cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kant Kodali <k...@peernova.com>
Subject Re: Why does Cassandra recommends Oracle JVM instead of OpenJDK?
Date Mon, 26 Dec 2016 22:24:31 GMT
The observations that James Gosling did aren't just relevant in the year
2010 but rather he expressed Oracle's DNA. He clearly expressed how the
upper management in that company works. And even today it works the same
way starting from decades ago.
If you know a character of someone you can predict what he or she would do.
And in that video Gosling more or less described the character of Oracle!

I dont mean to say JVM shouldn't be in hands of large entity but rather If
it was in the hands of companies like Google or Microsoft or say DataStax I
would have been more happy :)

Above all, I love JVM and the work of many smart people that are behind.  I
do wish Java 9 takes off really well with the module system where
containerized deployments


Google and andriod (j++--) ??? I don't even about j++-- existence. any
links? I tried a quick google search but couldn't find anything.

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Brice Dutheil <brice.dutheil@gmail.com>
wrote:

> A note on this video from the respected James Gosling, is that it is from
> 2010, when Oracle was new to the Java stewardship ecosystem. The company
> came a long since. I'm not saying everything is perfect. But I doubt that a
> product such as the JVM will be as good without a company guidance.
>
> The module system is interesting and is good thing regardless of the
> Oracle features. Having AWT classes for a server always annoyed me, for IoT
> as well. I'm really excited about Java 9.
>
>
> -- Brice
>
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxguru@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Kant Kodali <kant@peernova.com> wrote:
>>
>>> @Edward Agreed JVM is awesome and it is a work of many smart people and
>>> this is obvious if one looks into the JDK code. But given Oracle history of
>>> business practices and other decisions it is a bit hard to convince oneself
>>> that everything is going to be OK and that they actually care about open
>>> source. Even the module system that they are trying to come up with is
>>> something that motivated by the problem they have faced internally.
>>>
>>> To reiterate again just watch this video https://www.youtube.com/
>>> watch?v=9ei-rbULWoA
>>>
>>> My statements are not solely based on this video but I certainly would
>>> give good weight for James Gosling.
>>>
>>> I tend to think that Oracle has not closed Java because they know that
>>> cant get money from users because these days not many people are willing to
>>> pay even for distributed databases so I don't think anyone would pay for
>>> programming language. In short, Let me end by saying Oracle just has lot of
>>> self interest but I really hope that I am wrong since I am a big fan of JVM.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxguru@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Kant Kodali <kant@peernova.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Java 9 Module system looks really interesting. I would be very curious
>>>>> to see how Cassandra would leverage that.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Kant Kodali <kant@peernova.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would agree with Eric with his following statement. In fact, I
was
>>>>>> trying to say the same thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I don't really have any opinions on Oracle per say, but Cassandra
>>>>>> is a
>>>>>> Free Software project and I would prefer that we not depend on
>>>>>> commercial software, (and that's kind of what we have here, an
>>>>>> implicit dependency)."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 3:09 AM, Brice Dutheil <
>>>>>> brice.dutheil@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pretty much a non-story, it seems like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clickbait imho. Search ‘The Register’ in this wikipedia page
>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources#News_media>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @Ben Manes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed, OpenJDK and Oracle JDK are now pretty close, but there
is
>>>>>>> still some differences in the VM code and third party dependencies
like
>>>>>>> security libraries. Maybe that’s fine for some productions,
but maybe not
>>>>>>> for everyone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also another thing, while OpenJDK source is available to all,
I
>>>>>>> don’t think all OpenJDK builds have been certified with the
TCK. For
>>>>>>> example the Zulu OpenJDK is, as Azul have access to the TCK and
>>>>>>> certifies <https://www.azul.com/products/zulu/> the builds.
Another
>>>>>>> example OpenJDK build installed on RHEL is certified
>>>>>>> <https://access.redhat.com/articles/1299013>. Canonical
probably is
>>>>>>> running TCK comliance tests as well on thei OpenJDK 8 since they
are listed
>>>>>>> on the signatories
>>>>>>> <http://openjdk.java.net/groups/conformance/JckAccess/jck-access.html>
>>>>>>> but not sure as I couldn’t find evidence on this; on this signatories
list
>>>>>>> again there’s an individual – Emmanuel Bourg – who is related
to
>>>>>>> Debian <https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2015/01/msg00015.html>
>>>>>>> (linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/ebourg>), but not
sure again
>>>>>>> the TCK is passed for each build.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bad OpenJDK intermediary builds, i.e without TCK compliance tests,
>>>>>>> is a reality
>>>>>>> <https://github.com/docker-library/openjdk/commit/00a9c5c080f2a5fd1510bc0716db7afe06cbd017>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While the situation has enhanced over the past months I’ll
still
>>>>>>> double check before using any OpenJDK builds.
>>>>>>> ​
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Brice
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Voytek Jarnot <
>>>>>>> voytek.jarnot@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reading that article the only conclusion I can reach (unless
I'm
>>>>>>>> misreading) is that all the stuff that was never free is
still not free -
>>>>>>>> the change is that Oracle may actually be interested in the
fact that some
>>>>>>>> are using non-free products for free.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pretty much a non-story, it seems like.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Kant Kodali <kant@peernova.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Looking at this http://www.theregister.co
>>>>>>>>> .uk/2016/12/16/oracle_targets_java_users_non_compliance/?mt=
>>>>>>>>> 1481919461669 I don't know why Cassandra recommends Oracle
JVM?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> JVM is a great piece of software but I would like to
stay away
>>>>>>>>> from Oracle as much as possible. Oracle is just horrible
the way they are
>>>>>>>>> dealing with Java in General.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> "I don't really have any opinions on Oracle per say, but Cassandra is a
>>>> Free Software project and I would prefer that we not depend on
>>>> commercial software, (and that's kind of what we have here, an
>>>> implicit dependency)."
>>>>
>>>> We are a bit loose here with terms "free" and "commercial". The oracle
>>>> JVM is open source, it is free to use and the trademark is owned by a
>>>> company.
>>>>
>>>> That is not much different then using a tool for cassandra like a
>>>> driver hosted on github but made my a company.
>>>>
>>>> The thing about a JVM is that like a kernel you want really smart
>>>> dedicated people working on it. Oracle has moved the JVM forward since
>>>> taking over sun. You can not just manage a JVM like say the freebsd port
of
>>>> x maintained by 3 part time dudes that all get paid to do something else.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Many of the modern languages are "propped up" by commercial entities.
>>
>> Microsoft and c#(j++, .net, etc )
>> Google and go
>> Google and andriod (j++--)
>> Apple and swift
>>
>> The open initiatives have there own set of problems. Mainly adoption and
>> leadership, for example compare c# with rust or scala.
>>
>> No one pays for the language directly you pay for the eco-system and
>> tools around it. I see JVM without a large entity like sun/oracle to be a
>> strange beast. No large entity to sync time and money into things like G1
>> garbage collector.
>>
>> I could see efforts like lambda's happening more like a scala world,
>> where you have compatibility issues between 2.9 and 2.10, constant
>> repackaging, ideological arguments over what is idiomatic. c++ 11,14,17 is
>> a good example of that. I never seem to have a compiler that can deal with
>> the syntax in the spec. I am constantly rebuilding a compiler from source
>> to compile someone else source code that supposedly matching a spec from 5
>> years ago.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message