On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Kant Kodali <k...@peernova.com> wrote:
> @Edward Agreed JVM is awesome and it is a work of many smart people and > this is obvious if one looks into the JDK code. But given Oracle history of > business practices and other decisions it is a bit hard to convince oneself > that everything is going to be OK and that they actually care about open > source. Even the module system that they are trying to come up with is > something that motivated by the problem they have faced internally. > > To reiterate again just watch this video https://www.youtube.com/ > watch?v=9ei-rbULWoA > > My statements are not solely based on this video but I certainly would > give good weight for James Gosling. > > I tend to think that Oracle has not closed Java because they know that > cant get money from users because these days not many people are willing to > pay even for distributed databases so I don't think anyone would pay for > programming language. In short, Let me end by saying Oracle just has lot of > self interest but I really hope that I am wrong since I am a big fan of JVM. > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Kant Kodali <k...@peernova.com> wrote: >> >>> Java 9 Module system looks really interesting. I would be very curious >>> to see how Cassandra would leverage that. >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Kant Kodali <k...@peernova.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I would agree with Eric with his following statement. In fact, I was >>>> trying to say the same thing. >>>> >>>> "I don't really have any opinions on Oracle per say, but Cassandra is a >>>> Free Software project and I would prefer that we not depend on >>>> commercial software, (and that's kind of what we have here, an >>>> implicit dependency)." >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 3:09 AM, Brice Dutheil <brice.duth...@gmail.com >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Pretty much a non-story, it seems like. >>>>> >>>>> Clickbait imho. Search ‘The Register’ in this wikipedia page >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources#News_media> >>>>> >>>>> @Ben Manes >>>>> >>>>> Agreed, OpenJDK and Oracle JDK are now pretty close, but there is >>>>> still some differences in the VM code and third party dependencies like >>>>> security libraries. Maybe that’s fine for some productions, but maybe not >>>>> for everyone. >>>>> >>>>> Also another thing, while OpenJDK source is available to all, I don’t >>>>> think all OpenJDK builds have been certified with the TCK. For example the >>>>> Zulu OpenJDK is, as Azul have access to the TCK and certifies >>>>> <https://www.azul.com/products/zulu/> the builds. Another example >>>>> OpenJDK build installed on RHEL is certified >>>>> <https://access.redhat.com/articles/1299013>. Canonical probably is >>>>> running TCK comliance tests as well on thei OpenJDK 8 since they are >>>>> listed >>>>> on the signatories >>>>> <http://openjdk.java.net/groups/conformance/JckAccess/jck-access.html> >>>>> but not sure as I couldn’t find evidence on this; on this signatories list >>>>> again there’s an individual – Emmanuel Bourg – who is related to >>>>> Debian <https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2015/01/msg00015.html> ( >>>>> linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/ebourg>), but not sure again >>>>> the TCK is passed for each build. >>>>> >>>>> Bad OpenJDK intermediary builds, i.e without TCK compliance tests, is >>>>> a reality >>>>> <https://github.com/docker-library/openjdk/commit/00a9c5c080f2a5fd1510bc0716db7afe06cbd017> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> While the situation has enhanced over the past months I’ll still >>>>> double check before using any OpenJDK builds. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- Brice >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Voytek Jarnot < >>>>> voytek.jar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Reading that article the only conclusion I can reach (unless I'm >>>>>> misreading) is that all the stuff that was never free is still not free - >>>>>> the change is that Oracle may actually be interested in the fact that >>>>>> some >>>>>> are using non-free products for free. >>>>>> >>>>>> Pretty much a non-story, it seems like. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Kant Kodali <k...@peernova.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking at this http://www.theregister.co >>>>>>> .uk/2016/12/16/oracle_targets_java_users_non_compliance/?mt= >>>>>>> 1481919461669 I don't know why Cassandra recommends Oracle JVM? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> JVM is a great piece of software but I would like to stay away from >>>>>>> Oracle as much as possible. Oracle is just horrible the way they are >>>>>>> dealing with Java in General. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> "I don't really have any opinions on Oracle per say, but Cassandra is a >> Free Software project and I would prefer that we not depend on >> commercial software, (and that's kind of what we have here, an >> implicit dependency)." >> >> We are a bit loose here with terms "free" and "commercial". The oracle >> JVM is open source, it is free to use and the trademark is owned by a >> company. >> >> That is not much different then using a tool for cassandra like a driver >> hosted on github but made my a company. >> >> The thing about a JVM is that like a kernel you want really smart >> dedicated people working on it. Oracle has moved the JVM forward since >> taking over sun. You can not just manage a JVM like say the freebsd port of >> x maintained by 3 part time dudes that all get paid to do something else. >> > > Many of the modern languages are "propped up" by commercial entities. Microsoft and c#(j++, .net, etc ) Google and go Google and andriod (j++--) Apple and swift The open initiatives have there own set of problems. Mainly adoption and leadership, for example compare c# with rust or scala. No one pays for the language directly you pay for the eco-system and tools around it. I see JVM without a large entity like sun/oracle to be a strange beast. No large entity to sync time and money into things like G1 garbage collector. I could see efforts like lambda's happening more like a scala world, where you have compatibility issues between 2.9 and 2.10, constant repackaging, ideological arguments over what is idiomatic. c++ 11,14,17 is a good example of that. I never seem to have a compiler that can deal with the syntax in the spec. I am constantly rebuilding a compiler from source to compile someone else source code that supposedly matching a spec from 5 years ago.
