4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThough 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 agoIt depends on which version you're using. As of JDK 11, OpenJDK and Oracle Java SE are the same.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y agoI'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 agoJDK 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 agoHmm...I wonder if the Java .jar in question is doing something funky, since I am running v11.
- pickle-wizard 8y agoI 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.