Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oracle’s Java 11 trap

blog.joda.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 244 posts

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#201

Post by aseipp »

int0x80 wrote: post #180
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Zulu', right? What's their angle?

Modified openjdk with high perf. GC, JIT, tooling etc. It is very nice.

Zing and Zulu are not the same. Zing is a commercial JVM that has no open source equivalent, and has a completely bespoke design from my understanding -- calling Zing a "modified openjdk" is a stretch, from what I understand (especially considering OpenJDK is GPLv2.)

Zulu is Azul's build of open-source OpenJDK, and no different than any other OpenJDK such as one from jdk.net or AdoptOpenJDK -- it doesn't have a special JIT or special GC, but you can buy a support contract for Zulu (or use it at no cost). It's basically just another OpenJDK build, as far as most people are concerned.

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#202

Post by icedchai »

eitland wrote: post #200
icedchai wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't be coming for you. What prevents you from blocking outgoing telemetry?

It's not just telemetry. It's also social media. Online surveys. Everybody and your servers needs to keep mum about it or otherwise you'll get a call. You think I'm making this up? I've worked at two places where we were in contact with Oracle police because they thought we used (more of) their software.

These are likely biz dev / sales reps trying to drum up extra business, not lawyers. Calls and emails are easily ignored. I do it every day.

You ignore it, they move on to the next sucker. The people responding are the ones they'll work with.

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#203

Post by riku_iki »

jodastephen wrote: post #197
raquo wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that OpenJDK N will stop receiving security fixes the moment OpenJDK (N+1) is released. LTS releases are only LTS for Oracle JDK. So no, OpenJDK by itself is not suitable for production use. To put a Java app in production securely you now need to either pay Oracle or find someone to provide security fixes to OpenJDK beyond what Oracle provides for free.

Security patches will be available for Java 11 via Red Hat, IBM and others (who have promised to do so). And the binaries will be built and made available here https://adoptopenjdk.net/ as well as via other OpenJDK build farms (eg. Azul Zulu).

Is there any path for security updates/LTS for deb based linux distros?..

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#204

Post by posterboy »

marcolussetti wrote: post #145
doodpants wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's unclear to me is how I would be running afoul of the licensing terms if I used the non-free version of the JDK to develop Java software. Because "developing, testing, prototyping, and demonstrating [my] Application" is exactly what I'd be using the JDK for .

Not a lawyer, but my assumption is that the clause state you can develop an application, but cannot run it in production/sell it.

Easy loophole, infinite open beta, continuous integration, rolling release. At which point, with which release would it turn from beta to commercial full gold master? Slippery Slope that. A better wording would be "if you make money, we want a cut, or you get a cut, got it?"

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#205

Post by posterboy »

cbsmith wrote: post #139
yebyen wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying I'd write an "I Agree" bot, but I've certainly written scrapers of comparable or greater complexity, and I'd be quite surprised if there was nobody that did this. If you haven't written a bot, but you habitually download the JRE/JDK from Oracle's website, accepting the license manually each time, is there really a difference? How many people are rereading the license each time they do this? I would gue…

Writing an "I Agree" bot without checking out what the license was...

Entering a contract without checking out who the customer was ...

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#206

Post by riku_iki »

ofrzeta wrote: post #67
philbarr wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Go, what are those means? (I'm just starting with Go so it would be useful to see how we get all that stuff)

Go templates come with the standard library, an ORM could be GORM, for monitoring you can get metrics of the runtime through the package of the same name also in the standard library or on an application level use the Prometheus client API to make your application talk to the Prometheus monitoring system.

I think the premise of JEE is that you label your class by @SessionBean annotation, and everything is installed automatically for that class: RPC, load balancing, security, monitoring, and you don't need to shop for individual components and find the way how to glue them together. How this premise is implemented is another story. I am not sure about quality because didn't use jee for last 10 years, but when I was using it, IBM stack was far ahead of everything on the market, and was like your private PaaS with cloud functions, but with high license fees of course.

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#207

Post by bloodgain »

StreamBright wrote: post #181
repolfx wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm. At most you're mad because the bright yellow warning box that tells you specifically to re-read the license because it changed is not clear enough for you, even though apparently being sure about exactly that is your job. I'm not sure you can blame Oracle for this. They could I guess give you a tl;dr summary in the box. But, how long would it take you to study the new situation? A few minutes?

I am not mad. I am thankful. And yes I am a ignorant engineer who cares more about features than legal crap. The only thing I am 100% sure is that I am not alone.

If you don't care about all aspects of your software, including security, ethics, and legality, you are not an engineer. Engineering implies professionalism.

It's debatable whether there are any true software engineers (we're certainly not licensed like traditional engineers), but all software professionals should be concerned about licenses. It's part of the job, as are all ethical considerations of your work.

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#208

Post by bborud »

bodono wrote: post #160
bborud wrote: post #155

As many have pointed out, you can argue if this is a trap or not and you can make the case for both sides. But I think that discussion in itself clearly begs the question: do you want to deal with a company that makes it easy to make a potentially immensely expensive mistake? If anything, Oracle have demonstrated that if they feel you owe them something, they will take you to court. I changed what primary programming…

Which language did you pick?

It was down to Rust and Go and I picked Go.

(I mostly write server software, command line utilities and embedded software (embedded software in C/C++). If I wrote more embedded software on Cortex-M than server software om AMD64 I think I'd really like to use Rust.)

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#209

Post by fauigerzigerk »

paradite wrote: post #78

Is this actually a trap? The "trap" page has a huge warning section that clearly tells you license has substantially changed and how to get open JDK, and what license it has. > With JDK 11 Oracle has updated the license terms on which we offer the Oracle JDK. The new Oracle Technology Network License Agreement for Oracle Java SE is substantially different from the licenses under which previous versions of the JDK wer…

So they're turning a well known product that was free for decades into an expensive enterprise offering. And you're saying that calling it a "substantially different" license is a warning?

In my book this is not a warning at all. This is clearly an attempt to mislead without breaking any laws.

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#210

Post by floatboth »

vbezhenar wrote: post #127
djsumdog wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Confluence is an example of a piece of software that wouldn't run correctly at all under OpenJDK. Even today on the Atlasian docs, they provide a Docker image of Confluence to evaluate, but if you buy a production license, you are required to build an OracleJRE Docker container (they provide instructions) for production. It's been years and they still can't support OpenJDK ... it makes me wonder what weird proprietar…

Last time I tried to run Jira with OpenJDK, I stumbled upon some encryption algorithm not supported in OpenJDK. I didn't research further. But that was a long time ago, nowadays I bet that OpenJDK will work just as well.

I ran Jira with OpenJDK 8 on FreeBSD, everything worked fine.
Post reply on HN