[HN Gopher] Oracle's JDK 17 - Free Again for Commercial Use
___________________________________________________________________
Oracle's JDK 17 - Free Again for Commercial Use
Author : sharjeelsayed
Score : 141 points
Date : 2021-10-31 17:52 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.infoq.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.infoq.com)
| xony wrote:
| anyone moving back? .. me , No..
| occamrazor wrote:
| Still a shitty license:
|
| > [For LTS Oracle JDK versions] security updates will be
| available for a total of three years. After that period, further
| use of the Oracle JDK in production requires a commercial
| license.
|
| Apparently the business model is having commercial customers
| deploy Oracle JDK and suing them as soon as they forget to
| upgrade after three years.
| [deleted]
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| I mean, I hate Oracle as much as the next person, but I don't
| really see a problem with "stay current or pay for LTS".
| simion314 wrote:
| I interpret this that if you want more then 3 years of security
| issues fixes you have to pay, it is similar on how other
| companies charge for extended support, if you don't like it you
| update faster.
|
| But what is your opinion, everything should be free for big
| companies to use and then who pays the developers? Even in
| Linux world you need to pay to get extended LTS support.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Maybe the author meant continued updates. But they said
| continued use.
|
| The person you replied to didn't say anything against paying
| for support.
| occamrazor wrote:
| I read it as after three years the Oracle JDK cannot be used
| any longer without a license, there is no option to continue
| using it in production without support.
| monocasa wrote:
| Reminds me of the free for non commercial use VirtualBox
| plugin that makes itself super easy to install by random
| endusers, and then phones home so that enforcement on the
| sales side is almost automated.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| That seems like a mistake, but it's very problematic if true.
| Having to go through a grueling JVM version update every 3
| years, or more often if you can't jump 3 years worth of JVM
| updates at once? Brutal.
| whartung wrote:
| You also can not distribute it for no fee, which impacts anyone
| that wants to, say, do a desktop app and ship a bundled
| executable, which is, arguably, a key tenet of the
| modularization effort done in JDK 9 to make the JRE lighter and
| more nimble.
| tyingq wrote:
| s/Oracle OpenJDK/Oracle JDK/
|
| They can't sue you for using OpenJDK.
| occamrazor wrote:
| thanks, I fixed the terminology in my post
| qalmakka wrote:
| Guess it didn't work well for that. Thankfully projects like
| AdoptOpenJDK exist, so there are basically zero reasons to touch
| their stuff ever again.
| znpy wrote:
| Friendly reminder that oracle has no customers, only hostages.
| Schnitz wrote:
| For most companies, unless you haven't switched already, I assume
| this won't matter. Why switch back from Azul or whatever unless
| there's a strong reason to? Nothing is preventing Oracle from
| trying to monetize their JDK aggressively again.
| pjmlp wrote:
| OpenJDK is also their JDK.
| Longhanks wrote:
| The GPL however isn't theirs.
| chungy wrote:
| Oracle is in a nice position where they could discontinue
| or relicense OpenJDK, much in the way they did to
| OpenSolaris.
|
| Let's be grateful they haven't done so yet. I'm not
| convinced there is sufficient talent to carry on OpenJDK
| without Oracle (contrary to the OpenSolaris-illumos
| situation).
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| > Let's be grateful they haven't done so yet
|
| Why? Wouldn't the community come together and implement
| any features Oracle tries to lock away in their
| proprietary version?
| IshKebab wrote:
| Well that's what you hope would happen. Is there even
| still a big Java community? Android is by far the biggest
| community of users and they have moved on to Kotlin.
| krinchan wrote:
| You're confusing language with the compiled bytecode
| virtual machine that it runs on. OpenJDK underpins almost
| all of the VMs out there. Sure Android has it's own JVM,
| but kotlin, scala, closure, jruby, jython, and more all
| still need to be compiled against a JVM and then run
| inside it.
|
| All non-android JVMs depend heavily on OpenJDK.
| Vespasian wrote:
| Also a lot of backend shops use Java or JVM backed
| services
| pjmlp wrote:
| I really would like to see all the haters prove me wrong.
| oaiey wrote:
| Same with .NET. The stunt Microsoft pulled a week ago
| made me think that .NET needs a OpenJDK-like model ...
| until I realized that without the 200 devs from Microsoft
| no one will care enough to continue developing .NET.
|
| Surprised that Java is in the same position.
| Hello71 wrote:
| i don't think that's consistent with history. there used
| to be a large number of Java implementations; by far the
| biggest reason why they (almost) all died out is because
| Sun agreed to open up their implementation. IBM still
| maintains J9, and while that's only part of a full Java
| implementation, I don't see any reason why Apache Harmony
| or GNU Classpath couldn't be revived and combined with it
| for a high-performance Oracle-less Java implementation.
| there is major precedent for this in the form of
| GNU/Linux, where substantial parts of the userspace are
| provided by GNU, but the kernel is a separate project.
| echelon wrote:
| I guess Oracle saw that enough orgs were opting out of JDK 17
| adoption?
|
| They'll have to boil the kettle much slower, like Microsoft and
| Apple do.
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| 17 only reached release in September.
| floix wrote:
| True. It's not really new and not really free: https://www.th
| eregister.com/AMP/2021/09/16/oracle_jdk_free_l...
| kaba0 wrote:
| Based on the Inside Java podcast, the reason was more along the
| line to ease installation in cloud environments. This new
| license is legally installable without clicking accept license,
| etc.
|
| Also, making the last 1.5 (LTS+1 year into the next LTS) years
| free probably doesn't mean a serious profit loss, as those
| primary come from things running Java 8 for another decade
| still.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Yet no official Oracle JDK docker image. That's weird.
| Am_I_Right wrote:
| Yeah, right. As if I'm ever going to allow anything Java-related
| on anything I manage again.
|
| "This application requires JRE #" -- end-user Googles JRE # and
| downloads/installs it.
|
| End-user organization gets sued by Oracle lawyers for 10K site
| licenses for JRE #. Sure, they COULD have downloaded
| OpenFerretMongrelAsphalt JRE Pi, but yet, here we are...
| foepys wrote:
| Isn't the recommended way of distributing Java applications
| nowadays to bundle a custom JRE with it? Wasn't project jigsaw
| especially created to be able to just bundle libraries and/or
| classes the application requires instead of the whole JRE?
| tadfisher wrote:
| Yes. The official stance of the OpenJDK organization is that
| there is no such thing as a "JRE" anymore, and applications
| are expected to use jlink or similar to bundle a customized
| Java runtime.
|
| The distributions that matter here are for the JDK, which
| simply provides the "full" Java runtime along with developer
| tools such as javac and jlink.
| Am_I_Right wrote:
| Yup, you go and explain that to, say. Ubiquiti. Their network
| management software still requires end-users to download JRE
| v8 (and noothing else: it won't work). And, once end-users do
| that, they get sued by Oracle. But, serves them right, right?
| easton wrote:
| Install OpenJDK's v8 JRE instead.
|
| sudo apt-get install openjdk-8-jre-headless -y on ubuntu.
| Works fine with UniFi Controller. (what do you think they
| use on the cloud key?)
| [deleted]
| vips7L wrote:
| This isn't how Java works anymore. The developers are supposed
| to be packaging the JVM with their application.
| d0mine wrote:
| For some languages developers package a whole browser for
| their app.
| elric wrote:
| No, they're not. It's a silly idea with a pretty specific
| target audience. Most shops don't have time to waste on
| keeping their customers' JVM up to date by re-releasing their
| applications with new JVMs.
|
| This feature is mostly useful when you want to ship a
| particularly stripped down version of the JVM for footprint
| reasons.
| blandflakes wrote:
| With docker, effectively we're ending up in that world
| anyway (lamentable though I find it).
| tinus_hn wrote:
| Similarly the VirtualBox plugin package Trojan horse.
| spicybright wrote:
| What is that?
| KindOne wrote:
| Please see these Reddit posts:
|
| (Apr 2018) - https://old.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/8ff
| cg3/oracle_is_...
|
| (Sep 2019) - https://old.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/d1t
| tzp/oracle_is_...
| saxonww wrote:
| VirtualBox is GPL2, but the 'extension pack' is under a
| personal use and evaluation license that doesn't cover
| commercial use. You're supposed to buy an Enterprise
| license for that.
|
| The extension pack covers "Support for USB 2.0 and USB 3.0
| devices, VirtualBox RDP, disk encryption, NVMe and PXE boot
| for Intel cards." according to the website.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| My understanding of those (thus maybe wrong) is, that
| they are built on too of third party licensed code and
| patents. Thus opensourcing is hard and would require
| reimplementation. Thus choice is this model or nothing.
| One could also create those modules as open source
| versions, but there doesn't seem to be enough interest by
| independent folks ...
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| There most certainly is a world of options between "all
| open source" and "aggressively litigious jerks".
|
| https://www.theregister.com/2019/10/04/oracle_virtualbox_
| mer...
| billyjobob wrote:
| The JRE hasn't existed since Java 10.
| Am_I_Right wrote:
| Oh, sorry for being so dumb. I'm just an Ubiquiti customer
| wanting to download the JRE v8 that their software requires.
| Guess I should just... use LISP to write my own solution? I
| don't know, again, I'm just ignorant and dumb, apparently...
| kaba0 wrote:
| Citation needed. Oracle JRE was free for personal use.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| But is use in a commercial environment personal use?
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Oracle has proven themselves to be a litigious organization.
| You're not wrong that there are _probably_ safe ways to
| interact with their organization 's products but why bother
| when there are alternatives from companies that don't have
| such dirty legal histories?
| listenallyall wrote:
| You don't have to like (or use) Java or Oracle to recognize the
| JVM is an incredible platform to build upon.
|
| > OpenFerretMongrelAsphalt
|
| Ignorance is bliss, I guess. Your loss.
| nightfly wrote:
| It went from Java to OpenJDK, to Eclipse Temurin (formerly
| OpenJDK from Eclipse Adoptium) or something. If that doesn't
| seem like a big mess to use I don't know what to tell you
| frant-hartm wrote:
| If you follow Java & ecosystem at least a bit you needed to
| read one or two blog posts from reputable community members
| to figure out what the situation is and what to use.
|
| To compare I find a licensing situation on mid-size (50+
| direct dependencies) or larger project much harder to
| comprehend - you need to figure out what licenses are used,
| if they can be used at all due to the requirements and
| company's policy, if they are compatible with each other
| and what's required for distribution.
| tyingq wrote:
| It is confusing from the outside though, trying to decide
| if you should use Java from your distro, from Oracle,
| Azul, Amazon Corretto, AdoptOpenJDK, Eclipse Temurin, or
| Red Hat OpenJDK. Which ones have might have builds for
| your various platforms, what support they might offer,
| how closely they track OpenJDK, etc.
|
| One good example is what is meant by "LTS". You get
| different answers to that question depending on which JDK
| it is.[1]
|
| I don't remember another language where it was ever this
| confusing.
|
| [1] More detail:
| https://www.javacodegeeks.com/2019/07/long-term-support-
| mean...
| listenallyall wrote:
| I mean, just picking the best Linux distro for you or
| your company's particular use case is more confusing than
| this.
| tyingq wrote:
| Linux was like that almost from day one, so it's
| expected. It's much less expected for a language.
| listenallyall wrote:
| The JVM isn't a language. Kotlin, Scala, Clojure, and
| Java are languages. I'm quite pleased there are an
| abundance of options when picking a runtime. Yes, Oracle
| has not been a good steward, so having numerous open and
| free alternatives is a positive thing.
| tyingq wrote:
| That's true, but a little pedantic. If you look at it
| from the lens of "I've picked a language (java), now I
| need to build and run/deploy things", it's a confusing
| ecosystem. There's good arguments for why things are the
| way they are. But there's not really a good argument that
| it's straightforward and simple.
| listenallyall wrote:
| You are not making a coherent argument. Once you have
| decided you're building your server app in Java, it is
| MORE difficult to evaluate and decide Ubuntu, Debian, Red
| Hat, CentOS, etc. than it is to pick a runtime. Whether
| it has been like that "from day one" to use your term, is
| irrelevant. Secondly, having choice is GOOD. Yes it adds
| a bit of confusion but I'd rather have options than not.
| If you want some overriding authority to make all the
| decisions for you, go build on iOS.
| tyingq wrote:
| Why is the comparison to operating systems and not other
| development languages?
| didibus wrote:
| Most other languages don't offer long term support.
|
| You can't run an old version of Python and continue to
| get security and performance backported fixes. Same thing
| with GO or Ruby or Swift.
|
| I can't remember what Microsoft does for .Net, but I
| suspect you also need to always be on the newest CLR to
| get updates.
|
| I think this is one of the major differences with the
| JVM, in a way, it has more options and vendors which
| should be a good thing, but it seems to mostly confuse
| people.
| davey48016 wrote:
| https://dotnet.microsoft.com/platform/support/policy/dotn
| et-...
|
| Dotnet LTS versions have three years of support. LTS
| versions come out every two years, so there is a year of
| overlap.
|
| The non-LTS (which they call Current) have 18 months of
| support.
| Am_I_Right wrote:
| Oh, yes, silly ignorant me. Real-world scenario: someone
| downloads the Ubiquiti network management software. It
| requires end-users to download JRE v8 (and nothing else: it
| won't work). And, once end-users do that, they get sued by
| Oracle. But, I'm just soooooo ignorant...
| kstrauser wrote:
| Yep. It's safest to classify using Oracle software as a
| business risk. After a due diligence evaluation it may be an
| acceptable risk, but you darned well better research it before
| assuming everything will be fine.
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| Isn't the cat out of the bag already?
| voz_ wrote:
| Oracle is such a scummy, useless company. Die already!
| amachefe wrote:
| Why would anyone talk them seriously again.
|
| Thay did this same thing with OpenOffice.
|
| At the rate things are going, MySQL would also get this in the
| next 10yrs.
|
| Oracle wants to extra as much resources as possible from any
| product. And when they realise the tech world has moved on, would
| try to throw a hinge to the wheel.
| appleflaxen wrote:
| Great; now put virtualbox under a more liberal license.
| mberning wrote:
| The longstanding disaster of Java version numbering and licensing
| continues. How long until they reverse course on this? I don't
| know of any other popular language with a such a sordid history
| in these areas.
| matsemann wrote:
| Meh, not a disaster in practice. Our team has spent less than
| 10 minutes thinking about this the later years.
|
| For server stuff one points to a matching dockerfile, for
| distributed stuff one bundles the jre with the tools since
| java9.
| PedroBatista wrote:
| Fuck them, that's what I have to say.
|
| And also thank you, for giving many companies the necessary push
| for them to realize Oracle's JDK was not the only game in town
| and many other's could deliver a perfectly fine JDK.
|
| There's few things worse in this business than being labeled an
| "unreliable partner" and Oracle is being seen as just that even
| at big companies. Oracle's wisdom to pull this kind of bullshit
| is already legendary, the Open Solaris train-wreck, the MySQL
| writing on the wall, the OpenOffice implosion, the JDK shoot-in-
| foot, those samurais at Oracle's board sure know what they're
| doing..
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| From the article -- _Providing Oracle OpenJDK builds under the
| GPL was highly welcomed, but feedback from developers, academia,
| and enterprises was that they wanted the trusted, rock-solid
| Oracle JDK under an unambiguously free terms license, too. Oracle
| appreciates the feedback from the developer ecosystem and are
| pleased to announce that as of Java 17 we are delivering on
| exactly that request._
|
| Translation, everyone stopped using our stuff in favor of the GPL
| version, that sucked so we changed the terms on ours to be free
| for commercial use. I bet they collect data and resell it but
| that is just a guess.
| laurent92 wrote:
| Don't forget that Oracle was guilty of shipping the AskBar as
| part of the JRE for the general public. That's right, a malware
| which uploaded your browser history and redirected any 404 to a
| commercial advertising page, wrecking the web and the
| understanding of it for everyone.
|
| Oracle is not to be trusted.
| bitwize wrote:
| Didn't Sun do that too?
| chungy wrote:
| It's probably the same binaries, no added stuff. But yeah, it
| must have hurt them when the bean counters tallied it up :)
|
| It's also probably worth financially supporting Oracle if you
| make substantial money from Java-based software. Oracle is by
| and large responsible for the platform that you are using.
| mehrdada wrote:
| > _It 's also probably worth financially supporting Oracle if
| you make substantial money from Java-based software. Oracle
| is by and large responsible for the platform that you are
| using._
|
| Mmm... That's an interesting theory, but one does not really
| know if the money will be spent on tightening down the Java
| platform and legal attacks or technical improvements[1]. In
| practice it probably does not matter either way as that
| company is not cash-constrained in any shape or form.
|
| [1]: https://www.globalnerdy.com/2011/07/03/org-charts-of-
| the-big...
| cercatrova wrote:
| > when the bean counters tallied it up
|
| If you're making Java, you'll have to count up the beans
| [deleted]
| mrtweetyhack wrote:
| Free today, not tomorrow. Just keep them guessing
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| The company I was working for at the time spent a not
| insignificant amount of money and effort migrating away from
| Oracle JDK when they first pulled this shit.
|
| It was a B2B outfit, had maybe 30 customers running a dozen
| different products that the customers hosted themselves. The
| product was critical to business and the customers were large and
| part of critical infrastructure. Even a short outage would have
| made it into the news. What I'm saying is it wasn't a place where
| you could just hope for the best while migrating JVMs, everything
| needed to be tested and re-tested from every imaginable angle.
|
| This was extremely expensive, but in the long run, it was still a
| lot cheaper than ponying up for oracle licensing costs.
|
| I don't work there anymore, but I doubt they are repeating the
| process to migrate back, especially given how well OpenJDK works.
| Cullinet wrote:
| can I ask you for some illumination of the licensing costs
| components involved with remaining licensed by Oracle?
|
| this page https://dzone.com/articles/how-much-does-java-cost
|
| gives $28,500 pa for a 200 core runtime
|
| that sounds negligible compared to the engineering investment
| that was preferred instead.
|
| the logic of a commercially supported license is obviously the
| engineering depth of the original author's knowledge and in
| particular being able to refer to the authoritative / canonical
| answers
|
| were savings the only objective?
|
| if so, what did the savings get? anything better?
| awill wrote:
| negligible? It all depends on how much hardware you have. If
| you're a startup, you don't want scaling to cost you anymore
| than the hardware.
|
| I remember reading years ago about the FB vs MySpace fight.
| MySpace was (I think) .NET on Windows with SQL Server. Every
| extra machine cost a fortune in licensing. Whereas every FB
| machine was PHP/MySQL. It matters.
| murderfs wrote:
| > that sounds negligible compared to the engineering
| investment that was preferred instead.
|
| Can you trust Oracle not to raise the pricing in the future,
| given that they've raised it once already?
| Sparkle-san wrote:
| >Can you trust Oracle
|
| No
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| I don't have exact figures, but I'd guess our customers
| really weren't too enthusiastic about getting bullied into
| vendor lock-in with Oracle, which through this very act had
| already demonstrated their unreliability and willingness to
| renege on existing terms. That may have been the bigger
| reason for migrating. Staying on Oracle was definitely an
| option, but nobody wanted that.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > The company I was working for at the time spent a not
| insignificant amount of money and effort migrating away from
| Oracle JDK when they first pulled this shit.
|
| What did you migrate to? Another build of the OpenJDK? But it's
| the same code, isn't it? What's the difference that mattered to
| you?
| flatiron wrote:
| I did a migration too. 20+ year legacy code base. It was a
| 2-3 day effort. To adopt open jdk
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > It was a 2-3 day effort
|
| Right but why? I'm not an expert in the difference but
| isn't it literally exactly the same code and functionality?
| What were you doing in that migration time?
| tauwauwau wrote:
| It's generally related to the infrastructure. Like
| migrating Dockerfiles, Jenkins, SonarQube servers.
| jonhohle wrote:
| There are packaging differences between various JVMs.
| Some of these are relatively minor (explicit or optional
| dependencies on X11 or other libraries), others are a
| bigger issue (how the Java keystore integrates with paths
| configured for system certificates).
| IceWreck wrote:
| You'd be better off using JDK builds from your distro's repos.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Many systems either don't provide a modern JDK at all (for
| example macOS), or provide a pretty old JDK (for example I
| think Debian Stable only provides 11.)
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| Debian stable provides LTS releases - and the latest one was
| 11 up until a month ago.
| mastax wrote:
| Fwiw Debian Bullseye has OpenJDK 8 (for Nvidia?), 11, and 17.
| 11 is the default.
| ptx wrote:
| Maybe. Debian says[1] that their OpenJDK package will get
| "security updates on a best effort basis, but users should not
| expect to see updates for every quarterly upstream security
| update."
|
| I'm not sure what that means, exactly. Will the Debian package
| have unpatched security vulnerabilities for several months at a
| time?
|
| [1] https://www.debian.org/releases/bullseye/amd64/release-
| notes...
| IceWreck wrote:
| You could use Alma Linux / Rocky Linux or any other RHEL
| likes which will get updates as long as RHEL does.
| nick__m wrote:
| I think that means that the Debian maintainers appear to be
| understaffed and you should use the Correto or Zulu
| repository if you care about security updates.
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| This applies to OpenJDK 17 in bullseye specifically, which is
| a special case because it wasn't released yet when bullseye
| was being released. There's the previous LTS version of
| OpenJDK (11) available in bullseye as well.
| exabrial wrote:
| I actually thought Oracle's move initially was actually a good
| thing: It brought some much-needed diversity to OpenJDK builds.
|
| Very pleased to see this move as well. It's taken a very very
| long time, but it's encouraging to see Oracle finally understand
| the open source ecosystem.
| computronus wrote:
| I agree that the blossoming of additional JDK distributions,
| spurred on by Oracle's initial license change, was a good
| thing. I'm a happy AdoptOpenJDK / Temurin user, at work and at
| home.
|
| However, I don't see any benefit to this latest change in their
| stance. Everyone already had to wade their way through the
| confusion from that initial licensing change, and many (most?)
| spent a lot of time and effort getting to a new stable
| configuration on a different distro. Why spend more effort,
| again, to run back to Oracle JDK? I think most organizations
| have better things to do than deal with all this.
|
| Also, who's to say Oracle won't change their licensing deal
| once again for Java 21?
| kaba0 wrote:
| Oracle commit 98%+ to the OpenJDK project, that they finished
| open sourcing and opening up paid only features year to year,
| to the point where OracleJDK and OpenJDK are pretty much
| identical.
|
| Contrary to their litigious image, they are more than great
| stewards of the ecosystem and they do undertake open-source.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| Because if they don't, the Java ecosystem is dead.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Indeed, specially because in spite of all the hate, no
| other company bothered to acquire Sun assets (with the
| exception of IBM that quickly withdrew their offer).
|
| Without Oracle, there wouldn't exist Java 17, MaximeVM made
| into GraalVM, J/Rockit JIT cache as OpenJDK DSA, J/Rockit
| monitoring as Flight Recorder,....
|
| And everyone could enjoy Java 6 with the JIT and GC
| improvements the FOSS community is known for, when there
| isn't some big corp sponsoring the work.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| gcc is pretty advanced compiler and, AFAIK, it's
| independent from big corporations. I wouldn't deny the
| possibility for Java to live under truly open source
| umbrella.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| Almost all of GCC's development is done by employees of
| big corps, often as their sole job. Red Hat, IBM, etc.
| Hello71 wrote:
| looking at last 1000 commits to gcc, it seems like about
| 80-90% of emails are associated with "big corps".
| however, this doesn't tell the whole story. according to
| https://lwn.net/Articles/867540/, over 85%
| (100%-6.8%-5.0%-1.6%=86.6%) of Linux kernel changesets
| are supported by employers, but nobody sensible would
| claim that Linux is not community developed. whether it
| is because of historical project culture, or BDFL, or
| simply a large number of contributing organizations,
| there is clearly a substantial difference between Linux
| and OpenJDK development methodology.
| josefx wrote:
| It also avoided licensing accidents. Oracles JDK always came
| with non free components and making the entire JDK non free
| made stories claiming that they "accidentally" triggered one of
| the commercial features and had to pay thousands in licensing
| fees unlikely.
| rob_c wrote:
| Not knowing the details. Doesn't this impact the sun<->google
| Java android suit?
| halestock wrote:
| It doesn't, and that suit is finally dead and over with: https:
| //en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America....
| rob_c wrote:
| I suppose but would that impact any future complaints.
| Probably not I suppose but I'll not pretend to be a legal
| expert
| tyingq wrote:
| Guessing they didn't like everyone flocking to things like Amazon
| Corretto. I don't see this move gaining anyone back though.
| michaelcampbell wrote:
| I'm not really in that space any more but I haven't heard of
| ANYONE "flocking" to Corretto. OpenJDK, sure.
| vecplane wrote:
| Android Studio recommends versions of Amazon's Corretto
| distrubutions. That could be a JetBrains IDE feature though,
| not certain.
| tyingq wrote:
| I don't think Oracle would be unhappy with providers like
| Eclipse. I suspect they are less happy with people going to
| Azul, Amazon, RedHat, etc.
| jffry wrote:
| Well I'll break your anecdote. I "flocked" to Corretto for a
| production JVM-hosted system that ran on EC2 at the time that
| the Oracle distribution was re-licensed.
|
| My reasons, aside from just licensing concerns? It came with
| a public long-term support commitment, and was deployed by
| AWS themselves on internal services before it was released
| publicly.
| baud147258 wrote:
| I remember the same argument of long-term support from the
| tech lead when he decided that the software we deliver to
| our clients would use the Correto JDK.
| rStar wrote:
| java 11 fo life yo
| rStar wrote:
| oracle could have not been morons and gotten the entire world
| stuck on java 11, but as we all know, oracle has one product,
| and it's called vendor lock in.
| stunt wrote:
| Oracle has been doing amazing work for OpenJDK and Java, it's
| just that Oracle's JDK isn't a great business model. Glad that
| they realized that too and I hope it doesn't stop them from
| putting resources behind it.
| 1cvmask wrote:
| It seems they were not in a dominant position in terms of market
| share. Anyone have a clue how low Oracle's market share was?
|
| "Surveys suggest that Oracle's JDK distributions are not the most
| popular Java distributions anymore. Developers seem to prefer
| OpenJDK distributions from AdoptOpenJDK (now Eclipse Temurin),
| Amazon, Microsoft, Azul, and other vendors. These organizations
| also provide commercial support for their distributions. In the
| case of Eclipse Temurin, Azul offers such support."
| kaba0 wrote:
| Oracle JDK is pretty much the exact same as OpenJDK and Oracle
| commits 98%+ of all commits to the project. It's hard to define
| a market when most of it is freely available.
| pjmlp wrote:
| People hate Oracle so much that don't stop two seconds to
| actually think who does the work and keeps the lights on
| OpenJDK.
| marktangotango wrote:
| Who does the work is immaterial to a lot of people. When
| Oracle bought Sun, literally everyone knew they'd move to a
| paid commercial license eventually. Which they did. I
| personally am amused at this sequence of events. It
| happened to other Sun products as well; open office, and
| mysql primarily. Commercial licensing didn't work for those
| open source projects either. What did Oracle actually gain
| from the Sun acquisition? With this news it seems like
| nothing. No tears shed for Larry.
| sharms wrote:
| Just to specific answer the question of what did Oracle
| gain, I believe they made back all of their investment
| across their Exadata line of products which were sold to
| large commercial enterprises, running on custom SPARC
| silicon.
| pengaru wrote:
| You sure about that SPARC bit? According to [0] v1 ran on
| HP commodity hardware, and the subsequent history
| repeatedly mentions intel xeon processors...
|
| [0] https://flashdba.com/history-of-exadata/
| kmonsen wrote:
| They got an Android lawsuit against Google over Android.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Rightfully so, we don't need Google's own flavour of J++.
| monocasa wrote:
| Apparently not rightfully so since the courts struck it
| down.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Unfortunately, hence the Java community got screwed by
| your employer and now have to put up with Android Java.
| monocasa wrote:
| I'm not employed by Google, and never have been; not
| everyone who disagrees with you has been paid off to do
| so.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Except no one else bothered to acquire them, so they were
| fine with uncle Larry putting the greens on the table.
| mulmen wrote:
| It's more like nobody wants to do business with Oracle. The
| products themselves are fine. It's the pray-we-don't-alter-
| it-further licensing that's a dealbreaker.
| atsjie wrote:
| > The products themselves are fine
|
| I beg to differ. The majority of their products are
| flawed and outdated. I'm not talking Oracle DB or Java
| but the vast amount of other apps they sell.
|
| They bought lots of stuff, pull funding from development
| and redirect it to sales. Then they sell it to fit their
| vision; but nothing integrates cleanly and you'll be
| spending massive amounts of money on consultants who
| understand product A & B and how to connect them.
|
| A java-dev can't do that; you need that A and B knowledge
| + integration skills. Those consultants are very hard to
| find and good effective ones nearly non-existent. The
| fees are enormous regardless of whether you use Oracle
| consultants, Oracle partners or freelancers. If you do
| manage to find cheaper consultants (offshoring most
| likely) be prepared for terrible quality as well.
|
| Ow, and once you're finally comfortable with their stuff
| after spending all that money, be sure to make a
| reservation for the unexpected additional license fees
| they'll slap on you because you failed to remember the
| fine print.
| xpressvideoz wrote:
| It is ironic that the very distribution that is not recommended
| by @pron (AdoptOpenJDK) is the most widely used one!
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28821316
| outjected wrote:
| The simple reason is that they made it the easiest to install
| and keep updated with deb / rpm repos.
|
| Unfortunately they migrated from adoptopenjdk to adoptium
| back in September and have yet to provide repos.
|
| Microsoft however makes it very easy to install their build
| in linux.
|
| https://docs.microsoft.com/en-
| us/java/openjdk/download#linux...
| tyingq wrote:
| Seems expected. Everyone moved away when they announced it
| wasn't free anymore.
| https://support.oracle.com/knowledge/Middleware/2511229_1.ht...
| laurent92 wrote:
| And it wasn't possible to perform unattended installations,
| because they required to approve the license manually ("y"
| from keyboard input), so Oracle JDK was excluded from any
| Ansible/Puppet/Docker deployment or Linux distribution.
| Immediate roadblock.
| Spivak wrote:
| You can absolutely programmatically have apt make arbitrary
| selections like this with debconf.
|
| debconf-set-selections is your friend.
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| yes | apt install whatever could work too.
| JazzXP wrote:
| Wow, what a moronic decision by Oracle. Automating
| installations is so important, if you're deploying 1000
| servers, to not be able to automate (even just for the one
| character button) is stupid.
| [deleted]
| flyinprogrammer wrote:
| I wonder if Docker Inc will learn from this.
| easton wrote:
| They probably can't. Every other business model they've tried
| hasn't worked. Their only other option is a buyout, and I can
| only assume Microsoft hasn't offered them enough money yet,
| because otherwise I assume that would have happened years ago.
| oneplane wrote:
| They won't because it's not the same situation and not the
| issue at hand.
|
| If you want to make a comparison: Docker is more like Sun. They
| will have three options:
|
| 1. Go bankrupt
|
| 2. Get bought
|
| 3. Find a way to make money
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| But what else is Docker to do? It feels like some companies
| should be bought out jointly by the tech giants and turned into
| charities since they have no business model but provide
| excellent value to the ecosystem that isn't capturable.
| Z3lgius wrote:
| This feels like a bait and switch
| overgard wrote:
| Dumb question, but what's the difference between the Open JDK and
| the Oracle JDK? Are they separate codebases?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-31 23:00 UTC)