Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 9th May 2007 10:08 UTC, submitted by Ford Prefect
Java Sun Microsystems has announced the release of an open-source version of its Java Development Kit for Java Platform Standard Edition. Sun has contributed the software to the OpenJDK Community as free software under the GNU GPLv2. Sun also announced that OpenJDK-based implementations can use the JCK (Java SE 6 Technical Compatibility Kit) to establish compatibility with the Java SE 6 specification. OpenBSD has already started importing the release.
Order by: Score:
good news.
by kap1 on Wed 9th May 2007 10:21 UTC
kap1
Member since:
2006-05-12

ah brilliant, can't wait for the wave of updates from the community, Java is gonna kick some serious ass.

Edited 2007-05-09 10:28

Reply Score: 5

RE: good news.
by vegai on Wed 9th May 2007 10:27 UTC in reply to "good news."
vegai Member since:
2005-12-25

Yeah. It didn't do that for the past 10 years, but now, this is gonna surely change everything!

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: good news.
by Nadir on Wed 9th May 2007 10:54 UTC in reply to "RE: good news."
Nadir Member since:
2007-05-09

Well, Java is very prominent on the server...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: good news.
by mheath on Wed 9th May 2007 15:22 UTC in reply to "RE: good news."
mheath Member since:
2007-04-24

Clearly Java isn't any good. That's why it's so hard to find a job as a Java developers and that's why being a Java developer pays so poorly.

Obviously I'm being sarcastic.

Reply Score: 5

RE: good news.
by sbergman27 on Wed 9th May 2007 19:37 UTC in reply to "good news."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
ah brilliant, can't wait for the wave of updates from the community, Java is gonna kick some serious ass.
"""

Don't be overly optimistic. I thought the same thing when Netscape open sourced their code.

The problem is that you can't dump a huge, complicated code base on the community and expect them to just take off running.

The Mozilla guys wasted a year trying to understand the code base before deciding to start from scratch on a lot of it. It took loooooooooong years to get to Mozilla 1.0, during which time they had actually *regressed* from the usability of the 4.x code base. And MS took advantage of that time to reduce the Netscape market share from 70+% to as close to naught as makes no odds. It's *really* hard to recover from that.

Nowadays, we cheer when we think FF might have reached about 10%-15% market share again.

Don't expect open-sourcing to be a panacea. Especially considering that the Java Community Process or whatever they call it was already *pretty* open, even if the code was not open source.

Edited 2007-05-09 19:41

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: good news.
by samad on Wed 9th May 2007 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE: good news."
samad Member since:
2006-03-31

I agree with you, but I'm not so pessimistic. I have looked at Java library's source code, and it is extremely clean and well-written.

Reply Score: 1

v Open Source is not a verb
by lucke on Wed 9th May 2007 10:30 UTC
RE: Open Source is not a verb
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 9th May 2007 11:02 UTC in reply to "Open Source is not a verb"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Open Source is not a verb:

Sigh. I hate language purists. Maybe someone ought to tell them that the contemporary English vocabulary consists largely of French, Latin, and other non-English words. Less than 25% comes from 'original' old-English.

Edited 2007-05-09 11:03

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Open Source is not a verb
by frood on Wed 9th May 2007 12:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Open Source is not a verb"
frood Member since:
2005-07-06

Couldn't agree more. It's one of my pet hates. The word "Google" is now a verb in the same way.

Reply Score: 0

John Bayko Member since:
2006-10-20

It's one of my pet hates.

Er, "hate" is a verb, not a noun. "Hatred" is the noun form.

Moral: English changes, like it or not. Also, don't do the thing you're complaining about as you're complaining about it, it just shows that you're wrong to complain about it in the first place.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Moral: English changes, like it or not. Also, don't do the thing you're complaining about as you're complaining about it, it just shows that you're wrong to complain about it in the first place.


Could I get that again? And in slow motion this time? ;)

Anyway... there is a clear relationship between nouns and verbs so if one was truly a "language purist" one would appreciate the mechanics of languages. Driver=noun, driving=verb. The driver is driving. Did the verb stem from the noun or opposite. What was it called before it was called 'driving'? Did people object about a driver beaing used as a noun. I'm using google therefore I am googling. Seems perfectly acceptable to me. One could perhaps call a person using a seek engine for a googler? ;)

Reply Score: 2

Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Funny that everyone is complaining because someone said that grammar isn't being applied correctly. When it's to do with language people are quite happy to change and adapt to the situation in hand.

The rules of grammar are a standard to follow so that everyone can understand what is being said. If this was about IE and web standards you all be modding up lucke for pointing out how standards should be stuck to.

Maybe your double standards exist because you don't really care that much about the language as long as you can use it... sort of the same way not all web sites stick to web standards, because they don't always make sense.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The rules of grammar are a standard to follow


No it's not. At least not in Denmark. I'm not aware of any democracy where there is such a standard to follow. There are guidelines to make it easier but no standards (standards are something you _have_ to follow). Most so-called language standards are not standards but merely an interpretion of how the language is being used at that time the "standard" was created.

Besides that the two situations cannot be compared.

Two persons are still speaking the same language even if they dynamically enhance the language. They will often understand each better when they do so, rather than sticking to a government body's static interpretion of the language.

However with software and hardware the situation is completely different. Even small violations of a standard can make a driver incapable of communicating with the hardware - or make it impossible for the client to communicate with the server. A slight variation in standard implementations can often result in situations akin to one speaking Old Norse (the Danish Tongue (dǫnsk tunga in Old Western Norse, dansk tunga in Old Eastern Norse, dansk tunge in modern Danish) and the other speaking Thai.

Besides that people have the option to clarify their statements if other people don't understand a word. Even if we invent new words on the spot we are still talking the same language.

A language's nature is to evolve dynamically. Creating a "standard" for a language is merely in order to be helpful and not something one _must_ follow. A standard in software is different since a small variation equals a completely different language.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Most so-called language standards are not standards but merely an interpretation of how the language is being used at that time the "standard" was created.
"""

Back when I was in high school (many moons ago), one of my English teachers would often say that dictionaries are "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive".

I whole-heartedly agree that is the way it *should* be.

Grammar guides should be the same way.

And yet dictionaries and grammar standards are frequently used to demonstrate that users of a particular word or grammatical expression are *incorrect*.

This is particularly irritating when the person wielding the dictionary or grammar manual is using out of date information. e.g. "irregardless" is a perfectly good word today. And the phrase "begs the question" (confusingly) can mean either "passes over the question" or "suggests the question". (The word "beg" is now its own antonym).

Amusingly, I was sitting next to a crotchety old guy one evening at a meeting, when someone used the word "irrelevant". I heard him utter under his breath, in an irritated way, that there was no such word as "irrelevant"! :-)

I started to correct him. But decided not to bother.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Open Source is not a verb
by frood on Fri 11th May 2007 10:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Open Source is not a verb"
frood Member since:
2005-07-06

Moral: English changes, like it or not. Also, don't do the thing you're complaining about as you're complaining about it, it just shows that you're wrong to complain about it in the first place.

Actually, I was agreeing with Thom. I dislike language purists.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Open Source is not a verb
by kaiwai on Wed 9th May 2007 21:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open Source is not a verb"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Couldn't agree more. It's one of my pet hates. The word "Google" is now a verb in the same way.


Ah, so you're into "axe grinding", well, could Americans stop saying, "Xerox'ing", or "Klenex" and many others?

Sorry, when a business/organisation/product becomes the defacto standard for a certain thing, it becomes a verb; You don't 'search' anymore, you Google, Google is now the defacto standard, the Microsoft of the search world.

Talk about mountains out of mole hills.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Open Source is not a verb
by memson on Wed 9th May 2007 13:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Open Source is not a verb"
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

Thom, I think that you will find that it is not hard to write in English and have no words that do not come from Old English or at least words with Germanic roots*. Your thoughts are true in some ways, but not always. The thing with English is that there are often two words for any bit of it. This then makes folks think that the "Latin/French" words have taken over. Well, as you can see, they have not.

* the bug bear being that old Norse roots often look like Old English ones.

However, there you go, a readable paragraph with minimal Latinate influence.

Reply Score: 2

ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

I disagree.

English as we know it right now is a mix of several languages: Old English, scotch, irish, and Germanic roots mainly; but there are a lot of inheritance from another languages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_English_words_of_internationa...

Reply Score: 0

Havin_it Member since:
2006-03-10

While we're at the pedantry-fest, can I just point out that Scotch refers to a drink, or a boiled egg wrapped in sausage-meat and breadcrumbs considered a delicacy in some proletarian locales. In any other instance, it's 'Scots' if you please!

Props from heart-attack country ;)

Reply Score: 3

ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

<Funny>
'Scots' is more similar to Scouts than to 'people from Scotland'
</Funny>

Thanks for the information, I did not really know it! ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Open Source is not a verb
by memson on Wed 9th May 2007 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Open Source is not a verb"
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

> I disagree.

Look up the words I used in my first paragraph. I think you'll find that none are anything appart from of Germanic origins, save the words "French*" and "Latin".

* Though technically the word "France" and the word "French" come from the "Franks" who were a Germanic tribe.

> English as we know it right now is a mix of several
> languages: Old English, scotch, irish, and Germanic
> roots mainly; but there are a lot of inheritance
> from another languages:

No, you are wrong. Old English consisted of a number of dialects. The dialects were spread over large areas. Northumbrian, Kentish, West Saxon and Mercian. The dialect areas still exist even till today in England. Though England has a nasty habbit of having a different dialect every 25 miles or so.

There is no such langusge as "Scotch". There are three languages in Modern Scotland. Scots Gaelic, Scots and English. Both Scots and English are related to Old English directly. Scots Gaelic is a dialect or Irish Gaelic. Most of "Scots" dialect is pretty much English, but it uses a few hundred distinctly Scots words and a very different overall pronounciation. But if you've ever heard a Geordie speak (Newcastle, UK) it's not too dissimilar overall.

Irish Gaelic/Scots Gaelic are both Celtic languages. Welsh is also another language we have here. You can count the number of Celtic loan words on two hands.

Old English is a Germanic language. There is a language called Frisian that is spoken in costal reagions of Holland, NW Germany and S Denmark that is directly related to Old English. It's sort of the old folks we left behind, so to speak.

Norse greatly influenced English, Norse being another Germanic dialect.

Latin and French were very late in the game. Much of the French in English is actually from a Northern dialect which was quite different to what we would now call French. We somtimes borrow a word twice from French, hence Waranty (Norman French) and Guarantee (Central French.)

So, um, no, I was correct. I know what I am talking about ;-) Off topic as it is (sorry)

Reply Score: 4

Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Hey, I did not know that the old English talked in monosyllables, like the Epsilons in Brave New World ;-)

Seriously, that really hints that English is far apart from latin; it is very, very hard to compose a meaningful sentence in Spanish or French using only monosyllables.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Open Source is not a verb
by lucke on Thu 10th May 2007 00:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Open Source is not a verb"
lucke Member since:
2007-01-07

Honestly, I haven't thought that my comment would spur such a discussion, with some pretty interesting comments too.

Although I don't necessarily share the view of that newsforge poster, I have to admit that now that I have given it a bit more thought, I do find an "open source" verb strange in that way that it's composed of two words. I can't recall similar verbs in English, although it's 2 AM here, I might be missing something.

Anyway, if I looked at "Sun Open Sources Java" without knowing the context, I'd probably have a hard time figuring the message it conveys. Celestial body does some strange thing regarding opening/source to an island, eh? Looks more like a collection of random words ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Open Source is not a verb
by Manyon on Wed 9th May 2007 20:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Open Source is not a verb"
Manyon Member since:
2006-02-04

well maybe open source wasn't a verb... languages are constantly changing and developing through common usage. If your use of the language clearly communicates your message then it has succeeded in its primary function. Considering the international effects of the internet and the popularity of sms messaging i'd say the language purists are going to be in for a bit of a bumpy ride as it seems to me that languages are changing more rapidly now (on a global scale) than ever.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Open Source is not a verb
by MamiyaOtaru on Wed 9th May 2007 12:23 UTC in reply to "Open Source is not a verb"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

Once upon a time, neither were host, fool, switch and many others. Verbification happens. Just as we can outsource something, we can open source something.

More on topic: I'm pretty curious to see what happens with GCJ, Kaffe and others now. Will they fold?continue on their own way? Appropriate bits and pieces (seems like that could be harder than at first glance), appropriate Sun's stuff wholesale? Harmony of course can't do the last two. Wonder if that had anything to do with Sun's choice of license.

OTish again. Harmony is an Open Source java, yet can't use (if they wish to retain the same Apache license throughout their codebase anyway) Sun's GPLd stuff. Could we more properly say that Sun Free Softwared Java? (verbifying again) ;)

Edited 2007-05-09 12:30 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Open Source is not a verb
by fretinator on Wed 9th May 2007 13:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Open Source is not a verb"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Could we more properly say that Sun Free Softwared Java? (verbifying again) ;)

They Free Softwared it after being heavily Stallmanned for years. ;}

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Open Source is not a verb
by jpick on Wed 9th May 2007 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Open Source is not a verb"
jpick Member since:
2007-04-16

I'm pretty curious to see what happens with GCJ, Kaffe and others now.


I can only speak for Kaffe (since I run the project) - it's going to continue on. The people on the mailing list want it to continue on. It's still probably the easiest virtual machine with a JIT to port to exotic platforms.

And Dalibor Topic (the top Kaffe developer) is only the OpenJDK governance board now! :-)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Open Source is not a verb
by tryfan on Wed 9th May 2007 12:29 UTC in reply to "Open Source is not a verb"
tryfan Member since:
2006-12-16

Of course it's a verb, if it's used as a verb. Good or bad, that's for history to say.
I remember when I was young that the word "kodak" was sometimes used as a verb - as in "to kodak something".
History wasn't too kind on that one; let's see what it has to say about "out-sorce" and "open-source".

Reply Score: 1

RE: Open Source is not a verb
by tristan on Wed 9th May 2007 13:49 UTC in reply to "Open Source is not a verb"
tristan Member since:
2006-02-01

Reading the title just reminded me of that ;-)

Open Source is not a verb:
http://www.newsforge.com/articles/06/11/04/0457205.shtml?tid=31


Remember the old saying: "There is no noun that cannot be verbed"

Reply Score: 1

RE: Open Source is not a verb
by zerohalo on Wed 9th May 2007 19:40 UTC in reply to "Open Source is not a verb"
zerohalo Member since:
2005-07-26

WT*? Is this an English grammar site? I thought I was here to read tech news.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Open Source is not a verb
by sbergman27 on Wed 9th May 2007 19:58 UTC in reply to "Open Source is not a verb"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Yeah. I thought that article was useless filler when I read it last year and my thoughts on that matter haven't changed.

"Open-source" makes a very handy transitive verb, thank-you-very-much. It improves the clarity and conciseness of the language. And if overly-pedantic grammar experts don't like it then they can email me and I will tell them in private just what they can do with their silly complaints. ;-)

Reply Score: 3

Possible innovation
by Laurence on Wed 9th May 2007 10:48 UTC
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

Maybe I'm being a tad optimistic, but hopefully this will lead to advancements in Java IDEs that will offer developers a chance to build applets in as straightforward method for non-programmers as it is to build Flash.

So maybe (hopefully) there's a good chance Java can reclaim some lost ground against Adobe and make things that much more awkward for Microsoft's Silverlight.

</optimism>

Edited 2007-05-09 10:54

Reply Score: 2

RE: Possible innovation
by Adurbe on Wed 9th May 2007 10:52 UTC in reply to "Possible innovation"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

flash gaining against adobe? you do know who now owns flash right?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Possible innovation
by Laurence on Wed 9th May 2007 10:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Possible innovation"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Sorry, it was a grammatical error (should have picked up in proof reading).
Corrected now.

Thanks
Laurence

Reply Score: 1

RE: Possible innovation
by kap1 on Wed 9th May 2007 11:03 UTC in reply to "Possible innovation"
kap1 Member since:
2006-05-12

actually in the eweek article above

"the systems company and Java giant also announced a new competitor to Adobe's Flash and Microsoft's Silverlight,"

so guess they can finally get rid of the aged applets and get something better.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Possible innovation
by sard on Wed 9th May 2007 11:44 UTC in reply to "Possible innovation"
sard Member since:
2005-11-16

With Java 6 browsers still grinds to a complete halt for 10-20 seconds to load an applet (3Ghz 1G ram PC). There is precisely 0% chance of it ever competing with Flash online until a JRE is recoded from the ground up to start up instantly and install seamlessly.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Possible innovation
by Savior on Wed 9th May 2007 11:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Possible innovation"
Savior Member since:
2006-09-02

Unfortunately, yes. When running, it is much faster than flash, but startup is still a problem. As is cleanup: the plugin remains in memory, until the browser is closed.

However, Java has WebStart since 1.4, which is much better and cleaner than applets.

Edited 2007-05-09 11:58

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Possible innovation
by anda_skoa on Wed 9th May 2007 14:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Possible innovation"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

With Java 6 browsers still grinds to a complete halt for 10-20 seconds to load an applet


Isn't this rather a problem of the plugin?

If it would start the JRE out-of-process, the browser could just reserve the necessary space on the page and keep on rendering the rest.

In fact that's how Konqueror handles Java applets.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Possible innovation
by knightrider on Wed 9th May 2007 14:35 UTC in reply to "Possible innovation"
knightrider Member since:
2006-12-11

I certainly think it will regain some lost ground. We might even see some new innovations by bright young minds on the Linux platform as well.

Reply Score: 2

Well done Sun
by Adurbe on Wed 9th May 2007 10:49 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

You need a PR medal for this one!

Reply Score: 4

Best way vs .net
by Adurbe on Wed 9th May 2007 10:51 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

Now with .net updgraded along with vista this is the ideal way to compete. As its GPLv2 it means every 'everything must be free free' distro can also include it!

my only hope is the gplv2 doesnt inspire a million forks

Reply Score: 5

RE: Best way vs .net
by kaiwai on Wed 9th May 2007 21:41 UTC in reply to "Best way vs .net"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Now with .net updgraded along with vista this is the ideal way to compete. As its GPLv2 it means every 'everything must be free free' distro can also include it!

my only hope is the gplv2 doesnt inspire a million forks


As long as they don't procrastinate in regards to merging contributors contributions to the project - I don't see any forks happening. But that is my one fear; if they make access and contributions difficult, a group will simply peal off, and develop a project without layers upon layers of bureaucracy - and both projects will be weaker.

Hence the reason I'm not particular excited about the idea of having multiple versions of OpenSolaris - you're just asking for trouble in the long run as each diverge off in different directions resulting in incompatibilities.

Reply Score: 2

Open Version?
by load_mic on Wed 9th May 2007 12:20 UTC
load_mic
Member since:
2005-12-13

So, does this mean that there will be two versions on Java?
Could there be a potential problem here?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Open Version?
by Constantine XVI on Wed 9th May 2007 13:35 UTC in reply to "Open Version?"
Constantine XVI Member since:
2006-11-02

There already are a few JVMs.
We've got Sun's, IBM, GNU Classpath, GCJ, and Apache Harmony. Sun's will still be the standard, so we don't have too much to worry about

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Open Version?
by computrius on Wed 9th May 2007 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Open Version?"
computrius Member since:
2006-03-26

Yes, but the only one that works worth $(%@ is the sun one. Most (and by most I mean all.. I am just covering for some exceptions that I probably dont know about) of the open source ones that exist currently (and before sun open sourced theirs) are pretty much garbage.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Open Version?
by raynevandunem on Wed 9th May 2007 20:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open Version?"
raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

Which is wierd, considering that Apple's proprietary, closed-source JVM runs much more natively and fast (on OS X), in fact, faster than Sun's own JVM on Windows or Linux.

Why can't the open-source JVMs work just as well on Linux?

I'm hoping that this doesn't turn out like Mozilla's XUL architecture, which, despite being open source for most of the early 2000s, has gotten regressively slow with each new release of Firefox, in comparison to closed-source browsers like Opera and IE.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Open Version?
by knightrider on Wed 9th May 2007 14:41 UTC in reply to "Open Version?"
knightrider Member since:
2006-12-11

I hope not. But if they can solve the startup issue in the open source version they can then impliment that fix in the original.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Open Version?
by trenchsol on Wed 9th May 2007 19:52 UTC in reply to "Open Version?"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

I've studied SUN announcements very carefuly. That means that anyone can take JDK source code, change it, recompile and distribute under GPL v2. Who would want to use those derivates, that is another matter.

Mayby some Linux distributions would choose to link JDK with different or newer version of some library, or so.

Reply Score: 1

BeOS/Zeta/Haiku?
by memson on Wed 9th May 2007 13:02 UTC
memson
Member since:
2006-01-01

Well, the usual BeOS comment...

This bodes well for the stalled Java port for BeOS. At least they can release it under the GPL2 in an uncertified state maybe?

Bryan V, come enlighten us ;-)

Reply Score: 2

Linux + Java
by adinas on Wed 9th May 2007 13:27 UTC
adinas
Member since:
2005-08-17

So, Finally Java can become Linux's main developer language. Now that it is open source, the community can make it integrate better with Linux and make it easy to develop with

Reply Score: 5

Lightweight browser plugin
by psilva on Wed 9th May 2007 14:17 UTC
psilva
Member since:
2005-07-06

I think (almost) everyone will be really happy if a forked Java plugin with a download size of 1 Mb unexpectedly appears...

:-)

Reply Score: 2

Does a good IDE exist yet
by Nycran on Wed 9th May 2007 14:36 UTC
Nycran
Member since:
2006-02-06

A question for Java developers: Does there exist an IDE for Java that can make building a GUI app as painless and quick as building an app in .NET? My experience from a few years ago was that, whilst Java is fantastic for server based apps, it kinda sucks for rapid desktop application development. If there's still a problem here it would be great if the community can address it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Does a good IDE exist yet
by kap1 on Wed 9th May 2007 14:47 UTC in reply to "Does a good IDE exist yet"
kap1 Member since:
2006-05-12

yup its now just as easy to make GUI, with new features built into netbeans and tons of plugins for eclipse.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Does a good IDE exist yet
by andrewg on Wed 9th May 2007 15:28 UTC in reply to "Does a good IDE exist yet"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

The latest version of Netbeans is brilliant. Before it was an absolute pain for anyone used to MS style GUI creation. Now you just drag & drop components and matisse magically takes care of all the container stuff for you but you still get all the power of Swing. Components automatically align and space themselves removing a lot of drudgery of VB style drag & drop.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Does a good IDE exist yet
by mheath on Wed 9th May 2007 15:30 UTC in reply to "Does a good IDE exist yet"
mheath Member since:
2007-04-24

I would argue that using Matisse under NetBeans is better than anything I've used with Visual Studio for creating GUIs. NetBeans is open-source as well.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Does a good IDE exist yet
by Nycran on Wed 9th May 2007 14:56 UTC
Nycran
Member since:
2006-02-06

Thanks kap1, I'll check out netbeans! I think this is a very smart move by Sun.

Just for the record, what is your opinion of the start up time, operational speed and feel of swing apps these days? Are there any disadvantages of using Java over .NET?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Does a good IDE exist yet
by trenchsol on Wed 9th May 2007 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Does a good IDE exist yet"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

I have delivered Swing business desktop application last year. Customers use it on Windows with native look and feel. Most of them believe that it is a native application.

Some people develop Swing applications that load a number of plugins at startup, depending of the configuration written in conf. files. Those can take long to load.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Does a good IDE exist yet
by someone on Thu 10th May 2007 04:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Does a good IDE exist yet"
someone Member since:
2006-01-12

Java 6 contains some very important improvements to the three areas you have mentioned. If you are developing a desktop application, make sure your clients are running it on Java 6.

Regarding startup time, Java 6 offers instantaneous splash screen (before Swing even loads), which should decrease the perceived startup time.

In addition, the Hotspot client VM has received important improvement in Java 6, which should increase operational speed.

Java 6 also improved the fidelity of the native themes for Windows and GTK. They make use of the native theme engine and should be practically indistinguishable from native applications.

Reply Score: 2

JavaFX...
by apoclypse on Wed 9th May 2007 15:29 UTC
apoclypse
Member since:
2007-02-17

i'm hoping to see Javafx become more prevalent. now that java is opensourced I think relying on closed proprietary plugins to get rich media content isn't in anyones best interest. What if adobe decides to take out a new version of flash with more features. Will the Linux plugin get updated or will it get postponed until two versions later like flash 9. Do we really want to rely on a technology that we have no control or say over, silver light is definitely not the way to go. \

What is needed is a front end to this technology. Something that an artist can use and if its free and opensource, you can bet users will use it. maybe something built on the eclipse framework with extensions for animation.

Edited 2007-05-09 15:34

Reply Score: 2

RE: JavaFX...
by fretinator on Wed 9th May 2007 16:08 UTC in reply to "JavaFX..."
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

i'm hoping to see Javafx become more prevalent. now that java is opensourced I think relying on closed proprietary plugins to get rich media content isn't in anyones best interest.


Yes! The web was intended to be an open platform with open standards. Accessability and access for all should be the standard. All operating systems should be welcome and easily able to implement the standards of the web. Proprietary, closed plugins need to fade away. I, too, hope that JavaFX succeeds. I am a developer and I am going to jump all over this. It is especially important that it be easy for developers to use. This will greatly increase the possibilty of market penetration. As I've said before, Sun is rising!

Reply Score: 5

v Ah well
by Almafeta on Wed 9th May 2007 15:52 UTC
RE: Ah well
by dylansmrjones on Wed 9th May 2007 16:06 UTC in reply to "Ah well"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Why that? You can still produce proprietary products with GPL'ed Java. Just like you can create proprietary products with C# in monodevelop. Or GPL'ed products with C# using Visual Studio and Microsofts .Net "framework".

Reply Score: 4

v RE[2]: Ah well
by Almafeta on Wed 9th May 2007 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Ah well"
RE[3]: Ah well
by computrius on Wed 9th May 2007 16:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ah well"
computrius Member since:
2006-03-26

Derivitive works as in if I create a programming language from the source code of java and call it, say, Lava.. Then I would have to open source THAT.

A program completly unrelated written in the java language is NOT a derivitive work of an open source java.

By your logic anything compiled/written with gcc/g++ c/c++ would have to be open source.

Edited 2007-05-09 16:49

Reply Score: 3

v RE[4]: Ah well
by Almafeta on Wed 9th May 2007 18:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ah well"
RE[5]: Ah well
by smitty on Wed 9th May 2007 20:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ah well"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

By your logic anything compiled/written with gcc/g++ c/c++ would have to be open source.

It means exactly that; since the work is derived from the GPL program, that means it is a derivative work. That's not 'by my logic'; that's what the law says.


People have been creating proprietary programs with GCC for decades, and AFAIK no one has ever challenged their right to do so, not even Stallman. So forgive me, but I'm going to continue to doubt your views are correct when apparently every lawyer in the world disagrees with you.

BTW, taking your argument to it's logical conclusion, everything that you create in Visual Studio must also comply with it's license, right? i.e. belong to Microsoft. Therefore, it isn't possible to own proprietary software that you compile in Visual Studio either.

Edited 2007-05-09 20:18

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Ah well
by Almafeta on Thu 10th May 2007 02:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ah well"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

BTW, taking your argument to it's logical conclusion, everything that you create in Visual Studio must also comply with it's license, right? i.e. belong to Microsoft. Therefore, it isn't possible to own proprietary software that you compile in Visual Studio either.


Erm... no. I'm not arguing that all software must be licensed under the compiler's license. That's goofy. I'm just pointing out what the GPL says. The GPL requires derived works to be put under the GPL; the Visual Studio EULA does not require derived works to be put under the EULA. Many (most?) Microsoft EULAs go out of their way to define works made using those products to be the property (and thus, the responsibility) of the creator.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Ah well
by smitty on Thu 10th May 2007 04:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ah well"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

That's goofy.

Well, at least we agree on one point.

The GPL requires derived works to be put under the GPL

Yes, but what in the world makes you think that compiling an unrelated program in a compiler makes it "derived" from that compiler? It's generated, not derived. To derive from that compiler, you'd need to take code, or at least algorithms or ideas from it, and at that point it doesn't matter where you compile it, it would still be a derived work.

the Visual Studio EULA does not require derived works to be put under the EULA

I have to admit, I've never read the VS EULA. Still, I'm quite certain they don't allow you to create a derived work from it - you can't copy the VS installation CD and add a couple features to it, then resell. Obviously, though, they let you do whatever you want with programs you create yourself. Just like every other compiler...


Do you understand what a compiler does? It's basically a translator. If I wrote a speech in German, then had some program translate it into Russian, the speech still belongs to me and I can do whatever I want to with it. Just because the translator was GPL software doesn't mean my speech somehow gets infected and I then have to release it under the GPL as well. If I create a picture in GIMP, or a document in OOo, or a webpage in Firefox I don't have any obligation to release those under a certain license either.

Edited 2007-05-10 04:31

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Ah well
by fretinator on Wed 9th May 2007 16:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ah well"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Using a compiler to compile your code IS NOT a derivative work. Even linking in GPL libraries (thus the LGPL) is not a derivative work. So these arguments are specious. You can create GPL works with C#, and you will be able to create closed-source products with java. You just cannot create a closed-source _VERSION_ of java (as the previous poster mentioned). The good news, is since C# is an open standard (ISO), you can produce an open-source version of the C# language, and thus we have Mono. Nevertheless, you can most certainly create a closed-source Mono project if you want, but obviously most would use C# to create closed-source projects.

As an example of an excellent open-source C# application, you just have to look at SharpDevelop. It is an excellent GPL C# application.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Ah well
by Alex Forster on Wed 9th May 2007 18:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ah well"
Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

(genuine question..)

But, if the Java standard classes are GPL'd, and my Java application uses these standard classes, doesn't my application have to be GPL'd?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Ah well
by fretinator on Wed 9th May 2007 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ah well"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

But, if the Java standard classes are GPL'd, and my Java application uses these standard classes, doesn't my application have to be GPL'd?


No linking to a library and extending a library are two different things. I think this is the reason for the LGPL. You can link to a library in a closed-source app. I assume this will also be true for using Java standard classes in your application.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Ah well
by andrewg on Wed 9th May 2007 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ah well"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

No because the license is GPL with the Classpath exception except for the Hotspot VM which is licensed under GPL only though.

The Classpath exception is:

The Classpath exception was developed by the Free Software Foundation's GNU/Classpath Project (see http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html). It allows you to link an application available under any license to a library that is part of software licensed under GPL v2, without that application being subject to the GPL's requirement to be itself offered to the public under the GPL.

Source: http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Ah well
by smitty on Wed 9th May 2007 19:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ah well"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

Exactly. On a related note, does anyone know what the difference is between the GPL + Classpath exception and the LGPL?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Ah well
by trenchsol on Wed 9th May 2007 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ah well"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

With entire JDK and class libraries under LGPL someone could release competing and proprietary version of JDK that includes SUN's own code. This way, SUN made sure that all other JDK's that include SUN's code will be under GPL.

SUN is protecting their intelectual property, and in the same time enabling Linux and other vendors to create optimized and integrated binaries under GPL.

.NET integrates with Windows, and now Java integrates with Solaris and Linux.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Ah well
by andrewg on Wed 9th May 2007 21:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ah well"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

Good question. I did a little research. It looks like the Classpath exception is less restrictive than the LGPL.

The LGPL seems to require two additional things:


1. It must be possible to link the program to a new / modified version of the LGPL module being used. So if you statically link the LGPL module you would have to provide your object or source code to the customer.

2. The software linking to the LGPL module can be licensed under any terms BUT the terms must allow for modification but the customer and reverse engineering for debugging the modification.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception for details.

Edited 2007-05-09 21:18

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Ah well
by dylansmrjones on Wed 9th May 2007 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ah well"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Incorrect. You can create proprietary products with mono. It is only the IDE which is GPL.

GCC is GPL'ed too but that doesn't mean applications compiled with GCC becomes GPL. You can create proprietary products using the basic GNU libraries.

You can also create proprietary products with GPL'ed Java. You can claim otherwise as you want to but Sun and FSF have already made clear that it doesn't touch derivative works because of an exception clause (not unlike the way GPL is used for fonts). Heck, you can create proprietary products using GNU Classpath because of that.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Ah well
by trenchsol on Wed 9th May 2007 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ah well"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

Look for 'Classpath exception' on your favourite search engine. It is a clause in JDK license that enables you to mix class libraries that come with JDK with your own proprietary code.

It was the first thing I checked when I heard that J2SE is going to be distributed under GPL.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Ah well
by BluenoseJake on Wed 9th May 2007 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ah well"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Actually, that's false. If you modified the Runtime, then you would have to release the modified runtime as GPL, but anything you write with it is not GPL. Any linking to the runtime is done exactly then, at runtime.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ah well
by r_a_trip on Wed 9th May 2007 16:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Ah well"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Why that?

Hatred for the GPL can lead to funny decisions...

Reply Score: 5

Netbeans and GUI
by snowflake on Wed 9th May 2007 16:48 UTC
snowflake
Member since:
2005-07-20

Haven't tried Netbeans for a while but do you still get the problem where if I dropped a button on the form, the button would expand to occupy the entire form? It's little things like this that spoil Java GUI IDEs.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Netbeans and GUI
by computrius on Wed 9th May 2007 16:57 UTC in reply to "Netbeans and GUI"
computrius Member since:
2006-03-26

That is the way java behaves. It is mostly based on layout managers to remove the requirment of manually coding all of your widgets to move properly when the window resizes. You can change that behavior by using null for the layout manager I believe.

Actually, once you get the hang of the various layout managers, coding a gui by hand isnt really that time consuming at all.

Edited 2007-05-09 17:00

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Netbeans and GUI
by modmans2ndcoming on Wed 9th May 2007 21:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Netbeans and GUI"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

heh... My first java app was a completely hand coded gui... not that I wanted to do it that way... I simply did not know any better at the time.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Netbeans and GUI
by collinm on Wed 9th May 2007 17:00 UTC in reply to "Netbeans and GUI"
collinm Member since:
2005-07-15

it's not a problem, it's just you don't know what you do

java layout is very powerfull and take time to understand it

anyway gui development is not a big part of a software development...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Netbeans and GUI
by fretinator on Wed 9th May 2007 17:04 UTC in reply to "Netbeans and GUI"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Haven't tried Netbeans for a while but do you still get the problem where if I dropped a button on the form, the button would expand to occupy the entire form? It's little things like this that spoil Java GUI IDEs.


Just use a different layout manager. The gridbag layout lets you put you controls in cells - columns and row. If you want pixel-level layout like other IDE's use, then use the Matisse Gui-builder in Netbeans 5+. I think it allows that kind of pixel-level layout.

However, I would discourage pixel-level layout. I believe it is better to learn to use layout managers, such as FlowLayout, CardLayout, GridbagLayout, etc. You will generate much more elegant interfaces that scale across many different kinds of devices (Desktop, Web, Cell, Mobile, etc).

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Netbeans and GUI
by andrewg on Wed 9th May 2007 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Netbeans and GUI"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

The new GUI builder (Matisse) in Netbeans basically takes care of all the details to do with layout managers etc. It shows you guides that snap your buttons, text boxes etc for sizing placement setting standard gaps etc between components that snap your component into place.

By default the interface it produces scales when you size the window.

Combining Matisse and JRuby or JavaFX (F3) turns the Java / JRE into a powerful RAD environment. I will be very surprised if we don't see an explosion of such cases within a year.

Reply Score: 3

64bit Browser Plugin!
by leech on Wed 9th May 2007 18:22 UTC
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

I'm shocked that this one hasn't come up yet, because I know there are a lot of people that have been waiting for a 64bit native java browser plugin. If you check the posts on Sun's forums, this has been a request for many years, and they stated that it'd finally be there in the 1.7 Java after they had released it as open source.

Right now I'm using the gcj-webplugin, which seems to work ok, but has a few bugs in it still.

Reply Score: 2

Binary Plugin (?)
by kajaman on Wed 9th May 2007 18:33 UTC
kajaman
Member since:
2006-01-06

I'm downloading sources now so I hasn't checked it yet, but there is as much binary plug-ins as source code ;) . WTF? I'm wondering what do they call a binary plug-in, and why is there so much of it?!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Binary Plugin (?)
by smitty on Wed 9th May 2007 20:07 UTC in reply to "Binary Plugin (?)"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

as well as binary plugs for the remaining few instances of encumbered code.

In other words, that is code that Sun licensed from someone else or that is patented, and their lawyers have decided it isn't legal to release under the GPL. Hopefully the community can rewrite most of it soon.

Edited 2007-05-09 20:08

Reply Score: 3

Gui development
by snowflake on Wed 9th May 2007 20:25 UTC
snowflake
Member since:
2005-07-20

>it's not a problem, it's just you don't know what you do

>java layout is very powerfull and take time to >understand it

>anyway gui development is not a big part of a software >development...

GUI development is a big part of software develpment if there are many user interfaces and some of them are complex. To the user, a pleasant looking and easily mastered interface matters a lot.

I think the statement you made that I don't understand what's going on is probably true. Perhaps Java GUI development was never meant to be RAD which is why you say there is a learning curve to writing Java GUI apps. I am so used to the Windows way of doing GUI development (cf. Delphi and WinForms, even VB) that I am surprised how much work it requires to create a decent looking Java GUI. I think the extra learning curve in Java explains why many Java GUIs apps look pretty bad (there are a few which look good, eg Eclipse and Azureus) because the programmer has relied heavily on the layout managers which often do a poor job (eg controls too close together or even jammed up against each other) and hasn't had the time to tune the look of the interface.

One misconception among the Java community and OSS community in general is that layout on WinForms and Delphi does not require pixel accurate placement. When a button is placed on a form, we don't specify the x/y coordinate, we position it where we want the control to be with the mouse, then set the alignment and anchor properties. These environments, rather than having layout managers (although Winform does have to an extent) these environments use the concept of alignment and anchor properties. These features allow windows to be resized, with controls adjusting accordingly. I know many balk at this approach but the vast majority of user interfaces are developed this way.

I would love to have the ease of Windows GUI development on Java but I don't think it is quite there yet, if it were we would see a lot more GUI applications written in Java than we currently have. Maybe with the release of GPL Java we will see some changes here.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Gui development
by andrewg on Wed 9th May 2007 21:12 UTC in reply to "Gui development"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

I have no doubt that you will see a mini explosion of high quality JRE based desktop apps in the next year.

I highly recommend you have a look at this quick tutorial to see how quickly you can knock something together with Netbeans http://www.netbeans.org/kb/60/ide-gui-db-prev.html

The above link is for the preview release of Netbeans 6 but 5.5 is also very good. Netbeans is far better than it was with with versions 3.5 and 4. With v5 things started improving.

JDK comes bundled with the Java DB (Derby) so you have a database built into the VM if you need it just like Mac has SQLite. Sun is finally getting it the JDK/JVM and development tools are finally focused on making things easy for the developer and attractive to the end user. The mindset has clearly changed.

Edited 2007-05-09 21:15

Reply Score: 3

Mono has Java support
by MightyPenguin on Thu 10th May 2007 00:11 UTC
MightyPenguin
Member since:
2005-11-18

So if you could install mono and have .Net AND Java (through IKVM) then why would you want a (presently) fatter implementation of the JDK?

The only reason I can think of right now is JNI support.

Reply Score: 1

Why GPL?
by MollyC on Thu 10th May 2007 14:32 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

Here's a question for the osnews community: Why GPL?

I ask, because I recall reading a white paper written by ActiveState a few years ago, which is still accessible here:
Dynamic Languages ready for the next challenges, by design. - July 2004
http://www.activestate.com/company/newsroom/whitepapers_adl.plex

It talks about the success of "dynamic languages", particularly Perl, Python, PHP, TCL, JavaScript, Ruby, etc...

The relevance to the topic at hand is what it has to say regarding OSS licenses, that many of the languages are successful due in part because they are available under an OSS license, but specifically NOT GPL. To quote,
"While each of the successful dynamic languages have chosen different specific licenses, it is far from accidental that none selected the more extreme GPL license used by the Linux kernel. All of the successful language communities have deliberately picked licenses that fit equally well with corporate requirements for non-viral licenses and the Free Software Foundation's goals (although clearly not the tactics, given the license differences). In general, the language communities view themselves as on the "liberal" side of the open source debate (inasmuch as any large group can be described as having a consistent opinion), and aren't compelled to pick sides on the morality of proprietary licenses. This approach has served them well, with significant successes both within the Linux and Windows communities. "

Given that, why did Sun use GPL rather than another OSS license? Did Sun choose GPL for a particular technical reason, or to score brownie points with the most religiously fervent OSS believers, or what?

Edited 2007-05-10 14:47

Reply Score: 5

RE: Why GPL?
by renox on Thu 10th May 2007 22:34 UTC in reply to "Why GPL?"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Note that Sun isn't the first one to distribute base software as GPL, Trolltech did choose the same license for Qt, for the same obvious reason.

That's why the GPL works so well: both free software advocates and companies which want some kind of return on investment use it..

Note that for Qt, even if RMS prefers GPL over the LGPL, Linux's distribution are using more and more Gnome even though many users prefer KDE over Gnome..

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why GPL?
by andrewg on Fri 11th May 2007 05:42 UTC in reply to "Why GPL?"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

Mostly is far more lenient than GPL because of the Classpath exception. Everything except the Hotspot VM has the exception.

So I think the reasons are: -

1. Prevent forking without having to give back.
2. Through the Classpath exception give just about every group what they need.
3. Brownie points as you stated.

Personally I had no problem with Java being closed but opening Java up does make Java attractive to a larger group of developers and this could even end up unifying the .Net competition. I think Mcnealy was mostly right when he said that there are only two developer ecosystems left .Net and Java.

Reply Score: 3

Activestate paper is WRONG
by b3timmons on Wed 16th May 2007 16:13 UTC in reply to "Why GPL?"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

Perl, Ruby, and Pike _are_ licensed under the GPL. So the "white paper" (haha) is just spreading nonsense and conjuring theories to fit not the facts but someone's agenda. Hopefully not too many suckers fall for this baloney.

Isn't Activestate associated with Microsoft? Figures... We would not want to favor licenses incompatible with their "ecosystem". <smirk>

Edited 2007-05-16 16:16

Reply Score: 2