> I dont mean to say JVM shouldn't be in hands of large entity but rather If it was in the hands of companies like Google or Microsoft or say DataStax I would have been more happy :)
Considering DataStax just announced they are pulling back from open source Cassandra and are focusing on their DataStax enterprise product instead, I would strongly disagree. http://www.datastax.com/2016/11/serving-customers-serving-the-community On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 2:24 PM Kant Kodali <k...@peernova.com> wrote: > The observations that James Gosling did aren't just relevant in the year > 2010 but rather he expressed Oracle's DNA. He clearly expressed how the > upper management in that company works. And even today it works the same > way starting from decades ago. > If you know a character of someone you can predict what he or she would > do. And in that video Gosling more or less described the character of > Oracle! > > I dont mean to say JVM shouldn't be in hands of large entity but rather If > it was in the hands of companies like Google or Microsoft or say DataStax I > would have been more happy :) > > Above all, I love JVM and the work of many smart people that are behind. > I do wish Java 9 takes off really well with the module system where > containerized deployments > > > Google and andriod (j++--) ??? I don't even about j++-- existence. any > links? I tried a quick google search but couldn't find anything. > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Brice Dutheil <brice.duth...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > A note on this video from the respected James Gosling, is that it is from > 2010, when Oracle was new to the Java stewardship ecosystem. The company > came a long since. I'm not saying everything is perfect. But I doubt that a > product such as the JVM will be as good without a company guidance. > > The module system is interesting and is good thing regardless of the > Oracle features. Having AWT classes for a server always annoyed me, for IoT > as well. I'm really excited about Java 9. > > > -- Brice > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > >
