, I would never recommend
to rely on the native java packages. Just look at Eclipse, the
masterpiece, 3.1.2 is out and FC5 dev is still on 3.1.1. What is FC4 on? I
do not even know, never used, it did not even work with plugins like
MyEclipseIDE. How much work has been spent to build those packages? It
must have been man years. How much more will be needed to maintain them?

I would rather spend my investment in time in re-designing the
architecture of the system to take it to the next level. Please, see also
my post on "The future of linux ..."

[David Nielsen]

man, 20 02 2006 kl. 11:12 +0000, skrev Kaimano:
>  All,
>  
>  I was wondering around the value of embedding java within the operating
>  system and some of the most important applications, beyond the academic
>  exercise. I would rather focus on a better architectural design allowing
>  for a more flexible package inter-dependency.
>  
>  The point of Java is "platform independency", if this requires more CPU
>  and memory, that is OK, they come cheaper than the work necessary to
>  maintain a parallel product line. If it is about license independence from
>  Sun, Sun have never hinted that they will create any problem in future, it
>  would all go to their disadvantage. Commercially, I would never recommend
>  to rely on the native java packages. Just look at Eclipse, the
>  masterpiece, 3.1.2 is out and FC5 dev is still on 3.1.1. What is FC4 on? I
>  do not even know, never used, it did not even work with plugins like
>  MyEclipseIDE. How much work has been spent to build those packages? It
>  must have been man years. How much more will be needed to maintain them?
>  
>  I would rather spend my investment in time in re-designing the
>  architecture of the system to take it to the next level. Please, see also
>  my post on "The future of linux ..." 
By the same right I could play devils advocate here and say that Mono
gives you the exact same capabilities.

- David *.NET advocate* Nielsen

-- 
Obligatory shameless blog plug - the GNOME commentary located at:
www.lovesunix.net/blog

[Rahul Sundaram]

Kaimano wrote:

> All,
>
> I was wondering around the value of embedding java within the operating
> system and some of the most important applications, beyond the academic
> exercise. I would rather focus on a better architectural design allowing
> for a more flexible package inter-dependency.
>   
>  
Java is not embedded within the operating system. Merely included as 
part of the distribution. You can very well choose to not install them 
or remove them post installation if its not required for you.

> The point of Java is "platform independency", if this
> requires more CPU
> and memory, that is OK, they come cheaper than the work necessary to
> maintain a parallel product line. If it is about license independence from
> Sun, Sun have never hinted that they will create any problem in future, it
> would all go to their disadvantage. 
>  
Currently the Sun Java implementation is proprietary and Fedora does not 
include proprietary software. Refer to 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems

> Commercially, I would never recommend
> to rely on the native java packages. 
>  
The implementation within Fedora can use native packages but does not 
require them and can work fine with bytecode using GIJ.  See 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JavaFAQ.  Multiple implementations like 
GCJ have actually helped in standardization by removing the use of 
internal non standard API usage within several Java programs.

http://developer.classpath.org/mediation/ClasspathMigration

-- 
Rahul 

Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Hi,

I won't quote your post because I disagree with pretty much all of it, and
I don't expect you to understand my answers. You display a deep and basic
misunderstanding of what Free Software in general and Fedora in particular
are. Here is some food for thoughts :

1. item one : trusting "moral compacts" (or not). The free software
movement was launched by people who felt betrayed by proprietary software
vendors, which switched rules without warning because it suited them.
They've learnt the hard way "moral compacts" are worth nothing when not
backed by legal documents, if Sun wants people to commit on its tech it
needs to commit itself first.

2. item 2 : as SCO née Caldera shows, using rationality to predict
proprietary software companies policies is a deep mistake

3. item 3 : Sun in particular has an habit of performing 180° policy
changes every few years (x86 Solaris anyone) you'd be mad to rely on them.
Besides, Sun corporate culture is not Linux-friendly

4. item 4 : Free Software does not have a startup-like short-term horizon.
GNU/Linux didn't get there in months, so what if some release sucks we'll
get it right in the end.

5. item 5 : Red Hat Linux and later Fedora have always been more commited
than most of the Linux market to Free Software. All people who (like you)
thought it was a marketing mistake, and predicted <instert name of foolish
distro which made compromises with closed vendors like Sun> Linux would
bury Red Hat were proved wrong by the market. Go convince someone else,
we'll bury them like the others.

Eclipse already rules the Java IDE market (see Borland corporate plans)
Proprietary J2EE vendors are feeling the heat of Tomcat, Geronimo and
JBoss (see Oracle+JBoss, IBM+Gluecode, BEA moving up the foodchain with
Aqualogic).
The next step is the JVM and Fedora inclusion shows it won't be too long
to come.

At this point in time it would be madness for any closed software vendor
to wed itself too tightly to Sun Java, let alone for a FOSS actor like
Fedora. If you really think corporate might is sufficient to capture the
IT market I invite you to reflect on Itanium fate.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

[Mauro Mozzarelli]

>  Hi,
>
>  I won't quote your post because I disagree with pretty much all of it, and
>  I don't expect you to understand my answers. You display a deep and basic
>  misunderstanding of what Free Software in general and Fedora in particular
>  are. Here is some food for thoughts :
>  
Nicolas,

I do not consider "Free Software" as free or gratis, but as giving
"freedom and openness". And although I disagree with you, I would not tell
you that you misunderstand what "free software is" because you may be
coming from a different background; nor I will attribute to you opinions
that aren't yours (see 5).

Besides, I accept your concerns on the future of an open java, although I
am at the same time concerned about the multiplied effort in maintaining a
parallel native packaged version of most of the open java libraries, tools
and APIs. Why not just concentrate in delivering an alternative JDK/JRE,
thus achieving real openness and independence from Sun and at the same
time maintaining the separation of concerns?

-- 
Mauro Mozzarelli
eMail: mauro(a)ezplanet.net

[Rahul Sundaram]

Hi

> Besides, I accept your concerns on the future of an open java, although I
> am at the same time concerned about the multiplied effort in maintaining a
> parallel native packaged version of most of the open java libraries, tools
> and APIs. Why not just concentrate in delivering an alternative JDK/JRE,
> thus achieving real openness and independence from Sun and at the same
> time maintaining the separation of concerns?
>   
>  
Again, the implementation in Fedora does not require native packages. 
Kindly read up on the implementation.


-- 
Rahul 

Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le Lun 20 février 2006 14:21, Mauro Mozzarelli a écrit :

>  Nicolas,
>
>  I do not consider "Free Software" as free or gratis, but as giving
>  "freedom and openness". And although I disagree with you, I would not tell
>  you that you misunderstand what "free software is" because you may be
>  coming from a different background; 
Mauro,

I intentionnaly used the term "Free Software" and not "Open Source"
or
even "FOSS". The backbone of the Free Software model are the licensing
rules. The GPL - not actual software code - is the single most important
reason for the FSF influence in the Free Software world (feel free to read
the kernel archives to see if core developpers consider their licensing
model incidental).

XFree86 broke up over licensing (and the GPL in particular)
BSD/Linux mostly disagree over licensing (and the GPL in particular)
Mozilla had to relicense a boatload of code to accomodate licensing
problems (and the GPL)
Sun may have to relicence OpenSolaris (to the GPL v3)

If you actually think the Java licensing model can be dismissed by "If it
is about license independence from Sun, Sun have never hinted that they
will create any problem in future, it would all go to their disadvantage",
I'm sorry, but you display a deep and basic misunderstanding of what Free
Software in general and Fedora in particular are.

Fedora has always been about hard FOSS compliance, not "somehow open and
free" software. FOSS does not rely on benevolent vendor dictatorship, but
on actual code and licenses.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

[Alan Cox]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 03:32:14PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>  XFree86 broke up over licensing (and the GPL in particular) 
Not very true. Its a bit like saying the first world war started because of
an assassination. That was merely the last straw.

>  Sun may have to relicence OpenSolaris (to the GPL v3) 
"Have to"   ??

Alan
--
  "Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
   sharply the minute they start waving guns around?"
 		-- Dr. Who

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le Lun 20 février 2006 16:01, Alan Cox a écrit :
>  On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 03:32:14PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > XFree86 broke up over licensing (and the GPL in particular)
>
>  Not very true. Its a bit like saying the first world war started because
>  of an assassination. That was merely the last straw. 
That is could be the last straw at all shows we care much more about
licensing than other software entities.

> > Sun may have to relicence OpenSolaris (to the GPL v3)
>
>  "Have to"   ?? 
May. And the only reason they even consider it is because of all the
annoying people who worry about the actual license.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

[Mauro Mozzarelli]

Nicolas,

>  The GPL - not actual software code - is the single most important
>  reason for the FSF influence in the Free Software world (feel free to read
>  the kernel archives to see if core developpers consider their licensing
>  model incidental). 
Clearly we come from different cultural backgrounds. The licensing rules
are all an american thing that from my point of view can be perceived as
childish arguments. I grew up in a culture where helping your classmates
and colleagues was honorable. On the other side of the ocean instead I
understand that people are more competitive and protective and would cover
their work with their hand to avoid their classmate to copy it. I do not
expect you to understand this. Europeans have invented several things,
americans have invented the patents. Look at the example of the telephone
(invented by A. Meucci, patented by G. Bell several years later).

But I consider myself to be lucky to be living in Europe where software
patents are not allowed because they could undermine real freedom and
progress.

The various american versions of licenses do not influence my attitude
towards open source or free software. As long as it is there and it can be
used, I will use it, and if I can make any contribution, I will,
regardless.

Perhaps this attitude does not make Europeans materially reach, but it
makes me feel "free" and culturally reach anyway.

-- 
Mauro

[Konstantin Ryabitsev]

Mauro Mozzarelli wrote:
>  Perhaps this attitude does not make Europeans materially reach, but
> it
>  makes me feel "free" and culturally reach anyway. 
Yes, thank you for that lovely troll.

The world involves ALL of the world, not just Western Europe. There are 
places that are less free. There are places that are a lot more free. We 
are here to forge a global project, and the aim of this project is to be 
available to as many people as possible, without any potential legal 
problems for them.

If this means that we have to pussy-foot around the issue of patents in 
order to be able to make our product available to the widest possible 
audience, then we will do so. Trolling about this won't make the issue 
go away.

PS: I believe someone over there just resigned from a government post 
because he wore a shirt with a cartoon on it. There, now we're even and 
can go back to being productive instead of mockingly pointing fingers 
across the ocean. It really makes all of us look like a bunch of 
rear-end cavities.

-- 
Konstantin Ryabitsev
McGill University WSG

Jayne: "I'll be in my bunk."
				--Episode #10, "War Stories"

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le Lun 20 février 2006 16:05, Mauro Mozzarelli a écrit :
>  Nicolas,
>
> > The GPL - not actual software code - is the single most important
> > reason for the FSF influence in the Free Software world 
>  Clearly we come from different cultural backgrounds. The licensing
> rules
>  are all an american thing that from my point of view can be perceived as
>  childish arguments. 
As we say here, MDR
(http://www.journaldunet.com/encyclopedie/definition/379/54/22/mdr.shtml)

First time a French man was accused of american bias. Should I feel offended?

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

[Rudolf Kastl]

2006/2/20, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net&gt;:
>  Hi,
>
>  I won't quote your post because I disagree with pretty much all of it, and
>  I don't expect you to understand my answers. You display a deep and basic
>  misunderstanding of what Free Software in general and Fedora in particular
>  are. Here is some food for thoughts :
>
>  1. item one : trusting "moral compacts" (or not). The free software
>  movement was launched by people who felt betrayed by proprietary software
>  vendors, which switched rules without warning because it suited them.
>  They've learnt the hard way "moral compacts" are worth nothing when not
>  backed by legal documents, if Sun wants people to commit on its tech it
>  needs to commit itself first. 
Sun at this point is not open source unfriendly. One could even argue
that you can download the sun java source. Its still not includeable
in the fedora distro. and well.. if it cant go in... its not really
relevant to us real fedorians ;)

>  2. item 2 : as SCO née Caldera shows, using rationality to predict
>  proprietary software companies policies is a deep mistake
>
>  3. item 3 : Sun in particular has an habit of performing 180° policy
>  changes every few years (x86 Solaris anyone) you'd be mad to rely on them.
>  Besides, Sun corporate culture is not Linux-friendly 
Sun at the moment though is rather open source friendly.

>  4. item 4 : Free Software does not have a startup-like short-term horizon.
>  GNU/Linux didn't get there in months, so what if some release sucks we'll
>  get it right in the end. 
agreed. who cares about another iteration. we get the better product
in the end ;)

>  5. item 5 : Red Hat Linux and later Fedora have always been more commited
>  than most of the Linux market to Free Software. All people who (like you)
>  thought it was a marketing mistake, and predicted <instert name of foolish
>  distro which made compromises with closed vendors like Sun> Linux would
>  bury Red Hat were proved wrong by the market. Go convince someone else,
>  we'll bury them like the others. 
Guess why i picked redhat in the past? As someone that required closed
source stuff when i started i sometimes felt like a "victim" of the
zealots. But with more understanding of what its all about i got it
finally and became a zealot myself. No one can ever really fix the
hacked windows winmodem driver i required back then e.g. .... if youd
hack around proprietary crap instead of creating real solutions you
will never come there... it would always stay some "hacky but working
solution to make whiners shut up". Workarounds usually just discourage
people from putting effort into real solutions unless the workarounds
are ugly enough perhaps.

>  Eclipse already rules the Java IDE market (see Borland corporate plans)
>  Proprietary J2EE vendors are feeling the heat of Tomcat, Geronimo and
>  JBoss (see Oracle+JBoss, IBM+Gluecode, BEA moving up the foodchain with
>  Aqualogic).
>  The next step is the JVM and Fedora inclusion shows it won't be too long
>  to come.
>
>  At this point in time it would be madness for any closed software vendor
>  to wed itself too tightly to Sun Java, let alone for a FOSS actor like
>  Fedora. If you really think corporate might is sufficient to capture the
>  IT market I invite you to reflect on Itanium fate. 
>  --
>  Nicolas Mailhot
>
>  --
>  fedora-devel-list mailing list
>  fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>  
another opinion,
Rudolf Kastl

[Andrew Overholt]

* Kaimano <haydude(a)ezplanet.net&gt; [2006-02-20 06:13]:
>  
>  Just look at Eclipse, the masterpiece, 3.1.2 is out and FC5 dev is still
>  on 3.1.1. What is FC4 on? 
3.1.2 is in rawhide and I'm going to push out an update to FC4 when I get a
chance.

Andrew