On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Benjamin Roth <benjamin.r...@jaumo.com> wrote:
> Does this discussion really make sense any more? To me it seems it turned > opinionated and religious. From my point of view anything that has to be > said was said. > > Am 02.01.2017 21:27 schrieb "Edward Capriolo" <edlinuxg...@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Eric Evans <john.eric.ev...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > "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. >>> >>> Are we? There are many definitions for the word "free", only one of >>> which means "without cost"; I assumed it was obvious that I was >>> talking about licensing terms (and of course the implications of that >>> licensing). >>> >>> Cassandra is Free Software by virtue of the fact that it is Apache >>> Licensed. You are Free (as in Freedom) to modify and redistribute it. >>> >>> The Oracle JVM ships with a commercial license. It is free only in >>> the sense that you are not required to pay anything to use it, (i.e. >>> you are not Free to do much of anything other than use it to run Java >>> software). >>> >>> > That is not much different then using a tool for cassandra like a >>> driver >>> > hosted on github but made my a company. >>> >>> It is very different IME. Cassandra requires a JVM to function, this >>> is a hard dependency. A driver is merely a means to make use of it. >>> >>> > 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. >>> >>> I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a >>> JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project, >>> or maybe that you just really like Oracle, I'm honestly not sure. It >>> doesn't seem relevant though, because there is in fact a Free Software >>> JVM (and in addition to some mere mortals, the fine people at Oracle >>> do contribute to it). >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Eric Evans >>> john.eric.ev...@gmail.com >>> >> >> Are we? There are many definitions for the word "free", only one of >> which means "without cost"; I assumed it was obvious that I was >> talking about licensing terms (and of course the implications of that >> licensing). >> >> Lets be clear: >> What I am saying is avoiding being loose with the word "free" >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license >> >> Many things with the JVM are free too. Most importantly it is free to >> use. >> >> https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/distribution.xml >> >> As it relates to this conversation: I am not aware of anyone running >> Cassandra that has modified upstream JVM to make Cassandra run >> better/differently *. Thus the license around the Oracle JVM is roughly >> meaningless to the user/developer of cassandra. >> >> * The only group I know that took an action to modify upstream was Acunu. >> They had released a modified Linux Kernel with a modified Apache Cassandra. >> http://cloudtweaks.com/2011/02/data-storage-start >> up-acunu-raises-3-6-million-to-launch-its-first-product/. That product >> no longer exists. >> >> "I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a >> JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project," >> >> What I am saying is something like the JVM "could" be produced as a "free >> software project". However, the argument that I was making is that the >> popular viable languages/(including vms or runtime to use them) today >> including Java, C#, Go, Swift are developed by the largest tech companies >> in the world, and as such I do believe a platform would be viable. >> Specifically I believe without Oracle driving Java OpenJDK would not be >> viable. >> >> There are two specific reasons. >> 1) I do not see large costly multi-year initiatives like G1 happening >> 2) Without guidance/leadership that sun/oracle I do not see new features >> that change the language like lambda's and try multi-catch happening in a >> sane way. >> >> I expanded upon #2 be discussing my experience with standards like c++ >> 11, 14,17 and attempting to take compiling working lambda code on linux GCC >> to microsoft visual studio and having it not compile. In my opinion, Java >> only wins because as a platform it is very portable as both source and >> binary code. Without leadership on that front I believe that over time the >> language would suffer. >> >> "It is very different IME. Cassandra requires a JVM to function, this >> is a hard dependency. A driver is merely a means to make use of it." >> >> LOL. Sure a database with a driver is very useful. I mean it sits there >> flushing empty memtables and writing to its log file. You can run nodetool >> ring and imagine where data would go if you could put data into it. Very >> exciting stuff. >> >> It does matter in some regards. Cassandra has historically been more coupled to specific JVM's than other Java projects. Specifically, in the past I attempted to run Cassandra on Azul JVM and the key cache did not load as the key cache used some sun.misc.unsafe code that worked differently on a different JVM. (I never confirmed if this was a bug in oracle/azul/cassandra code) I have been burned by IceaTea and OpenJDK a few times over the years. I do my best to install what is the "common" platform for most users. If the project is going to take a position or bias development on one or the other it matters.
