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 Tue, 03 Jan 2017 07:50:57 GMT
The fact that Oracle would even come up with something like this "Oracle's
position was that Google should have to license code from them." is just
messed up. And these kind of business practices are exactly the reason why
to stay away. Of course every company is there to make money. You look at
Google or FB and see how much open source contribution they have
done. Oracle doesnt come anywhere close to that.

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxguru@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:30 PM, Kant Kodali <kant@peernova.com> wrote:
>
>> This is a subjective question and of course it would turn into
>> opinionated answers and I think we should welcome that (Nothing wrong in
>> debating a topic). we have many such debates as SE's such as programming
>> language comparisons, Architectural debates, Framework/Library debates and
>> so on. people who don't like this conversation can simply refrain from
>> following this thread right. I don't know why they choose to Jump in if
>> they dont like a topic
>>
>> Sun is a great company no doubt! I don't know if Oracle is. Things like
>> this https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/220136-google-plans-
>> to-remove-oracles-java-apis-from-android-n is what pisses me about
>> Oracle which gives an impression that they are not up for open source. It
>> would be awesome to see JVM running on more and more devices (not less) so
>> Google taking away Oracle Java API's from Android is a big failure from
>> Oracle.
>>
>> JVM is a great piece of Software and by far there isn't anything yet that
>> comes close. And there are great people who worked at SUN at that time.
>> open the JDK source code and read it. you will encounter some great ideas
>> and Algorithms.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxguru@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Benjamin Roth <benjamin.roth@jaumo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does this discussion really make sense any more? To me it seems it
>>>> turned opinionated and religious. From my point of view anything that has
>>>> to be said was said.
>>>>
>>>> Am 02.01.2017 21:27 schrieb "Edward Capriolo" <edlinuxguru@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Eric Evans <john.eric.evans@gmail.com
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Edward Capriolo <
>>>>>> edlinuxguru@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> > "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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are we?  There are many definitions for the word "free", only one
of
>>>>>> which means "without cost"; I assumed it was obvious that I was
>>>>>> talking about licensing terms (and of course the implications of
that
>>>>>> licensing).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cassandra is Free Software by virtue of the fact that it is Apache
>>>>>> Licensed.  You are Free (as in Freedom) to modify and redistribute
it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Oracle JVM ships with a commercial license.  It is free only
in
>>>>>> the sense that you are not required to pay anything to use it, (i.e.
>>>>>> you are not Free to do much of anything other than use it to run
Java
>>>>>> software).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > That is not much different then using a tool for cassandra like
a
>>>>>> driver
>>>>>> > hosted on github but made my a company.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is very different IME.  Cassandra requires a JVM to function,
this
>>>>>> is a hard dependency.  A driver is merely a means to make use of
it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't how to read any of this.  It sounds like you're saying that
a
>>>>>> JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,
>>>>>> or maybe that you just really like Oracle, I'm honestly not sure.
 It
>>>>>> doesn't seem relevant though, because there is in fact a Free Software
>>>>>> JVM (and in addition to some mere mortals, the fine people at Oracle
>>>>>> do contribute to it).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Eric Evans
>>>>>> john.eric.evans@gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are we?  There are many definitions for the word "free", only one of
>>>>> which means "without cost"; I assumed it was obvious that I was
>>>>> talking about licensing terms (and of course the implications of that
>>>>> licensing).
>>>>>
>>>>> Lets be clear:
>>>>> What I am saying is avoiding being loose with the word "free"
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license
>>>>>
>>>>> Many things with the JVM are free too. Most importantly it is free to
>>>>> use.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/distribution.xml
>>>>>
>>>>> As it relates to this conversation: I am not aware of anyone running
>>>>> Cassandra that has modified upstream JVM to make Cassandra run
>>>>> better/differently *. Thus the license around the Oracle JVM is roughly
>>>>> meaningless to the user/developer of cassandra.
>>>>>
>>>>> * The only group I know that took an action to modify upstream was
>>>>> Acunu. They had released a modified Linux Kernel with a modified Apache
>>>>> Cassandra. http://cloudtweaks.com/2011/02/data-storage-start
>>>>> up-acunu-raises-3-6-million-to-launch-its-first-product/. That
>>>>> product no longer exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> "I don't how to read any of this.  It sounds like you're saying that
a
>>>>> JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,"
>>>>>
>>>>> What I am saying is something like the JVM "could" be produced as a
>>>>> "free software project". However, the argument that I was making is that
>>>>> the popular viable languages/(including vms or runtime to use them) today
>>>>> including Java, C#, Go, Swift are developed by the largest tech companies
>>>>> in the world, and as such I do believe a platform would be viable.
>>>>> Specifically I believe without Oracle driving Java OpenJDK would not
be
>>>>> viable.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are two specific reasons.
>>>>> 1) I do not see large costly multi-year initiatives like G1 happening
>>>>> 2) Without guidance/leadership that sun/oracle I do not see new
>>>>> features that change the language like lambda's and try multi-catch
>>>>> happening in a sane way.
>>>>>
>>>>> I expanded upon #2 be discussing my experience with standards like c++
>>>>> 11, 14,17 and attempting to take compiling working lambda code on linux
GCC
>>>>> to microsoft visual studio and having it not compile. In my opinion,
Java
>>>>> only wins because as a platform it is very portable as both source and
>>>>> binary code. Without leadership on that front I believe that over time
the
>>>>> language would suffer.
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is very different IME.  Cassandra requires a JVM to function, this
>>>>> is a hard dependency.  A driver is merely a means to make use of it."
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL. Sure a database with a driver is very useful. I mean it sits
>>>>> there flushing empty memtables and writing to its log file. You can run
>>>>> nodetool ring and imagine where data would go if you could put data into
>>>>> it. Very exciting stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> It does matter in some regards. Cassandra has historically been more
>>> coupled to specific JVM's than other Java projects. Specifically, in the
>>> past I attempted to run Cassandra on Azul JVM and the key cache did not
>>> load as the key cache used some sun.misc.unsafe code that  worked
>>> differently on a different JVM. (I never confirmed if this was a bug in
>>> oracle/azul/cassandra code)
>>>
>>> I have been burned by IceaTea and OpenJDK a few times over the years. I
>>> do my best to install what is the "common" platform for most users. If the
>>> project is going to take a position or bias development on one or the other
>>> it matters.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> Oracle's position was that Google should have to licence code from them.
>
> This has been a sticking point for the last few years. After a jury found
> in favor of Google, a appeals court mostly reversed that judgement. A
> petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case was rejected earlier this
> year
> <http://www.extremetech.com/computing/209073-supreme-court-wont-hear-googles-appeal-in-java-api-case>,
> and the case now sits at a lower court waiting to decide on Google’s fair
> use argument. In the meantime, Google is making sure this isn’t an issue
> going forward.
>
> At once point Oracle released a 100+ page presentation about its case
> siting emails from people at google making statements to the effect of "we
> are going to need to licence this (jvm) at some point (from sun)".
>
> SUN was a great company. But you know SUN was out to make money as well. I
> was a system admin for SUN hardware like SUN E450s. Some SUN systems had
> "interesting features". One such "feature" was their "certified" hard
> drives with special "firmware" with the rebranded drives being 2x-3x the
> cost. See "spud brackets" and other "interesting" http://www.
> verycomputer.com/39_3960a4e1434e7562_1.htm things you had to do with
> firmware etc. If you got caught needing support and happened to have a "non
> certified" disk you could find yourself persona non grata.
>
> Yes, SUN had beautiful hardware, os, and software. But
> 1) it was not cheap
> 2) solaris OS was not open-solaris until after they leaked the code on
> accident
> 3) the majority of solaris users (that I knew) ran the entire GNU
> toolchain side by side the solaris tool chain because Solaris had a funny
> way of cornering you into buying their really pricey compiler if you tried
> to use the "trusted" packages
>
> I am mainly a user of the  SUN/Oracle JVM. My logic for switching is based
> on the quality and frequency of releases. If I stuck with SUN though there
> "spud brackets" and "special firmware", so I will give oracle some leverage
> to drop the ball before I switch to the next thing with "open" in the name
> :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message