Home > Java > IBM Releases Java 5 Standard Edition Download for LinuxIBM Releases Java 5 Standard Edition Download for Linux Submitted by anonymous 2005-11-04 Java 30 Comments“Java 5.0 offers developers some powerful new choices for developing high-performance concurrent applications. Download the IBM Java 5 Standard Edition and start your Java 5.0 coding today.”About The Author Thom HolwerdaFollow me on Twitter @thomholwerda 30 Comments 2005-11-04 8:15 pm How is this different from the Sun Java version? Anyone knows? 2005-11-04 8:45 pm dotMattDifferent OS support (s390 and AIX, for example), and in some cases, better performance. Also a slightly different license, although I can’t explain what the impact is. For the most part, given platforms they both support, I have found Sun’s Java and IBM’s Java to be 100% swappable. 2005-11-04 10:27 pm there are a number of projects that use sun-specific classes and require sun’s JVM. OpenNMS is one of them, and I believe parts of OpenOffice 2.0 still. While using these classes are a bad idea from a portability standpoint, it appears that it happens often enough to be annoying (like when I tried compiling opennms with a non-sun jdk). 2005-11-05 12:30 am I think the work on decruftiying OOo2 has largely been done, since it works fine for me using gcj, which certainly does not ship the unspecified sun.* classes at all.Check out the Classpath Wiki at http://developer.classpath.org/mediation/ClasspathMigration for tips how to improve portablity and quality of Java code.cheers,dalibor topic 2005-11-05 5:06 pm CaptainPinkoIf you download the JavaDocs for your SDK Sun explicitly says not to use those files.http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/faq/faq-sun-packages.htmlThis is linked from the main JavaDoc page: http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/index.htmlI read those when I was first learning programming back in grade 10 … so if real developers haven’t bothered to read those then it can’t say anything good about their product.Frankly anything that uses sun.* packages is like it was using proprietary extensions… even worse than SWT . 2005-11-04 9:11 pm barryhawkinsThis is not a release; this is still in beta. IBM Java2 5.0 beta JREs and JDKs have been available for weeks. See http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/ for details and to check status of IBM’s Java2 5.0 work. 2005-11-04 9:18 pm There is also a BEA version of Java 2 SE 5.0 (BEA JRockit 5.0) for some time now. See: http://www.bea.com/framework.jsp?CNT=index.htm&FP=/content/products… 2005-11-04 9:35 pm Hire Alan Kay and his team. Embrace and extend Smalltalk. Re-introduce it as a major enterprise development system alternative via eclipse that IBM has fully commited to.There needs to be another major player in the enterprise development market to counter J2EE and .NETSmallTalk is perfect and already has a close cousin/scripting platform in Ruby.SmallTalk and Ruby make a very powerful one-two-punch to the J2EE and .NET hegemony. 2005-11-04 9:39 pm ahmetaaYour post is sort of irrelevant.and no, Java cannot be dethroned that easy especially with those flimsy “languages” 2005-11-05 10:42 am SparrowhawkSmalltalk a “flimsy language”? Are you kidding? Have you ever coded in VisualAge Smalltalk Enterprise? I somehow doubt it. How about Cincom’s Smalltalks?Smalltalk is used by many of the world’s major corporate banks and financial institutions, as it has a proven track record of stability and power, coupled with arguably the easiest/most elegant OO implementation possible.You can run headerless Smalltalk on some pretty heavy-duty back-ends (AS/400’s and mainframes say), and it’s been in use for decades.THe original post was OT yes. Your answer was however poorly researched.I know nothing about Ruby, so I will not comment on it. 2005-11-04 11:32 pm Well, if Apple has any brains other than to put out pretty boxes, they will bump up Objective-C, which is an incredible powerful, yet simple platform.It is extremely sad they haven’t done anything major with Objective-C lately. Yes, OS X has Objective-C code in it, but there’s a lot more they could be doing with it. They definitely need to promote this great platform, which they practically own. 2005-11-05 8:21 am What do you mean by Apple practically owns the platform.Apple bought the rights to Stepstone’s Objective-C compiler by merging with NeXT.Apple’s operating system will shed a buttload of Carbon, if not all of it coming in Leopard.Whether they return to the Enterprise like NeXT did is one of the reasons I didn’t want to wait around. 2005-11-04 10:04 pm IBM java has proved a lot more convenient for me in certain circumstances. A multithreaded multimedia app I wrote using the java Qt/KDE bindings crashes terribly with Sun’s JRE (with error messages I can’t find with google at all). Runs just fine with IBM’s JRE.Of course I am willing to believe it could be something with my program or how it uses Qt (the SWT and Swing alternate frontends work just fine), or something with the Qt bindings themselves. All I’m saying is in that particular case IBM’s works, Sun’s doesn’t. 2005-11-04 10:25 pm suryadAnyone know why if you try to run 2 different java apps simultaneously, 2 instances of Suns jvm start running? Does the IBM version allow one instance of JVM and run multiple apps on it? 2005-11-05 1:38 am kamperAnyone know why if you try to run 2 different java apps simultaneously, 2 instances of Suns jvm start running? Does the IBM version allow one instance of JVM and run multiple apps on it?Afaik, no one has done an mvm (multi-vm) yet although there is talk of one coming from sun in the distant future. Of course that’d be nice from a memory usage and start up time perspective, but there are problems with the idea.One is that monitoring becomes trickier. Right now, things are already so abstracted from the operating system. All the os knows about it is that there is a java(.exe) process running and nothing more. That’s tough from a user perspective because two completely different programs have the same name and from an os perspective because you can’t use facilities like services without some hacking.The more push there is towards a mvm like this, the more the virtual machine ends up reimplementing things that operating systems have been doing well for years, like memory/process/thread management. Eventually I figure the mvm will become so comprehensive that we’ll just rip the os out from underneath it and run the vm directly on the hardware. 2005-11-05 2:32 pm If you are looking for something like MVM now, check out JanosVM. It’s a Kaffe fork, that offered isolation already back in 2002.cheers,dalibor topic 2005-11-05 3:55 pm MegatuxI read in a lot of places that Apple JVM implementation is MVM… 2005-11-05 2:14 am “Eventually I figure the mvm will become so comprehensive that we’ll just rip the os out from underneath it and run the vm directly on the hardware.”damn. so someone has figured out the game plan ;(I for one welcome our new overlords 2005-11-05 3:09 am kaiwaiThats already happened in that ARM has already designed a StrongARM Java CPU that has a VM built right into the CPU; its there for someone to manufacture, too bad Intel would rather hack bits off the chip and sell it for cheap. 2005-11-05 3:51 am ahmetaacheck Azul systems.http://www.azulsystems.com/products/cpools_tech.htmlhttp://www.azulsystems.com/products/cpools_avm.html 2005-11-05 2:38 am Since IBM is so big on open source, why don’t they release their JVM under the GPL/LGPL or similar and stop all the arguments about how free java is?Come IBM, put your code where your mouth is! 2005-11-05 3:19 am IBM’s Java is based on Sun’s Java code, so they can’t simply change the license to GPL. They must respect the code’s copyright. A GPL Java would require a total rewrite, like GNU Classpath is doind. 2005-11-05 5:48 am Since IBM is so big on open source, why don’t they release their JVM under the GPL/LGPLBecause it uses Sun’s code under license from them. And with 99% certainty, their licensing deal does not permit them to.So that’s the end of that discussion. 2005-11-05 6:56 pm Wrong. The new JVM is based on J9, which contains no Sun IP. http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/%7Eamaral/IBM-Stoodley-talks/UofAKASW… 2005-11-05 12:40 pm Sun is bigger in open source than ibm are, doesn’t ibm mostly just ship others products? 2005-11-05 3:15 pm is available at jikesrvm.sf.net. They’ve put their money where their mouth is back in the early 200x years. cheers,dalibor topic 2005-11-05 2:49 am Since IBM is so big on open source, why don’t they release their JVM under the GPL/LGPL or similar and stop all the arguments about how free java is? Because there is no services revenue to be gained out of doing this. They get to bash Sun for not doing it, but don’t do it themselves. IBM are no friends of the opensource movement, they support Linux because it allows them to put consultants into your company. If they really supported opensource they would opensource OS/2, AIX, all the rational tools and clearcase.Unfortunately the slashdot idiots have bought the idea that ibm are their friends. 2005-11-05 3:11 am kaiwaiWell, in the case of those examples, they can um and ah; the bigger question; how about Lotus Smart Suite? its no longer a flag ship product, Notes is now their big client product, so why not opensource Lotus SmartSuite? 2005-11-05 8:38 am It’s about time! Back when Java 5 was new, I would use IBM’s JVM on my workstations rather than Sun’s. I’ve always found it to be faster and easier to work with (outside of where they’re standard, of course). Then Java 5 started gaining popularity and I, as a software developer, thought it well to adopt the newest changes to the language as early as I could since it was inevitable that they would be used. Alas, IBM’s Java 5 JVM was taking a while to come. Thank goodness it’s in Beta. 2005-11-05 11:02 am I’m developping a service container using Java 5 api (ThreadPool, ReentrantLock …) and I noticed differences between Sun’s and IBM’s SDKs.The behaviors are different, I’ve got poor performances with IBM’s SDK whereas everything is good with SUN’s one.The response time to a service request is 5sec with IBM and 30msec with SUN. There may be some troubles with ThreadPool. I’m investigating the problem, but if it is a problem of threadPool it’s not very good for IBM.