3 ms·

In my opinion, it is because they are freaking Orcale, they don't do anything for free. Heck they recently started charging for the Java runtime. Some that has

In my opinion, it is because they are freaking Orcale, they don't do anything for free. Heck they recently started charging for the Java runtime. Some that has been free for over 20 years. I really hate to say this, but I wish IBM had bought Sun instead of Oracle. Even better I really wish Sun had managed to pivot and stay an independent company.

pron 8y ago
> Heck they recently started charging for the Java runtime. On the contrary, they've open sourced the entire JDK for the first time ever, and are now offering the same JDK either completely free or with paid support, rather than the mixed free/commercial JDK as before. (I work at Oracle on OpenJDK, but speak only for myself)
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  Though I still run into software which doesn't like OpenJDK, complaining that the jar file was compiled with a newer version (and I have the latest OpenJDK version) which I assume means it wants the Oracle Java SE application.
  - pron 8y ago
    It depends on which version you're using. As of JDK 11, OpenJDK and Oracle Java SE are the same.
    - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
      I'm on OpenJDK 11.0, but I still get a "...compiled by a more recent version of the Java Runtime (class file version 53.0), this version of the Java Runtime only recognizes class file versions up to 52.0..." error.
      - pron 8y ago
        JDK 11 supports class file version up to and including 55 (either OpenJDK or Oracle JDK, which is the same JDK under a different license).
        _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
        Hmm...I wonder if the Java .jar in question is doing something funky, since I am running v11.
- pickle-wizard 8y ago
  I thought if you used the Oracle JDK for commercial purposes you would be required to buy it from Oracle. Now if OpenJDK is kept at parity with the OracleJDK that could work.
bluejekyll 8y ago
Not defending Oracle here, but I wanted to add some clarity. Oracle will now only support current LTS versions of the Oracle JDK (as opposed to the OpenJDK), for something like 2 years. Basically requiring people to migrate to LTS releases relatively quickly. If you can’t (larger orgs and others with requirements that delay those moves), then you’ll need to pay Oracle for a license. Java (Oracle/Sun JDK) has never really been free, specifically, while I never worked with it, embedded JDK has always required a purchased license for distribution. The OpenJDK, on the other hand is a free OSS licensed distribution of Java.
- oblio 8y ago
  In practice it doesn't really work like that. The vast majority of devs and companies using Java were not using an embedded JDK. So for them, it's moving from a freely available JDK supported for many years, to a JDK that's changing every 6 months. And the dust is far from settling on which alternative OpenJDK build is stable, reliable and free, long term. I know that companies should pay for it, but things don't really work like that, see the OpenSSL fiasco.

pron 8y ago

> Heck they recently started charging for the Java runtime. On the contrary, they've open sourced the entire JDK for the first time ever, and are now offering the same JDK either completely free or with paid support, rather than the mixed free/commercial JDK as before. (I work at Oracle on OpenJDK, but speak only for myself)

_emacsomancer_ 8y ago
Though I still run into software which doesn't like OpenJDK, complaining that the jar file was compiled with a newer version (and I have the latest OpenJDK version) which I assume means it wants the Oracle Java SE application.
- pron 8y ago
  It depends on which version you're using. As of JDK 11, OpenJDK and Oracle Java SE are the same.
  - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
    I'm on OpenJDK 11.0, but I still get a "...compiled by a more recent version of the Java Runtime (class file version 53.0), this version of the Java Runtime only recognizes class file versions up to 52.0..." error.
    - pron 8y ago
      JDK 11 supports class file version up to and including 55 (either OpenJDK or Oracle JDK, which is the same JDK under a different license).
      - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
        Hmm...I wonder if the Java .jar in question is doing something funky, since I am running v11.
pickle-wizard 8y ago
I thought if you used the Oracle JDK for commercial purposes you would be required to buy it from Oracle. Now if OpenJDK is kept at parity with the OracleJDK that could work.

bluejekyll 8y ago

Not defending Oracle here, but I wanted to add some clarity. Oracle will now only support current LTS versions of the Oracle JDK (as opposed to the OpenJDK), for something like 2 years. Basically requiring people to migrate to LTS releases relatively quickly. If you can’t (larger orgs and others with requirements that delay those moves), then you’ll need to pay Oracle for a license. Java (Oracle/Sun JDK) has never really been free, specifically, while I never worked with it, embedded JDK has always required a purchased license for distribution. The OpenJDK, on the other hand is a free OSS licensed distribution of Java.

oblio 8y ago
In practice it doesn't really work like that. The vast majority of devs and companies using Java were not using an embedded JDK. So for them, it's moving from a freely available JDK supported for many years, to a JDK that's changing every 6 months. And the dust is far from settling on which alternative OpenJDK build is stable, reliable and free, long term. I know that companies should pay for it, but things don't really work like that, see the OpenSSL fiasco.