John Reynolds's Blog

Open Office and Java - I'm for it

From a recent java.net news entry:

"As OpenOffice.org 2.0 approaches version 2.0 final it is being meet increasingly with opposition by free software advocates over its dependency on Java."

I am delighted that Open Office is finally leveraging Java. While early attempts to create pure Java office suites failed (Lotus tried this back in the 90's), Netbeans 4.1 has demonstrated that Swing is up to the task of producing a high quality user interface.

I think we're long past due in seeing an office suite that takes advantage of Java's capabilities (I know OOo is far from embracing this idea, but you can't blame a guy for dreaming).

I know that relying on Java causes ethical conundrums for those who want complete freedom of distribution, but Java is free for download (cost to the end user is not really an issue). It's surprising to me that the many Sun employees who are paid to work on the project use anything other than Java.

If Java really makes you cry, as a short-term solution there's always KOffice. It's really quite nice. Forking OOo is also a great short-term option (and I understand that many of the Java dependencies can be dealt with by using Classpath). Long-term, my bet is that Sun will OS Java, and we can put this issue behind us (or maybe Harmony will really happen).

If you think that we're way overdue for an office suite that embraces Java, please let Sun (and the other OOo contributors) know. If the OOo folks only hear from those who believe that Java is a trap, then Open Office will be sucked into C/C++ hell forever.

Comments

• By saying that "but Java is free for download" I think you miss the point.

  Yes, it is free to download and I was thinking along the same lines. Recently I switched to Linux (Ubuntu) as my main desktop, both at home and at work, and now I start to understand where the real problem is. Java is not free to distribute or to recompile. And this is huge.

  What this means is that Java cannot be included into the main repositories of the Debian distributions (for example). If it is not in the repository then it does not exist. Period.

  The result is that more and more C# desktop applications are being created for Linux. If I select to install a C# based application it automatically checks the dependencies and also installs Mono if needed. This is not possible with Java.

  I hope Sun will smarten up before it is too late.

  To conclude, I am all for Open Office and Java but only if it is a free version of Java. Otherwise it does not make sense. Most Linux distros these days are including Open Office, if the new version will depend on Java then they will have to drop Open Office completely.

  
  Reply from John: Marius, you missed the point of the point that I missed... Uh... never mind ;-)

  I have no experience with Debian Linux. If you can download a version of Java that will work with it for free, then I stand by my statement. Cost to the end user is not really an issue (although there is a bit of inconvenience). You're worried about the principal of the thing, and what may happen in the future. I'm certainly not going to insult your principals or ridicule your fears.

  If you cannot download a version of Java (for free) that works with Debian, then I'll have to modify my thoughts a bit. I still want a Java office suite... but I'd lean ever-so-slightly towards your position.

  Posted by: mariuss on May 12, 2005 at 01:28 PM

• Mariuss: please, take into account that there are people working on making OO and GCJ (one of the free runtimes).. read http://gnu.wildebeest.org/diary/index.php?p=73 and follow it and you will notice that if everything runs smoothly, all the gaps will be solved for the 2.0 release. More important to note is that OO developers are open to make accept the fixes neccesary to allow free runtimes.

  I think that using Java is a good decission, It is really easy is to take already existing Java code (or new) and integrate with an OO document

  Posted by: robmv on May 12, 2005 at 02:40 PM

• Who knew there could be such intollerance among supposed free thinkers?

  Posted by: rabbe on May 12, 2005 at 02:50 PM

• I noticed that both the JRE and the JDK are available in the Ubuntu (a Debian distribution) repositories. JRE is in hoary-extras/restricted repository, and JDK is in hoary-extras/restricted [STAGING]. Hey, it's a start!
  

  Posted by: gordyt on May 12, 2005 at 03:30 PM

• What Marius meant is that Debian is unable to package a Java runtime in their packaging system and distribute it the "Debian way" (Debian's packaging system retrieves files from a central repository, so you don't have to go to a different website for each program you want to install).

  This means that installing Sun's Java on a Debian system is a real pain; it's doable (I'm switching to Debian for my Java development, in fact, so it is doable), but it's way more painful than it would be if Sun's implementation were open, and Debian could re-arrange the components to fit into its packaging system.

  Reply from John: You get what you pay for! ;-)I have to laugh when I think back to all the times I have been flamed for criticising various Open Source applications because they were difficult to install.

  Posted by: afishionado on May 12, 2005 at 03:44 PM

• i for one, very happy about more Java involvment with OOo. We developed a plug-in for OOo in java and it is a big pain in 1.1.x versions. People should wake up and smell the coffee. End users, or big corporates do not care about whinings of a bunch of GPL zealots who knows nothing about current situation of Java... What they care is reducing costs and using stg that just works.. This comment seems a bit harsh and offensive, but this is how i feel too.

  Posted by: ahmetaa on May 12, 2005 at 04:01 PM

• The problem is that, when the JRE/JDK has restrictions on how it can be packaged, redistributed, etc., it's difficult for linux distributions to make it "just work". I can 'apt-get install myMonoApp', but I can't 'apt-get install myJavaApp'. Java applications are a "special case", and as long as that is true, OOo will also need to be a "special case".

  Reply from John: Sounds like this is a problem for the Linux distribution to solve. It sounds like the packaging system is rather unflexible... Java is a special case, but I still don't grasp why you couldn't simplify it's explicit installation. But as I said before, I don't have experience with Linux distributions that don't include Java.

  Posted by: richunger on May 12, 2005 at 04:20 PM

• I think it's more a problem for Sun's lawyers to solve. If debian is not _allowed_ to package the JDK with the base system (even in the non-free repository), then they can't package java apps like OOo that depend on it. I think Sun loses more than Debian does in this scenario.

  Posted by: richunger on May 12, 2005 at 04:52 PM

• John, since you keep saying that If you can download a version of Java that will work with it for free, then I stand by my statement. I still think that you miss the point. I would have said the exact same thing a few months ago, before I switched to Linux. The way applications are distributed and installed under a Debian system is totally different from what we are used under the Windows world. In the Debian world to download a free application means to be able to apt-get it, and this is not possible for Java. Also, in this Debian world download/install is the minor issue, the big one is tracking dependencies.

  robmv, thanks for the link, it is really good news.

  gordyt, I enabled all the extra repositories mentioned on the Ubuntu Guide and there is still no Java in sight. Anyhow, it should be in the main repository not in a custom one. Otherwise you have to move OpenOffice to that custom repository as well.

  ahmetaa, I am not a GPL zealot, I am just looking at the facts. As I said, mono is free and more and more apps are using it. Who is going to lose?

  My general impression is that Sun is deliberatly neglecting the desktop, for whatever reason.

  
  Reply from John: Sounds like Debian needs to improve their installation process ;-)

  Posted by: mariuss on May 12, 2005 at 05:18 PM

• Mariuss, you make my point so much better than I did :)

  I would add to it, however. It's not just the desktop. If I want to create a website on a debian box, and I want to use java, I can't just 'apt-get install jboss'. However, I can 'apt-get install php', point a browser to http://localhost/phpsamplepage.php.

  Also, I did a search on rpmfind.net for a sun JDK, and I found a version for SuSE, but not redhat/fedora. So, I don't think Debian and their "zealots" are the problem here.

  
  Reply from John: I really do see your point, I'm just egging you and Mariuss on. I beg forgiveness.
  Is this inconvenience really a reason to boycot OOo and brand Java as a trap? I don't think so, and I doubt that you or Mariuss do either. I'm still betting this is all temporary... either Sun will OS Java, or IBM will do it for them. Peace ;-)

  Posted by: richunger on May 12, 2005 at 05:29 PM

• We have been using Java on Debian (Knoppix installer), Mandrake, or RedHat for a long time and it is not so difficult to install.
  But I agree that even if Java is not lgpled or gpled it should have less restrictions on distribution and more system should have a port, that's the road to success on the desktop.
  By the way I've just read that mono won't be packaged by RedHat, so the raod is not much clearer there.
  I love the idea of Java into OO, the java community is huge with tons of great code and many developpers so it should help OO becoming a great professional tool.

  Posted by: ehsavoie on May 13, 2005 at 12:59 AM

• Perhaps some people will say that I'm going to far, but I always said that Open Office should be re-written entirely in Java.

  Reply from John: Peyrona, you are going way too far. We should allow OOo commiters to use Jython and Groovy too ;-)

  Posted by: peyrona on May 13, 2005 at 06:40 AM

• Mariuss: this may interest you.

  I'm the guy behind the Ubuntu-Java project and I maintain a couple of packages for both the JDK and the JRE.

  From what I can see, it seems there some real demand for Java in Linux. I moved the repository to a new server at May,1 and last time I looked at the stats Ubuntu users (and these are *only* Ubuntu users, and of the kind that knows how to deal with setting up a repository and is aware of Java) had already downloaded over 35Gb worth of JDK/JRE.

  I can't even imagine the impact it could have if free distribution was allowed (hint: SUN ease up on the darn Licence Agreement).
  

  Posted by: cliffb53 on May 13, 2005 at 08:38 AM

• We develop a lot of java applications for internal use and for clients and are heavy users of the OO java sdk, infact we rely on it so much that if java support went from OO we would be forced to drop all of our corporate IT infrastructure and go for something like a bespoke SAP soution.

  We also package our applications for clients with the sun java implementation and OO - licensing works fine from this angle.

  Posted by: aubergine on May 13, 2005 at 08:48 AM

• The problem is NOT with Java. The problem lies with many Linux distributions inane requirement that everything in their distro be open-source. SUSE Linux ships with the full JDK. Why can't the other distros?

  I think it's time for other Linux distros to stop preaching religion and start supporting their users.

  Posted by: heathm on May 13, 2005 at 09:09 AM

• heathm, reading your message just shows you have absolutely no understanding of how a free distribution works nor have you spent a couple of hours understanding SUN's Licence Agreement.

  That's ok, most people just click on the "Next" button when they see that kind of stuff, so I understand you POV.

  Posted by: cliffb53 on May 13, 2005 at 09:22 AM

• Reply from John: You get what you pay for! ;-)
  I have to laugh when I think back to all the times I have been flamed for criticising various Open Source applications because they were difficult to install.

  Reply from John: Sounds like Debian needs to improve their installation process ;-)

  You're starting to ruffle my feathers a bit. I paid good money for my Debian CDs.

  Debian has a packaging system lightyears ahead of anything I have seen in Windows, MacOS, or any other Linux distribution. It does tons of administrative overhead behind the scenes for you. It makes installing applications on Windows seem ridiculously complicated and tedious.

  Have you ever installed Sun's Java on a Linux system? Sun's Linux installer for Java is disgusting. Using it involves navigating through Sun's site to *find* the dang download, downloading it, running the installer, *then* copying the files to the right place because the installer got confused and dumped everything into the wrong directory, then you have to explicitly add the Java install directory to the path in the startup script manually for every single user on the system. This is not just a problem in Debian--it's a problem in Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, Slackware, Gentoo, and any other distribution you care to name.

  Debian comes up because installing Java could be so much easier if it were integrated into Debian's installer. Debian's apt-get is capable of doing all this in one short, sweet command:

  apt-get install java

  If Sun weren't so closed-minded about their licensing.

  You just don't get it--and you probably won't until you've spent a few years trying to make Java work under Linux (just using distributions that have the JRE pre-installed doesn't count). It's attitudes like this that is keeping the OS community from embracing Java.

  Reply from John: Afishionado, please don't confuse "John doesn't get it" with "John doesn't agree with me" (that starts to ruffle my feathers). I get it. Let's agree to disagree.

  I do hope that the Debian Community (and other Linux distros) and Sun come up with a win-win solution. Based on the movement that I have seen from Sun over the years (Open Source Solaris), I think a solution is possible, but it is made very difficult when one side is too rigid. I respect folks beliefs that some principals are too important to compromise, but I do ask them to remember that the other side also has principals that they don't want to compromise. Peace, and please smooth your feathers ;-)

  Posted by: afishionado on May 13, 2005 at 09:57 AM

• 
  John said: "Sounds like this is a problem for the Linux distribution to solve. It sounds like the packaging system is rather unflexible... Java is a special case, but I still don't grasp why you couldn't simplify it's explicit installation. But as I said before, I don't have experience with Linux distributions that don't include Java."

  Just to clarify, Debian is not the only Linux distro around! There are other distros which have better package managers and therefore easier installation of Java. For example, I use ArchLinux, which uses its own "pacman" package management software. Rest assured, when you try and install an app with a Java dependency, you'll find that the JRE gets installed too. I seem to recall during my time with Gentoo, installing Java wasn't an issue.

  Posted by: arooaroo on May 13, 2005 at 10:53 AM

• You know I have never seen such a bunch of whinners, as Sorry to say the Debian group. Oh, If I can't use 'apt-get' it is bad. Just Get Over It. How hard would it be to make apt-get, come back with something like 'Please Download Java first from www.sun.com, before installing this package', when a user first tries to install a Java program. Most companies are going to create a disk image, and if they know that java is required, they will place it into the image that they use to update the computers. Most companies do not allow employes to add programs to their computers as they like. I have programs that are used by the Major Auto companies, and specifing that the programs require Java is no big deal. I do not distrubute Java with my program, they must download it from sun, as specified in the manual. Sun has every right to control how 'Java' is distributed. And the OOo group going with Java and requiring it is not a big deal, I think they have a right to use what tools allow them to produce a better product. If the Debian or any other group does not like it, then let them come up with their own Office tools. I am not really trying to pick on the Debian group but they are the most 'if it is not 100% open source then it is bad' group, I think they need to get off their high horse and live in the real world.
  Reply from John: Please remember that we're all friends here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even a really rigid opinion. You make a good point though... The people who write OOo have the right to use whatever they want to.

  Posted by: rmorse on May 13, 2005 at 04:21 PM

• I strongly support the Open Office Java initiative. I think it is a good strategy for its survivality and maintainability.

  Posted by: angsuman on May 14, 2005 at 12:42 AM

• 
  I know that relying on Java causes ethical conundrums for those who want complete freedom of distribution, but Java is free for download (cost to the end user is not really an issue). It's surprising to me that the many Sun employees who are paid to work on the project use anything other than Java.

  Well, its not the price of java, its rather the dependency which makes OSS people cry, since history has shown that relying on non-free base tachnology can always be dangerous.
  Who can 100% GUARANTEE me, that java will be always as free as its now, will always support the OSes I would need, in fact nobody!

  I am really pro-java, since java is a clean language with a great class-library but I am not willed to pay the price of a vendor-lockin.
  Instead my favourite is to at least official support one open source runtime and create a well designed interface to java so that any JVM could be plugged in if it is compatible to the interface and has a enough-complete classpath.
  Till now there were internal sun-classes used in the OOo codebase which are not part of the standard, so how should any free competitor be compatible?

  Have you ever tried GCJ? Its amazing how great it already works, especially if you keep in mind that compared to SUN there were no $$$$$, most done in freetime or by companies like redhat since they need it for their distros. And if developers would limit their class-useage to GNU/Classpath and respect the JVM-Interface they can be nearly sure that it also works great on SUN-JVM, etc...
  I even think GCJ is better for OOo since OOo is not cross-platform anyway so the whole runtime-overhead you have with java is not needed at all.
  GCJ needs no time to start up (except for loading its shared libs) and does only use very little memory.
  If you use SUN-Jvm and switch e.g. from main->database you have to wait 10s and your memory-useage increases by at least 25mb...

  lg Clemens
  Reply from John: Well done. Very good explanation of your position with respect to relying on non-OS code and a very good technical analysis. Thanks for helping keep this discussion on track.
  Update (from John): Here's a loony thought about about "guaranteeing" that Java will always be free... If I understand the current JRE license, it grants us the right to distribute the current JRE as long as it's bundled with our application. If we bundle OOo with today's JRE, then we'll always be able to redistribute today's JRE for free. Not exactly what you had in mind, but it's (sort of) a guarantee. How's that for convoluted logic? ;-)

  Posted by: linuxhippy on May 14, 2005 at 01:05 AM

• I think there is a lot of FUD being spread left and right. Redistributing the JDK is legally restricted but I am not aware of any similar limitations for redistributing the JRE.

  Why are these guys all whining? There is nothing preventing them from bundling a JRE (private or public) with it.

  Reply from John: You got me curious, so I downloaded the JRE again from java.com so that I could look at the license:

  B. License to Distribute Software. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and restrictions and exceptions set forth in the Software README file, including, but not limited to the Java Technology Restrictions of these Supplemental Terms, Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without fees to reproduce and distribute the Software, provided that (i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified and only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs, (ii) the Programs add significant and primary functionality to the Software, (iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software, (iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or notices contained in the Software, (v) you only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, and (vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software.

  
  That sure looks like you are free to redistribute to me.

  Posted by: cowwoc on May 14, 2005 at 01:49 AM

• I simply can´t understand why SUN insit in to mantain Java as "non-Open Source".. .

  a lot of problems could be solved by a simple administrative act.. change the license of Java for an Open Source one....

  Posted by: felipegaucho on May 14, 2005 at 07:11 AM

• I think OpenOffice should be created from an extensible library of office components that other applications can also use. My application wants to provide a nice text entry panel and export to OpenOffice capability. I should be able to just incorporate the OpenOffice textEntyr.jar and export.jar into my app. This would provide an awesome reusable component suite for all Java developers to use. When the Java development community reuses the components this will grow the awareness of the suite as well as the components. It will grow the community. It's the right thing to do.

  Cheers.
  

  Posted by: markswanson on May 14, 2005 at 07:58 AM

• I wellcome the move from Open Office. But IMHO that move has 2 big problems.

  1.- OO is available in more platforms than Java. Is OO going to drop the support for all the platforms but Solaris, Linux (on x86!!!) and Windows?

  2.- Sun doesn't ALLOW to DISTRIBUTE the JRE. Not talking about Open Source it!!!! and that is a big problem. I am using Ubuntu (Debian based). When I want a program, I don't have to go to any site. I just type apt-get install programName and apt-get downloads what it needs and installs it, everything works like a charm.

  But you can't do that with any Java application because Sun doesn't allow to the packager to adapt the JRE file estructure to the one that Debian has. They even can put the JRE on their servers (the ones that apt-get can access).

  I think that is a VERY BAD move from Sun.

  Reply from John: Please look at the snippet from Sun's license that I included in a reply to a previous comment. I believe that you are incorrect in your assertion that Sun won't let you redistribute the JRE.

  Posted by: jdavi on May 14, 2005 at 08:44 AM

• Correction.

  In my 2nd point I made a mistake. it should say
  2.- Sun doesn't ALLOW to DISTRIBUTE the JRE, on its own, you can if you boundle it in a program, but that doesn't help...
  Reply from John: I have to disagree with you with respect to my original topic (using Java in OOo). Looks like OOo can bundle the JRE with the office suite and 'solve' the problem. Solutions are possible if you are willing to bend. I respect your choice to bend or not.

  Posted by: jdavi on May 14, 2005 at 08:51 AM

• Well I hope OO stays as stable and usable as it is now and just keeps improving. The 1.1.4 release has been very usable. I just bought a new laptop, running XPpro out of necessity, but am trying to avoid using any MS Office products on it. So far, so good. If OO 2.X uses Java then it should also support some sort of relatively easy user customization, one would hope. It would also seem very savvy for Sun to OS J2SE - maybe this year at JavaOne? Sun has done so much right, I really would like to see them thriving again...

  Posted by: bboyes on May 14, 2005 at 08:25 PM

• I assume that anyone who is reading this is a java programmer - so why wouldn't the introduction of java to OpenOffice be a good thing? I thing the members in the Free Software Foundation that oppose it are trying to live up to a theoretical ideal that is not based on reality. Given the choice of moving OpenOffice ahead as a viable alternative to MS Office, or having it stagnate while the relative merits of their purist vision is realized, I would hope that they would agree that moving forward with Java is "the better of the two evils".

  Posted by: scirka on May 22, 2005 at 06:22 PM

• This isn't meant to be a flame - it's just sounds like it ;]

  *sigh* I remember the days when Linux users wouldn't even bat an eyelid at having to install various software packages in various ways - you just got on with it - the inconvenience was (usually) minor in comparison to the rewards of having the software.

  I appreciate the ease that apt, rpm, and friends being to the user, *especially* with dependancies. There are far more packages flying around nowadays. However, if software that is simply in a different package causes so much fuss, and makes us think about boycotting it, we'll probably find ourselves stuck with using what Debian/RedHat/M$ provide us with, which could restrict the choice and variety that made open source software so popular in the first place.

  For what it's worth, I was lead to understand that you can use OO without java - you just lose the new database bit.

  I would also love Sun to relax their legal jargon to enable Debain, the FreeBSD people, etc, to ship java; but until that happens, surely the slight inconvenience is worth what you get in return...

  Posted by: ghee2ghee on June 03, 2005 at 03:39 PM

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.