Saw this one today... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13624062
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Eric Evans <john.eric.ev...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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-startup-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. > > I realize that you're trying to be pragmatic about all of this, but > what I don't think you realize, is that so am I. > > Java could change hands at any time (it has once already), or Oracle > leadership could decide to go in a different direction. Imagine for > example that they relicensed it to exclude use by orientation or > religion, Cassandra would implicitly carry these restrictions as well. > Imagine that they decided to provide a back-door to the NSA, Cassandra > would then also contain such a back-door. These might sound > hypothetical, but there is plenty of precedent here. > > OpenJDK benefits from the same resources and leadership from Oracle > that you value, but is licensed and distributed in a way that > safeguards us from a day when Oracle becomes less benevolent, (if that > were to happen, some other giant company could assume the mantle of > leadership). > > All I'm really suggesting is that we at least soften our requirement > on the Oracle JVM, and perhaps perform some test runs in CI against > OpenJDK. Actively discouraging people from using the Free Software > alternative here, one that is working well for many, isn't the > behavior I'd normally expect from a Free Software project. > > -- > Eric Evans > john.eric.ev...@gmail.com >
