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

101–110 of 244 posts

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#101

Post by dnomad »

StreamBright wrote: post #97
unmole wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone installing JDK via a package manager would be installing the GPL version.

Absolutely not. We are installing via a package manager the Oracle issued RPM for example. I would have missed the licensing story if Joda was not writing an article about it.

How is that possible? Are you going to the Oracle download page and downloading the RPMs? Are you specifically adding a repository that includes Oracle software?

There are certainly no default repositories that include this code. The whole point (and it's been this way for years) is that you can't download the Oracle jdk without clicking through a license.

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#102

Post by pjmlp »

wheresvic1 wrote: post #16

I'm not sure Java is worth the effort at this point. If I'm going to have to keep updating every 6 months, I would rather use Go, which seems to have all that Java has to offer + the backing of a huge corporation.

Let me just try that nice Go UI framework, oh wait...

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#103

Post by ofrzeta »

veidr wrote: post #71
pharaohgeek wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I wish Swift had a larger server-side ecosystem around it. I love the language, and some of the new web app frameworks (Vapor, Perfect, Kitura, etc.) are really great. However, there just aren't as many open-source, third-party libraries as there are for Java. To me, that's really Java's strength. There are libraries or clients for EVERYTHING.

I like Swift, too, and if it's a rap battle between Swift and Java, I think Swift has to emphasize C interop, and more recently (or perhaps "soonly"?) Python interop. But regardless, we're gonna have to give it a few years to get a Swift ecosystem even trying to get on the mic in the same venues as Java/JDK.

I don't think this is gonna happen. There's no huge momentum behind Swift on the server. And when IBM is losing interest it will be reduced by 50 percent. Apple doesn't seem to be too much interested in Swift on a server (apart from releasing SwiftNIO, that's about it). When you take a look at the commit stats of Vapor on GitHub you will notice that there's not much going on either.

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#104

Post by dudul »

holtalanm wrote: post #94
dudul wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to confuse the language Java and the JVM. Updating the JVM (which you are not forced to do) does not mean that you need to update your code base. That's actually Java's main strength (and weakness), it is compatible all the way to version 1.0

go ahead and try building a sufficiently large project written in java 6 on the java 9 jdk and tell me how backward compatible it is. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Maybe you can point us towards which parts would break compatibility. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#105

Post by LaGrange »

dnomad wrote: post #99
jodastephen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everybody reads warnings. Many will go to that page and just go straight to the download. In addition, the warning doesn't say "not for commercial use" - you have to click through and read a long legalese to find it. Oracle could still choose to make it clearer...

There's no "long legalese." The new license ( https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license... ) is very clear. It states in plain English: "Further, You may not: use the Programs for any data processing or any commercial, production, or internal business purposes other than developing, testing, prototyping, and demonstrating your Application;". How is that not clear? This entire article is just pure F…

> How is that not clear?

You'd think it's clear, and yet I've joined projects where software with such terms was included in production builds because "it was downloaded with npm so it's open source."

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#106

Post by ofrzeta »

What about compatibility? Recently I installed PDFsam on Windows 10 that required a JRE. I installed OpenJDK but the application didn't start. With Oracle JRE it did work. I didn't bother to debug the startup problems, though.

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#107

Post by brokensegue »

holtalanm wrote: post #94
dudul wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to confuse the language Java and the JVM. Updating the JVM (which you are not forced to do) does not mean that you need to update your code base. That's actually Java's main strength (and weakness), it is compatible all the way to version 1.0

go ahead and try building a sufficiently large project written in java 6 on the java 9 jdk and tell me how backward compatible it is. Go ahead, I'll wait.

That's not what they claimed...

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#108

Post by LaGrange »

dnomad wrote: post #101
StreamBright wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not. We are installing via a package manager the Oracle issued RPM for example. I would have missed the licensing story if Joda was not writing an article about it.

How is that possible? Are you going to the Oracle download page and downloading the RPMs? Are you specifically adding a repository that includes Oracle software? There are certainly no default repositories that include this code. The whole point (and it's been this way for years) is that you can't download the Oracle jdk without clicking through a license.

It's fairly common to automate that stuff away, and not just for Oracle.

For example, if agreeing to TOS was neccessary, Let's Encrypt could no longer be "totally automated". Therefore certbot has an "--agree-tos" option, present in oh so many ansible repositories.

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#109

Post by xtrapolate »

wheresvic1 wrote: post #16

I'm not sure Java is worth the effort at this point. If I'm going to have to keep updating every 6 months, I would rather use Go, which seems to have all that Java has to offer + the backing of a huge corporation.

So Go is somehow immune from a similar fate? What's the reasoning behind this?

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#110

Post by cowsandmilk »

LaGrange wrote: post #105
dnomad wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no "long legalese." The new license ( https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license... ) is very clear. It states in plain English: "Further, You may not: use the Programs for any data processing or any commercial, production, or internal business purposes other than developing, testing, prototyping, and demonstrating your Application;". How is that not clear? This entire article is just pure F…

> How is that not clear? You'd think it's clear, and yet I've joined projects where software with such terms was included in production builds because "it was downloaded with npm so it's open source."

Huge difference legally between running:

    npm install package
And having a user certify that they read a license agreement. I'll leave it to lawyers to talk about whether a user actually agrees to a license when they run "npm install", but Oracle's site at least requires the user to accept the license agreement by physically clicking a button. And I've worked at a lot of companies that drill into you that you do not click that button without approval from legal.
Post reply on HN