Ubuntu 11.10 VM including OpenJDK Build Image

Wade Chandler hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com
Fri Feb 24 15:05:08 UTC 2012

On 02/24/2012 09:29 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 02/24/2012 01:58 PM, Wade Chandler wrote:
>> On 02/24/2012 04:20 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 02/24/2012 02:21 AM, Wade Chandler wrote:
>>>> That forces Linux distros to distribute OpenJDK only and users to
>>>> get Oracle JDK 7,8,etc on their own if there is to be such a thing
>>>> and obviously depending on its price.
>>> Well, OK.  So what?  Why would anybody care?  OpenJDK is just fine.
>> This is all my opinion of course, we have gotten down into this
>> conversation, but all the points here are related to exactly the reasons
>> we have been talking about. So, here is the rest of my thought process
>> on this topic, and will just leave it at that.
>> To answer "So what? Why would anybody care?" Really?
>> What is OpenJDK? Every Linux distros OpenJDK is what? Testing is
>> what?  Users download what? Today, many applications have issues
>> running on OpenJDK because of differences. If OpenJDK is the defacto
>> Java, and it has issues compared to the previous defacto Java, and
>> TCKs are not run on distributions for popular operating systems
>> easily grabbed from the site, and there are no binary downloads
>> available, or at least this is perceived because of having to find
>> each and everyone in one of hundreds of projects, then what is it,
>> and how can many application developers use it, and without those
>> end user developers, how does it continue to be as strong as it is
>> today?
> We've got to solve the true problem, not patch around it.  If the
> OpenJDK on some of the distros is defective or untested, we are not
> going to solve that problem by providing a binary download that hasn't
> been tested on that distro.  That just takes us back to the dreadful
> state of affairs before all the distros packaged OpenJDK.
>> For me the binary distribution is a big part of this. OpenJDK may be
>> more important than NetBeans or Eclipse, but only because there are
>> more applications using it.
> That's a reasonable operational definition of "important".
>> Without good IDEs there won't be many developers writing
>> applications for it. The new comers will be doing what all of us did
>> when we were younger as it relates to Java, but with different
>> technologies; using the free IDEs for C/C++, Python, PHP (which I
>> also do today, but still a valid point). If it doesn't remain as
>> easily accessible as Java has in the past I am of the opinion it
>> will not remain on top, and my reason for these points on easily
>> downloadable binaries.
> All of these are easily downloadable on all the distros.  That's what
> distros do very well.  I remember the bad old days of free software
> where you really did have to grab a compiler from here, developer
> tools from there, and so on.  It was horrible.
>> For instance, upcoming versions EA releases or simply validating
>> whether OpenJDK runs applications running on the Oracle build or
>> older versions of the JVM.
> Fair point.  That is a valid technical reason for keeping a bunch of
> old Java binaries around.  It would be a valuable resource for
> developers.  It would be a Bad Thing, to say the least, if end users
> ended up using these downloads.
>> Should folks wanting to help test those things out have to build the
>> system? Seems that loses a lot of folks who could help track down
>> bugs and make it better using their real world applications.
>> They "could" still do that, but it comes down to time. In most cases
>> those folks are paid to work on business/domain logic. Testing and
>> getting ready for new platform releases is part of that. Building the
>> JDK probably not, and that isn't their fault. Some are paid to work on
>> OpenJDK, and for obvious reasons, it is the basis of large vendor
>> platforms. Both types are extremely important.
>> So, I'm not knocking it. I want it to succeed. I think there are certain
>> things which can make that more probable.
> Fair enough.  But encouraging people do use binaries that have been
> put on a site that may or may not have been tested and may or may not
> have any kind of update mechanism is *dangerous*.  I can't stress
> this enough.
>> But, too, that all depends on what the exact goals of OpenJDK
>> are. If some of these things are not goals of OpenJDK, then that is
>> fine too. If the goal of OpenJDK isn't to produce any binary result,
> Of course it is!  But you don't get a binary by just building it, or
> at least a binary that a reasonable person would trust.
>> but to instead be a basis for the involved vendors brands of JVMs,
>> then I believe that should be stated some where on the front page as
>> many people use Java and have dedicated their time to it.
> You're saying it as though OpenJDK not providing binaries is a bad
> thing.  It's not.  OpenJDK is, and has always been, a source
> distribution, for the reasons that I have tried -- apparently
> unsuccessfully -- to explain.
> It would be fantastic if someone could put in place a mechanism to
> build and update properly tested OpenJDK binaries for all operating
> systems.  But it is not just a matter of doing a build and putting it
> on a web site somewhere: with distribution comes responsibility.
> I admit that this is a free-software-centered viewpoint.  I apologize,
> but that's the only viewpoint I have.
> Andrew.
No worries Andrew. It is a valid viewpoint you have. I just wanted to 
stress my points, and you have communicated yours very well. On some 
points I very much agree with you. Others I think it isn't as black or 
white, but I think that it is OK to disagree on some things. Thank you 
very much for the discussion.



Wade Chandler

Software Engineer and Consultant
NetBeans Contributor
NetBeans Dream Team Member


More information about the discuss mailing list