The Source for Java Technology Collaboration
User: Password:



Simon Phipps's Blog

Business Archives


Thoughts on Open Sourcing Sun's Java Implementations

Posted by webmink on August 18, 2006 at 07:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For the last few months I've been writing an occasional series on the issues surrounding open sourcing Sun's Java implementations over on my other blog. Realising there are plenty of people on java.net who never get over there, here's a summary of the story so far.
Will Sun use GPLv3? (November 20, 2006)
Some people have been throwing rocks at the GPLv3 process from outside, and others have been accusing Sun of joining the rock throwers by opting for GPL v2 for the Java platform. Here's why I disagree with both.

Why Bother Open Sourcing Java? (August 18, 2006)
While the actual code-base will only be touched by the 400, the 4 million will benefit from the extended deployment range, the greater pool of expertise and the greater diversity of interests that will result. Open sourcing Sun's Java implementations is hard, has risks and affects only the 400 now, but it will quickly grow benefits that the 4 million will reap.

An Ongoing Process (August 15, 2006)
I briefed press an analysts in London to provide an update on the process of taking Sun's Java implementations open source. It's worth noting that this is part of an ongoing process that reflects Sun's roots.

Respecting The Developers (July 25, 2006)
So why doesn't Sun just pick an OSI-approved license, apply it to the Java source code and be done with it? Why claim it's so hard to open source the Java platform?

Forks Aren't a Problem (May 26, 2006)
I keep hearing people claiming that the biggest problem that would be caused by making Sun's Java SE implementation open source is forking. But I have to disagree. The implication is that all forks are incompatible forks, but the two are not synonyms.

No Unfair Advantage (May 24, 2006)
There are two dimensions to compatibility. The one everyone with developer genes can grok is about having the same APIs doing the same thing everywhere the word "Java" is used to describe a virtual machine environment. The other is more subtle. It's about ensuring no major vendor - Sun included - gets an unfair advantage in the market because they have been able to exert control in a way that yields a competitive benefit.

I'll try to keep this list up to date, so you might want to bookmark it.

Monoculture Considered Harmful

Posted by webmink on September 26, 2003 at 04:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)

I commented recently that, while we can each take steps to prevent virus and worm attacks on our computer systems, the biggest threat we actually face is the fact that we have a computer monoculture.

Most of the world’s computers run Microsoft’s operating systems, thus most of the world’s computers are vulnerable to the same viruses and worms at the same time. The only way to stop this is to avoid monoculture in computer operating systems, and for reasons just as reasonable and obvious as avoiding monoculture in farming. Microsoft exacerbates this problem via a wide range of practices that lock users to its platform. The impact on security of this lock-in is real and endangers society.
Actually, I didn't write that - it's from the executive summary in the report CCIA are promoting, 'Cyber InSecurity' [PDF, 880k]. The (brave) authors include Bruce Schneier, who I respect greatly, and Daniel Geer, who @Stake (a Microsoft contractor) have shockingly summarily dismissed despite the fact that the report simply states the self-evident and makes recommendations that are just common-sense:
While appropriate remedies require significant debate, these three alone would engender substantial, lasting improvement if Microsoft were vigorously forced to: • Publish interface specifications to major functional components of its code, both Windows and Office. • Foster development of alternative sources of functionality through an approach comparable to the highly successful "plug and play" technology for hardware components. • Work with consortia of hardware and software vendors to define specifications and interfaces for future developments, in a way similar to the Internet Society's RFC process to define new protocols for the Internet
These need some safeguards; the usual approach with which these things are addressed means each would probably be turned into a revenue and lock-in opportunity or to source of monopoly growth.

Before the usual and inevitable cries of 'Microsoft-hater' are raised, can I make a plea to people to look at the issue here (and read John Lettice's take too). It's actually not based on an instinctive hatred of Microsoft - as Geer himself says:

"If the monoculture was all Linux, it would be just as bad"
It's a fact [huge page] that they have a monopoly, that it's resulted in a monoculture and that this provides a big, squishy target for the black hats no matter how hard anyone tries to fix the bugs, and no amount of safe behaviour by customers is going to fix it. It's the facts that need addressing. Either every country has to become a police state or we need diversity.

[Also posted to Webmink]



Webmink About Town

Posted by webmink on June 08, 2003 at 11:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Visit Webmink.NetI've been blogging for 18 months or so over on my personal page so it's a delight to finally be able to write under the java.net banner. Starting at JavaOne 2003 in San Francisco I'll comment on trends, oddities, gadgets and whatever else catches my eye as I travel. I'll cross-post anything relevant from my personal blog but if you want to read about my politics, musical taste etc you'll need to read that blog too :-)





Powered by
Movable Type 3.01D
 Feed java.net RSS Feeds