50 ms·

Oracle's JDK 17 – Free Again for Commercial Use

248 points by sharjeelsayed 5y ago

exabrial 5y ago
I actually thought Oracle's move initially was actually a good thing: It brought some much-needed diversity to OpenJDK builds. Very pleased to see this move as well. It's taken a very very long time, but it's encouraging to see Oracle finally understand the open source ecosystem.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Oracle commit 98%+ to the OpenJDK project, that they finished open sourcing and opening up paid only features year to year, to the point where OracleJDK and OpenJDK are pretty much identical. Contrary to their litigious image, they are more than great stewards of the ecosystem and they do undertake open-source.
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    Because if they don’t, the Java ecosystem is dead.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      Indeed, specially because in spite of all the hate, no other company bothered to acquire Sun assets (with the exception of IBM that quickly withdrew their offer). Without Oracle, there wouldn't exist Java 17, MaximeVM made into GraalVM, J/Rockit JIT cache as OpenJDK DSA, J/Rockit monitoring as Flight Recorder,.... And everyone could enjoy Java 6 with the JIT and GC improvements the FOSS community is known for, when there isn't some big corp sponsoring the work.
      - vbezhenar 5y ago
        gcc is pretty advanced compiler and, AFAIK, it’s independent from big corporations. I wouldn’t deny the possibility for Java to live under truly open source umbrella.
        VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
        Almost all of GCC's development is done by employees of big corps, often as their sole job. Red Hat, IBM, etc.
        Hello71 5y ago
        looking at last 1000 commits to gcc, it seems like about 80-90% of emails are associated with "big corps". however, this doesn't tell the whole story. according to https://lwn.net/Articles/867540/ https://lwn.net/Articles/867540/, over 85% (100%-6.8%-5.0%-1.6%=86.6%) of Linux kernel changesets are supported by employers, but nobody sensible would claim that Linux is not community developed. whether it is because of historical project culture, or BDFL, or simply a large number of contributing organizations, there is clearly a substantial difference between Linux and OpenJDK development methodology.
        secondaryacct 5y ago
        Linux is only developed because it helps make money. Most commit as you said are by big corp to support their products, what do you expect ? A voluntary samaritan committing yet another driver for this IBM entreprise controller, or that Facebook file system? Linux is "community-of-big-corps"-developed.
        __d 5y ago
        The real challenge for Linux will be when Linus retires. The Linux Foundation was intended act as the backstop here, but it is losing that focus, and I'm not confident that it will remain a trusted steward in the future. For now, and to the point here, the sheer number of meaningful contributors to Linux is what differentiates it from things like Java and .NET. GCC is somewhere in the middle: less resilient than Linux, but more than Java.
      - mjevans 5y ago
        Without Oracle it all could have just evaporated into public domain for other projects and interests to carry forwards. At least, that's what _should_ happen when any company folds, and when products are no longer supported by them. The entire set of copyright specifications, source code, everything should get added to the public stack of records.
- computronus 5y ago
  I agree that the blossoming of additional JDK distributions, spurred on by Oracle's initial license change, was a good thing. I'm a happy AdoptOpenJDK / Temurin user, at work and at home. However, I don't see any benefit to this latest change in their stance. Everyone already had to wade their way through the confusion from that initial licensing change, and many (most?) spent a lot of time and effort getting to a new stable configuration on a different distro. Why spend more effort, again, to run back to Oracle JDK? I think most organizations have better things to do than deal with all this. Also, who's to say Oracle won't change their licensing deal once again for Java 21?
- josefx 5y ago
  It also avoided licensing accidents. Oracles JDK always came with non free components and making the entire JDK non free made stories claiming that they "accidentally" triggered one of the commercial features and had to pay thousands in licensing fees unlikely.
  - papercrane 5y ago
    I don't believe there are any commercial features left in Java 17. The last thing that required a flag to unlock commercial features was Java Flight Recorder, and that's now part of OpenJDK, the "-XX:+UnlockCommercialFeatures" is now gone completely from their documentation.
Am_I_Right 5y ago
Yeah, right. As if I'm ever going to allow anything Java-related on anything I manage again. "This application requires JRE #" -- end-user Googles JRE # and downloads/installs it. End-user organization gets sued by Oracle lawyers for 10K site licenses for JRE #. Sure, they COULD have downloaded OpenFerretMongrelAsphalt JRE Pi, but yet, here we are...
- kaba0 5y ago
  Citation needed. Oracle JRE was free for personal use.
  - jimbob45 5y ago
    Oracle has proven themselves to be a litigious organization. You're not wrong that there are probably safe ways to interact with their organization's products but why bother when there are alternatives from companies that don't have such dirty legal histories?
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    But is use in a commercial environment personal use?
- listenallyall 5y ago
  You don't have to like (or use) Java or Oracle to recognize the JVM is an incredible platform to build upon. > OpenFerretMongrelAsphalt Ignorance is bliss, I guess. Your loss.
  - nightfly 5y ago
    It went from Java to OpenJDK, to Eclipse Temurin (formerly OpenJDK from Eclipse Adoptium) or something. If that doesn't seem like a big mess to use I don't know what to tell you
    - frant-hartm 5y ago
      If you follow Java & ecosystem at least a bit you needed to read one or two blog posts from reputable community members to figure out what the situation is and what to use. To compare I find a licensing situation on mid-size (50+ direct dependencies) or larger project much harder to comprehend - you need to figure out what licenses are used, if they can be used at all due to the requirements and company's policy, if they are compatible with each other and what's required for distribution.
Pet_Ant 5y ago
Isn’t the cat out of the bag already?
occamrazor 5y ago
Still a shitty license: > [For LTS Oracle JDK versions] security updates will be available for a total of three years. After that period, further use of the Oracle JDK in production requires a commercial license. Apparently the business model is having commercial customers deploy Oracle JDK and suing them as soon as they forget to upgrade after three years.
- tyingq 5y ago
  s/Oracle OpenJDK/Oracle JDK/ They can't sue you for using OpenJDK.
  - occamrazor 5y ago
    thanks, I fixed the terminology in my post
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- simion314 5y ago
  I interpret this that if you want more then 3 years of security issues fixes you have to pay, it is similar on how other companies charge for extended support, if you don't like it you update faster. But what is your opinion, everything should be free for big companies to use and then who pays the developers? Even in Linux world you need to pay to get extended LTS support.
  - occamrazor 5y ago
    I read it as after three years the Oracle JDK cannot be used any longer without a license, there is no option to continue using it in production without support.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      Reminds me of the free for non commercial use VirtualBox plugin that makes itself super easy to install by random endusers, and then phones home so that enforcement on the sales side is almost automated.
echelon 5y ago
I guess Oracle saw that enough orgs were opting out of JDK 17 adoption? They'll have to boil the kettle much slower, like Microsoft and Apple do.
- EdwardDiego 5y ago
  17 only reached release in September.
  - floix 5y ago
    True. It’s not really new and not really free: https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2021/09/16/oracle_jdk_free_license/ https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2021/09/16/oracle_jdk_free_l...
- kaba0 5y ago
  Based on the Inside Java podcast, the reason was more along the line to ease installation in cloud environments. This new license is legally installable without clicking accept license, etc. Also, making the last 1.5 (LTS+1 year into the next LTS) years free probably doesn’t mean a serious profit loss, as those primary come from things running Java 8 for another decade still.
  - vbezhenar 5y ago
    Yet no official Oracle JDK docker image. That’s weird.
    - miked85 5y ago
      Why is that weird?
      - vbezhenar 5y ago
        1. They provide stable download URL. It looks to be tailored specifically for Dockerfiles. 2. They provide images for OpenJDK. It would be very logical move to just provide Oracle JDK LTS image. There are plenty of software which would be based on those images. They could use Oracle Linux as a base to somewhat indirectly promote it.
tyingq 5y ago
Guessing they didn't like everyone flocking to things like Amazon Corretto. I don't see this move gaining anyone back though.
- michaelcampbell 5y ago
  I'm not really in that space any more but I haven't heard of ANYONE "flocking" to Corretto. OpenJDK, sure.
  - tyingq 5y ago
    I don't think Oracle would be unhappy with providers like Eclipse. I suspect they are less happy with people going to Azul, Amazon, RedHat, etc.
  - vecplane 5y ago
    Android Studio recommends versions of Amazon's Corretto distrubutions. That could be a JetBrains IDE feature though, not certain.
    - hocuspocus 5y ago
      Isn't it just the first choice in the list? IntelliJ offers several vendors (Amazon, Azul, Bellsoft, Eclipse, IBM, Oracle, SAP), defaulting to Oracle JDK 17. But I assume you need an older version for Android development.
  - jffry 5y ago
    Well I'll break your anecdote. I "flocked" to Corretto for a production JVM-hosted system that ran on EC2 at the time that the Oracle distribution was re-licensed. My reasons, aside from just licensing concerns? It came with a public long-term support commitment, and was deployed by AWS themselves on internal services before it was released publicly.
    - baud147258 5y ago
      I remember the same argument of long-term support from the tech lead when he decided that the software we deliver to our clients would use the Correto JDK.
1cvmask 5y ago
It seems they were not in a dominant position in terms of market share. Anyone have a clue how low Oracle's market share was? "Surveys suggest that Oracle's JDK distributions are not the most popular Java distributions anymore. Developers seem to prefer OpenJDK distributions from AdoptOpenJDK (now Eclipse Temurin), Amazon, Microsoft, Azul, and other vendors. These organizations also provide commercial support for their distributions. In the case of Eclipse Temurin, Azul offers such support."
- kaba0 5y ago
  Oracle JDK is pretty much the exact same as OpenJDK and Oracle commits 98%+ of all commits to the project. It’s hard to define a market when most of it is freely available.
  - TeeMassive 5y ago
    And? Worse thing for Oracle than people not paying for their JDK is people moving away from Java altogether.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    People hate Oracle so much that don't stop two seconds to actually think who does the work and keeps the lights on OpenJDK.
    - mulmen 5y ago
      It’s more like nobody wants to do business with Oracle. The products themselves are fine. It’s the pray-we-don’t-alter-it-further licensing that’s a dealbreaker.
      - atsjie 5y ago
        > The products themselves are fine I beg to differ. The majority of their products are flawed and outdated. I'm not talking Oracle DB or Java but the vast amount of other apps they sell. They bought lots of stuff, pull funding from development and redirect it to sales. Then they sell it to fit their vision; but nothing integrates cleanly and you'll be spending massive amounts of money on consultants who understand product A & B and how to connect them. A java-dev can't do that; you need that A and B knowledge + integration skills. Those consultants are very hard to find and good effective ones nearly non-existent. The fees are enormous regardless of whether you use Oracle consultants, Oracle partners or freelancers. If you do manage to find cheaper consultants (offshoring most likely) be prepared for terrible quality as well. Ow, and once you're finally comfortable with their stuff after spending all that money, be sure to make a reservation for the unexpected additional license fees they'll slap on you because you failed to remember the fine print.
Schnitz 5y ago
For most companies, unless you haven’t switched already, I assume this won’t matter. Why switch back from Azul or whatever unless there’s a strong reason to? Nothing is preventing Oracle from trying to monetize their JDK aggressively again.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  OpenJDK is also their JDK.
  - Longhanks 5y ago
    The GPL however isn't theirs.
    - chungy 5y ago
      Oracle is in a nice position where they could discontinue or relicense OpenJDK, much in the way they did to OpenSolaris. Let's be grateful they haven't done so yet. I'm not convinced there is sufficient talent to carry on OpenJDK without Oracle (contrary to the OpenSolaris→illumos situation).
      - Hello71 5y ago
        i don't think that's consistent with history. there used to be a large number of Java implementations; by far the biggest reason why they (almost) all died out is because Sun agreed to open up their implementation. IBM still maintains J9, and while that's only part of a full Java implementation, I don't see any reason why Apache Harmony or GNU Classpath couldn't be revived and combined with it for a high-performance Oracle-less Java implementation. there is major precedent for this in the form of GNU/Linux, where substantial parts of the userspace are provided by GNU, but the kernel is a separate project.
      - phendrenad2 5y ago
        > Let's be grateful they haven't done so yet Why? Wouldn't the community come together and implement any features Oracle tries to lock away in their proprietary version?
voz_ 5y ago
Oracle is such a scummy, useless company. Die already!
IceWreck 5y ago
You'd be better off using JDK builds from your distro's repos.
- ptx 5y ago
  Maybe. Debian says[1] that their OpenJDK package will get "security updates on a best effort basis, but users should not expect to see updates for every quarterly upstream security update." I'm not sure what that means, exactly. Will the Debian package have unpatched security vulnerabilities for several months at a time? [1] https://www.debian.org/releases/bullseye/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html https://www.debian.org/releases/bullseye/amd64/release-notes...
  - IceWreck 5y ago
    You could use Alma Linux / Rocky Linux or any other RHEL likes which will get updates as long as RHEL does.
  - nick__m 5y ago
    I think that means that the Debian maintainers appear to be understaffed and you should use the Correto or Zulu repository if you care about security updates.
  - seba_dos1 5y ago
    This applies to OpenJDK 17 in bullseye specifically, which is a special case because it wasn't released yet when bullseye was being released. There's the previous LTS version of OpenJDK (11) available in bullseye as well.
    - ptx 5y ago
      Ah, I didn't realize they had both 11 and 17 in Bullseye. I guess Debian users should stick to Java 11 then, which is presumably covered by security updates as usual? Is this documented somewhere?
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Many systems either don't provide a modern JDK at all (for example macOS), or provide a pretty old JDK (for example I think Debian Stable only provides 11.)
rob_c 5y ago
Not knowing the details. Doesn't this impact the sun<->google Java android suit?
- halestock 5y ago
  It doesn't, and that suit is finally dead and over with: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America....
  - rob_c 5y ago
    I suppose but would that impact any future complaints. Probably not I suppose but I'll not pretend to be a legal expert
    - papercrane 5y ago
      No, this article is about using Oracle's binary build for JDK 17, which Google does not use. The Oracle v. Google suit was in the end about Google copying the Java APIs (via Apache Harmony). While the case was ongoing Google migrated to the OpenJDK, which Oracle provides under a GPL+Classpath exception. With the case now decided, as long as Google adheres to the license Oracle has provided to them there's no controversy left.
      - rob_c 5y ago
        Ok. Thanks for the explanation :)
  - nikanj 5y ago
    Are tech giant lawsuits ever really dead? I think SCO vs Linux is still shambling on in some form..
    - voxadam 5y ago
      SCO v IBM was settled back in August.[1] There might be some minor suits still ambling their way through the system but SCO is long bankrupt. I think it's safe to say that the company is down for the count. That said, I'm truly curious who's going to buy and resurrect the SCO name next. [1] https://www.scribd.com/document/521927059/Order-Approving-the-Settlement-and-Release-Agreement-by-and-between-the-Trustee-and-IBM https://www.scribd.com/document/521927059/Order-Approving-th...
appleflaxen 5y ago
Great; now put virtualbox under a more liberal license.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
xony 5y ago
anyone moving back? .. me , No..
qalmakka 5y ago
Guess it didn't work well for that. Thankfully projects like AdoptOpenJDK exist, so there are basically zero reasons to touch their stuff ever again.
mrtweetyhack 5y ago
Free today, not tomorrow. Just keep them guessing
rStar 5y ago
java 11 fo life yo
- rStar 5y ago
  oracle could have not been morons and gotten the entire world stuck on java 11, but as we all know, oracle has one product, and it’s called vendor lock in.
  - rStar 5y ago
    although i do love watching those fancy hydrofoil boats out on the bay
Z3lgius 5y ago
This feels like a bait and switch
mberning 5y ago
The longstanding disaster of Java version numbering and licensing continues. How long until they reverse course on this? I don’t know of any other popular language with a such a sordid history in these areas.
- matsemann 5y ago
  Meh, not a disaster in practice. Our team has spent less than 10 minutes thinking about this the later years. For server stuff one points to a matching dockerfile, for distributed stuff one bundles the jre with the tools since java9.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Integers increasing by one each 6th months doesn’t sound too difficult, but to each their own.
  - mberning 5y ago
    Well lets see. It started off as JDK 1.0. The became J2SE 1.2. Then later Java SE 6. That took like a decade. Then they had sporadic releases for 5 years or so. Now they want a release every 6 months. Never mind the licensing/ownership issues over the years and now the proliferation of multiple distributions that are basically the same.
ChuckMcM 5y ago
From the article -- Providing Oracle OpenJDK builds under the GPL was highly welcomed, but feedback from developers, academia, and enterprises was that they wanted the trusted, rock-solid Oracle JDK under an unambiguously free terms license, too. Oracle appreciates the feedback from the developer ecosystem and are pleased to announce that as of Java 17 we are delivering on exactly that request. Translation, everyone stopped using our stuff in favor of the GPL version, that sucked so we changed the terms on ours to be free for commercial use. I bet they collect data and resell it but that is just a guess.
- chungy 5y ago
  It's probably the same binaries, no added stuff. But yeah, it must have hurt them when the bean counters tallied it up :) It's also probably worth financially supporting Oracle if you make substantial money from Java-based software. Oracle is by and large responsible for the platform that you are using.
  - mehrdada 5y ago
    > It's also probably worth financially supporting Oracle if you make substantial money from Java-based software. Oracle is by and large responsible for the platform that you are using. Mmm... That's an interesting theory, but one does not really know if the money will be spent on tightening down the Java platform and legal attacks or technical improvements[1]. In practice it probably does not matter either way as that company is not cash-constrained in any shape or form. [1]: https://www.globalnerdy.com/2011/07/03/org-charts-of-the-big-tech-companies-plus-an-enhancement/ https://www.globalnerdy.com/2011/07/03/org-charts-of-the-big...
  - cercatrova 5y ago
    > when the bean counters tallied it up If you're making Java, you'll have to count up the beans
    - drKarl 5y ago
      Badum Tish
znpy 5y ago
Friendly reminder that oracle has no customers, only hostages.
stunt 5y ago
Oracle has been doing amazing work for OpenJDK and Java, it’s just that Oracle’s JDK isn’t a great business model. Glad that they realized that too and I hope it doesn’t stop them from putting resources behind it.
marginalia_nu 5y ago
The company I was working for at the time spent a not insignificant amount of money and effort migrating away from Oracle JDK when they first pulled this shit. It was a B2B outfit, had maybe 30 customers running a dozen different products that the customers hosted themselves. The product was critical to business and the customers were large and part of critical infrastructure. Even a short outage would have made it into the news. What I'm saying is it wasn't a place where you could just hope for the best while migrating JVMs, everything needed to be tested and re-tested from every imaginable angle. This was extremely expensive, but in the long run, it was still a lot cheaper than ponying up for oracle licensing costs. I don't work there anymore, but I doubt they are repeating the process to migrate back, especially given how well OpenJDK works.
- Cullinet 5y ago
  can I ask you for some illumination of the licensing costs components involved with remaining licensed by Oracle? this page https://dzone.com/articles/how-much-does-java-cost https://dzone.com/articles/how-much-does-java-cost gives $28,500 pa for a 200 core runtime that sounds negligible compared to the engineering investment that was preferred instead. the logic of a commercially supported license is obviously the engineering depth of the original author's knowledge and in particular being able to refer to the authoritative / canonical answers were savings the only objective? if so, what did the savings get? anything better?
  - murderfs 5y ago
    > that sounds negligible compared to the engineering investment that was preferred instead. Can you trust Oracle not to raise the pricing in the future, given that they've raised it once already?
    - Sparkle-san 5y ago
      >Can you trust Oracle No
      - 5y ago
flyinprogrammer 5y ago
I wonder if Docker Inc will learn from this.
- easton 5y ago
  They probably can't. Every other business model they've tried hasn't worked. Their only other option is a buyout, and I can only assume Microsoft hasn't offered them enough money yet, because otherwise I assume that would have happened years ago.
- oneplane 5y ago
  They won't because it's not the same situation and not the issue at hand. If you want to make a comparison: Docker is more like Sun. They will have three options: 1. Go bankrupt 2. Get bought 3. Find a way to make money
  - miked85 5y ago
    Aren't those options pretty much identical for every company?
    - secondaryacct 5y ago
      It's missing: continue what we're doing since it working. My company already found a way to make money, we don't need to be bought and are far from bankrupcy.
      - oneplane 5y ago
        That doesn't work for docker since they are on a decline and the business isn't sustainable as it is anymore. So they are on a bankruptcy trajectory already.
    - oneplane 5y ago
      No, you can also be profitable (or healthy) as-is and keep humming along. In docker's case they are on the bankruptcy trajectory so now they have to make choices to change that trajectory (or select option 1 and go bankrupt).
overgard 5y ago
Dumb question, but what's the difference between the Open JDK and the Oracle JDK? Are they separate codebases?
- kaba0 5y ago
  They are largely the same, OracleJDK building on OpenJDK. There used to be some paid only features like flight recorder, but all were open-sourced by oracle. So as with most java vendors, you pay for the support.
- toyg 5y ago
  They share 98% of the codebase. Oracle then sprinkles on top a small number of proprietary patches (some optimizations, a couple of tools) and their installer.
- panny 5y ago
  The OpenJDK and OracleJDK are identical code bases since JDK 11 and are fully interchangeable. The only patches that exist for OracleJDK were the paid support patches for back ports. If you stay on the latest JDK, then this was never relevant to you. If your company is not nimble enough to do that, then it could pay for the tired dinosaur patches and stay on old JDKs. Since other companies have started contributing to the effort of tired dinosaur patches again, it's no longer necessary for Oracle to charge a fee to produce them. In other words, Oracle successfully averted a "tragedy of the commons" by asserting property rights long enough to make others behave and stop abusing the system.
- vbezhenar 5y ago
  I can’t find sources to support those claims. But AFAIK the main difference from practical POV is support time. Oracle OpenJDK builds are provided on rolling release cadence, there’s no LTS concept. Once Java 18 is out, you’re supposed to migrate ASAP. Oracle JDK does have LTS. You have a year after Java 21 LTS to migrate to it. But those 17.0.x patches will not be open source.
- papercrane 5y ago
  Depends on the version. Oracle has been working to shrink the difference with each version. They include a bullet list in their release notes for the differences. At this point probably the biggest differences are that usage logging is only available with Oracle's build, and the Oracle build requires 3rd party crypto providers to be signed. Other than that it's license difference, branding, and the installer does some things differently. https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/javase/17-relnote-issues.html https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/javase/17-relnote-i...
amachefe 5y ago
Why would anyone talk them seriously again. Thay did this same thing with OpenOffice. At the rate things are going, MySQL would also get this in the next 10yrs. Oracle wants to extra as much resources as possible from any product. And when they realise the tech world has moved on, would try to throw a hinge to the wheel.
PedroBatista 5y ago
Fuck them, that's what I have to say. And also thank you, for giving many companies the necessary push for them to realize Oracle's JDK was not the only game in town and many others could deliver a perfectly fine JDK. There are few things worse in this business than being labeled an "unreliable partner" and Oracle is being seen as just that even at big companies. Oracle's wisdom to pull this kind of bullshit is already legendary, the Open Solaris train-wreck, the MySQL writing on the wall, the OpenOffice implosion, the JDK shoot-in-foot, those samurais at Oracle's board sure know what they're doing..
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- xorcist 5y ago
  Missing from the list is Hudson, which was killed even more dead than OpenOffice. Exactly everyone uses the fork Jenkins instead. Maybe KSplice deserves a spot on the list too, it's far from dead but used to be promising and isn't now used much outside Oracle. The only mystery is Virtualbox, which somehow escaped death and is still useful.
  - scoopertrooper 5y ago
    It's dead the Apple ecosystem now. They're not bothering to port to ARM64.
  - PedroBatista 5y ago
    Oh yeah I forgot Hudson, maybe that one wins 1st place as far as shamelessness is concerned, but because the fork was so swift and Jenkins took over very few people even remember Hudson. Virtualbox was poisoned to take over the whole VM desktop "business" and then.. it stayed there. Not dead but not much vitality going on.
    - koolba 5y ago
      s/poisoned/poised/ Poisoned is what Oracle did to it with the plug-in and extension licensing nonsense.
rubyist5eva 5y ago
Too late, fuck Oracle.
onimishra 5y ago
There are many other good JDKs out there, and with Oracle changing their license back and forth like a pendulum, I can not stress enough that going with the Oracle JDK should be considered a bad idea. See http://whichjdk.com/ http://whichjdk.com/ for further detail (was posted here a couple of months ago)
- kaba0 5y ago
  This page was heavily criticized as it provides next to no reason on the recommendations. Also, it’s really easy, just use OpenJDK (not adopt) packaged by your distro and stick to the latest version, which will continue to get security updates forever, will be much more performant, etc. In the rare case you need to sit on an older version that is no longer getting security updates, OracleJDK may be preferred as they employ the actual people working on the JDK, and not just backporting commits from the most recent version. So eg. a deprecated feature may not get a security update in time with some other vendors, because it will not have commits from upstream.
  - scoopertrooper 5y ago
    > Also, it’s really easy, just use OpenJDK (not adopt) packaged by your distro and stick to the latest version, which will continue to get security updates forever, will be much more performant, etc. * Updates for the life of the distro version support policy. I seriously doubt it'd be any more performant. They're all just doing a build of JDK from the same central repo.
    - kaba0 5y ago
      I meant as in most recent JDK version. And openjdk-17 will be faster than 8
- 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
  Just no. This page should be censored from HN. Consult this instead: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28821316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28821316

248 points by sharjeelsayed 5y ago

I actually thought Oracle's move initially was actually a good thing: It brought some much-needed diversity to OpenJDK builds. Very pleased to see this move as well. It's taken a very very long time, but it's encouraging to see Oracle finally understand the open source ecosystem.

kaba0 5y ago
Oracle commit 98%+ to the OpenJDK project, that they finished open sourcing and opening up paid only features year to year, to the point where OracleJDK and OpenJDK are pretty much identical. Contrary to their litigious image, they are more than great stewards of the ecosystem and they do undertake open-source.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  Because if they don’t, the Java ecosystem is dead.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Indeed, specially because in spite of all the hate, no other company bothered to acquire Sun assets (with the exception of IBM that quickly withdrew their offer). Without Oracle, there wouldn't exist Java 17, MaximeVM made into GraalVM, J/Rockit JIT cache as OpenJDK DSA, J/Rockit monitoring as Flight Recorder,.... And everyone could enjoy Java 6 with the JIT and GC improvements the FOSS community is known for, when there isn't some big corp sponsoring the work.
    - vbezhenar 5y ago
      gcc is pretty advanced compiler and, AFAIK, it’s independent from big corporations. I wouldn’t deny the possibility for Java to live under truly open source umbrella.
      - VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
        Almost all of GCC's development is done by employees of big corps, often as their sole job. Red Hat, IBM, etc.
        Hello71 5y ago
        looking at last 1000 commits to gcc, it seems like about 80-90% of emails are associated with "big corps". however, this doesn't tell the whole story. according to https://lwn.net/Articles/867540/ https://lwn.net/Articles/867540/, over 85% (100%-6.8%-5.0%-1.6%=86.6%) of Linux kernel changesets are supported by employers, but nobody sensible would claim that Linux is not community developed. whether it is because of historical project culture, or BDFL, or simply a large number of contributing organizations, there is clearly a substantial difference between Linux and OpenJDK development methodology.
        secondaryacct 5y ago
        Linux is only developed because it helps make money. Most commit as you said are by big corp to support their products, what do you expect ? A voluntary samaritan committing yet another driver for this IBM entreprise controller, or that Facebook file system? Linux is "community-of-big-corps"-developed.
        __d 5y ago
        The real challenge for Linux will be when Linus retires. The Linux Foundation was intended act as the backstop here, but it is losing that focus, and I'm not confident that it will remain a trusted steward in the future. For now, and to the point here, the sheer number of meaningful contributors to Linux is what differentiates it from things like Java and .NET. GCC is somewhere in the middle: less resilient than Linux, but more than Java.
    - mjevans 5y ago
      Without Oracle it all could have just evaporated into public domain for other projects and interests to carry forwards. At least, that's what _should_ happen when any company folds, and when products are no longer supported by them. The entire set of copyright specifications, source code, everything should get added to the public stack of records.
computronus 5y ago
I agree that the blossoming of additional JDK distributions, spurred on by Oracle's initial license change, was a good thing. I'm a happy AdoptOpenJDK / Temurin user, at work and at home. However, I don't see any benefit to this latest change in their stance. Everyone already had to wade their way through the confusion from that initial licensing change, and many (most?) spent a lot of time and effort getting to a new stable configuration on a different distro. Why spend more effort, again, to run back to Oracle JDK? I think most organizations have better things to do than deal with all this. Also, who's to say Oracle won't change their licensing deal once again for Java 21?
josefx 5y ago
It also avoided licensing accidents. Oracles JDK always came with non free components and making the entire JDK non free made stories claiming that they "accidentally" triggered one of the commercial features and had to pay thousands in licensing fees unlikely.
- papercrane 5y ago
  I don't believe there are any commercial features left in Java 17. The last thing that required a flag to unlock commercial features was Java Flight Recorder, and that's now part of OpenJDK, the "-XX:+UnlockCommercialFeatures" is now gone completely from their documentation.

Am_I_Right 5y ago

Yeah, right. As if I'm ever going to allow anything Java-related on anything I manage again. "This application requires JRE #" -- end-user Googles JRE # and downloads/installs it. End-user organization gets sued by Oracle lawyers for 10K site licenses for JRE #. Sure, they COULD have downloaded OpenFerretMongrelAsphalt JRE Pi, but yet, here we are...

kaba0 5y ago
Citation needed. Oracle JRE was free for personal use.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  Oracle has proven themselves to be a litigious organization. You're not wrong that there are probably safe ways to interact with their organization's products but why bother when there are alternatives from companies that don't have such dirty legal histories?
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  But is use in a commercial environment personal use?
listenallyall 5y ago
You don't have to like (or use) Java or Oracle to recognize the JVM is an incredible platform to build upon. > OpenFerretMongrelAsphalt Ignorance is bliss, I guess. Your loss.
- nightfly 5y ago
  It went from Java to OpenJDK, to Eclipse Temurin (formerly OpenJDK from Eclipse Adoptium) or something. If that doesn't seem like a big mess to use I don't know what to tell you
  - frant-hartm 5y ago
    If you follow Java & ecosystem at least a bit you needed to read one or two blog posts from reputable community members to figure out what the situation is and what to use. To compare I find a licensing situation on mid-size (50+ direct dependencies) or larger project much harder to comprehend - you need to figure out what licenses are used, if they can be used at all due to the requirements and company's policy, if they are compatible with each other and what's required for distribution.

Pet_Ant 5y ago

Isn’t the cat out of the bag already?

occamrazor 5y ago

Still a shitty license: > [For LTS Oracle JDK versions] security updates will be available for a total of three years. After that period, further use of the Oracle JDK in production requires a commercial license. Apparently the business model is having commercial customers deploy Oracle JDK and suing them as soon as they forget to upgrade after three years.

tyingq 5y ago
s/Oracle OpenJDK/Oracle JDK/ They can't sue you for using OpenJDK.
- occamrazor 5y ago
  thanks, I fixed the terminology in my post
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
simion314 5y ago
I interpret this that if you want more then 3 years of security issues fixes you have to pay, it is similar on how other companies charge for extended support, if you don't like it you update faster. But what is your opinion, everything should be free for big companies to use and then who pays the developers? Even in Linux world you need to pay to get extended LTS support.
- occamrazor 5y ago
  I read it as after three years the Oracle JDK cannot be used any longer without a license, there is no option to continue using it in production without support.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    Reminds me of the free for non commercial use VirtualBox plugin that makes itself super easy to install by random endusers, and then phones home so that enforcement on the sales side is almost automated.

echelon 5y ago

I guess Oracle saw that enough orgs were opting out of JDK 17 adoption? They'll have to boil the kettle much slower, like Microsoft and Apple do.

EdwardDiego 5y ago
17 only reached release in September.
- floix 5y ago
  True. It’s not really new and not really free: https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2021/09/16/oracle_jdk_free_license/ https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2021/09/16/oracle_jdk_free_l...
kaba0 5y ago
Based on the Inside Java podcast, the reason was more along the line to ease installation in cloud environments. This new license is legally installable without clicking accept license, etc. Also, making the last 1.5 (LTS+1 year into the next LTS) years free probably doesn’t mean a serious profit loss, as those primary come from things running Java 8 for another decade still.
- vbezhenar 5y ago
  Yet no official Oracle JDK docker image. That’s weird.
  - miked85 5y ago
    Why is that weird?
    - vbezhenar 5y ago
      1. They provide stable download URL. It looks to be tailored specifically for Dockerfiles. 2. They provide images for OpenJDK. It would be very logical move to just provide Oracle JDK LTS image. There are plenty of software which would be based on those images. They could use Oracle Linux as a base to somewhat indirectly promote it.

tyingq 5y ago

Guessing they didn't like everyone flocking to things like Amazon Corretto. I don't see this move gaining anyone back though.

michaelcampbell 5y ago
I'm not really in that space any more but I haven't heard of ANYONE "flocking" to Corretto. OpenJDK, sure.
- tyingq 5y ago
  I don't think Oracle would be unhappy with providers like Eclipse. I suspect they are less happy with people going to Azul, Amazon, RedHat, etc.
- vecplane 5y ago
  Android Studio recommends versions of Amazon's Corretto distrubutions. That could be a JetBrains IDE feature though, not certain.
  - hocuspocus 5y ago
    Isn't it just the first choice in the list? IntelliJ offers several vendors (Amazon, Azul, Bellsoft, Eclipse, IBM, Oracle, SAP), defaulting to Oracle JDK 17. But I assume you need an older version for Android development.
- jffry 5y ago
  Well I'll break your anecdote. I "flocked" to Corretto for a production JVM-hosted system that ran on EC2 at the time that the Oracle distribution was re-licensed. My reasons, aside from just licensing concerns? It came with a public long-term support commitment, and was deployed by AWS themselves on internal services before it was released publicly.
  - baud147258 5y ago
    I remember the same argument of long-term support from the tech lead when he decided that the software we deliver to our clients would use the Correto JDK.

1cvmask 5y ago

It seems they were not in a dominant position in terms of market share. Anyone have a clue how low Oracle's market share was? "Surveys suggest that Oracle's JDK distributions are not the most popular Java distributions anymore. Developers seem to prefer OpenJDK distributions from AdoptOpenJDK (now Eclipse Temurin), Amazon, Microsoft, Azul, and other vendors. These organizations also provide commercial support for their distributions. In the case of Eclipse Temurin, Azul offers such support."

kaba0 5y ago
Oracle JDK is pretty much the exact same as OpenJDK and Oracle commits 98%+ of all commits to the project. It’s hard to define a market when most of it is freely available.
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  And? Worse thing for Oracle than people not paying for their JDK is people moving away from Java altogether.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  People hate Oracle so much that don't stop two seconds to actually think who does the work and keeps the lights on OpenJDK.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    It’s more like nobody wants to do business with Oracle. The products themselves are fine. It’s the pray-we-don’t-alter-it-further licensing that’s a dealbreaker.
    - atsjie 5y ago
      > The products themselves are fine I beg to differ. The majority of their products are flawed and outdated. I'm not talking Oracle DB or Java but the vast amount of other apps they sell. They bought lots of stuff, pull funding from development and redirect it to sales. Then they sell it to fit their vision; but nothing integrates cleanly and you'll be spending massive amounts of money on consultants who understand product A & B and how to connect them. A java-dev can't do that; you need that A and B knowledge + integration skills. Those consultants are very hard to find and good effective ones nearly non-existent. The fees are enormous regardless of whether you use Oracle consultants, Oracle partners or freelancers. If you do manage to find cheaper consultants (offshoring most likely) be prepared for terrible quality as well. Ow, and once you're finally comfortable with their stuff after spending all that money, be sure to make a reservation for the unexpected additional license fees they'll slap on you because you failed to remember the fine print.

Schnitz 5y ago

For most companies, unless you haven’t switched already, I assume this won’t matter. Why switch back from Azul or whatever unless there’s a strong reason to? Nothing is preventing Oracle from trying to monetize their JDK aggressively again.

pjmlp 5y ago
OpenJDK is also their JDK.
- Longhanks 5y ago
  The GPL however isn't theirs.
  - chungy 5y ago
    Oracle is in a nice position where they could discontinue or relicense OpenJDK, much in the way they did to OpenSolaris. Let's be grateful they haven't done so yet. I'm not convinced there is sufficient talent to carry on OpenJDK without Oracle (contrary to the OpenSolaris→illumos situation).
    - Hello71 5y ago
      i don't think that's consistent with history. there used to be a large number of Java implementations; by far the biggest reason why they (almost) all died out is because Sun agreed to open up their implementation. IBM still maintains J9, and while that's only part of a full Java implementation, I don't see any reason why Apache Harmony or GNU Classpath couldn't be revived and combined with it for a high-performance Oracle-less Java implementation. there is major precedent for this in the form of GNU/Linux, where substantial parts of the userspace are provided by GNU, but the kernel is a separate project.
    - phendrenad2 5y ago
      > Let's be grateful they haven't done so yet Why? Wouldn't the community come together and implement any features Oracle tries to lock away in their proprietary version?

voz_ 5y ago

Oracle is such a scummy, useless company. Die already!

IceWreck 5y ago

You'd be better off using JDK builds from your distro's repos.

ptx 5y ago
Maybe. Debian says[1] that their OpenJDK package will get "security updates on a best effort basis, but users should not expect to see updates for every quarterly upstream security update." I'm not sure what that means, exactly. Will the Debian package have unpatched security vulnerabilities for several months at a time? [1] https://www.debian.org/releases/bullseye/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html https://www.debian.org/releases/bullseye/amd64/release-notes...
- IceWreck 5y ago
  You could use Alma Linux / Rocky Linux or any other RHEL likes which will get updates as long as RHEL does.
- nick__m 5y ago
  I think that means that the Debian maintainers appear to be understaffed and you should use the Correto or Zulu repository if you care about security updates.
- seba_dos1 5y ago
  This applies to OpenJDK 17 in bullseye specifically, which is a special case because it wasn't released yet when bullseye was being released. There's the previous LTS version of OpenJDK (11) available in bullseye as well.
  - ptx 5y ago
    Ah, I didn't realize they had both 11 and 17 in Bullseye. I guess Debian users should stick to Java 11 then, which is presumably covered by security updates as usual? Is this documented somewhere?
chrisseaton 5y ago
Many systems either don't provide a modern JDK at all (for example macOS), or provide a pretty old JDK (for example I think Debian Stable only provides 11.)

rob_c 5y ago

Not knowing the details. Doesn't this impact the sun<->google Java android suit?

halestock 5y ago
It doesn't, and that suit is finally dead and over with: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America....
- rob_c 5y ago
  I suppose but would that impact any future complaints. Probably not I suppose but I'll not pretend to be a legal expert
  - papercrane 5y ago
    No, this article is about using Oracle's binary build for JDK 17, which Google does not use. The Oracle v. Google suit was in the end about Google copying the Java APIs (via Apache Harmony). While the case was ongoing Google migrated to the OpenJDK, which Oracle provides under a GPL+Classpath exception. With the case now decided, as long as Google adheres to the license Oracle has provided to them there's no controversy left.
    - rob_c 5y ago
      Ok. Thanks for the explanation :)
- nikanj 5y ago
  Are tech giant lawsuits ever really dead? I think SCO vs Linux is still shambling on in some form..
  - voxadam 5y ago
    SCO v IBM was settled back in August.[1] There might be some minor suits still ambling their way through the system but SCO is long bankrupt. I think it's safe to say that the company is down for the count. That said, I'm truly curious who's going to buy and resurrect the SCO name next. [1] https://www.scribd.com/document/521927059/Order-Approving-the-Settlement-and-Release-Agreement-by-and-between-the-Trustee-and-IBM https://www.scribd.com/document/521927059/Order-Approving-th...

appleflaxen 5y ago

Great; now put virtualbox under a more liberal license.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

xony 5y ago

anyone moving back? .. me , No..

qalmakka 5y ago

Guess it didn't work well for that. Thankfully projects like AdoptOpenJDK exist, so there are basically zero reasons to touch their stuff ever again.

mrtweetyhack 5y ago

Free today, not tomorrow. Just keep them guessing

rStar 5y ago

java 11 fo life yo

rStar 5y ago
oracle could have not been morons and gotten the entire world stuck on java 11, but as we all know, oracle has one product, and it’s called vendor lock in.
- rStar 5y ago
  although i do love watching those fancy hydrofoil boats out on the bay

Z3lgius 5y ago

This feels like a bait and switch

mberning 5y ago

The longstanding disaster of Java version numbering and licensing continues. How long until they reverse course on this? I don’t know of any other popular language with a such a sordid history in these areas.

matsemann 5y ago
Meh, not a disaster in practice. Our team has spent less than 10 minutes thinking about this the later years. For server stuff one points to a matching dockerfile, for distributed stuff one bundles the jre with the tools since java9.
kaba0 5y ago
Integers increasing by one each 6th months doesn’t sound too difficult, but to each their own.
- mberning 5y ago
  Well lets see. It started off as JDK 1.0. The became J2SE 1.2. Then later Java SE 6. That took like a decade. Then they had sporadic releases for 5 years or so. Now they want a release every 6 months. Never mind the licensing/ownership issues over the years and now the proliferation of multiple distributions that are basically the same.

ChuckMcM 5y ago

From the article -- Providing Oracle OpenJDK builds under the GPL was highly welcomed, but feedback from developers, academia, and enterprises was that they wanted the trusted, rock-solid Oracle JDK under an unambiguously free terms license, too. Oracle appreciates the feedback from the developer ecosystem and are pleased to announce that as of Java 17 we are delivering on exactly that request. Translation, everyone stopped using our stuff in favor of the GPL version, that sucked so we changed the terms on ours to be free for commercial use. I bet they collect data and resell it but that is just a guess.

chungy 5y ago
It's probably the same binaries, no added stuff. But yeah, it must have hurt them when the bean counters tallied it up :) It's also probably worth financially supporting Oracle if you make substantial money from Java-based software. Oracle is by and large responsible for the platform that you are using.
- mehrdada 5y ago
  > It's also probably worth financially supporting Oracle if you make substantial money from Java-based software. Oracle is by and large responsible for the platform that you are using. Mmm... That's an interesting theory, but one does not really know if the money will be spent on tightening down the Java platform and legal attacks or technical improvements[1]. In practice it probably does not matter either way as that company is not cash-constrained in any shape or form. [1]: https://www.globalnerdy.com/2011/07/03/org-charts-of-the-big-tech-companies-plus-an-enhancement/ https://www.globalnerdy.com/2011/07/03/org-charts-of-the-big...
- cercatrova 5y ago
  > when the bean counters tallied it up If you're making Java, you'll have to count up the beans
  - drKarl 5y ago
    Badum Tish

znpy 5y ago

Friendly reminder that oracle has no customers, only hostages.

stunt 5y ago

Oracle has been doing amazing work for OpenJDK and Java, it’s just that Oracle’s JDK isn’t a great business model. Glad that they realized that too and I hope it doesn’t stop them from putting resources behind it.

marginalia_nu 5y ago

The company I was working for at the time spent a not insignificant amount of money and effort migrating away from Oracle JDK when they first pulled this shit. It was a B2B outfit, had maybe 30 customers running a dozen different products that the customers hosted themselves. The product was critical to business and the customers were large and part of critical infrastructure. Even a short outage would have made it into the news. What I'm saying is it wasn't a place where you could just hope for the best while migrating JVMs, everything needed to be tested and re-tested from every imaginable angle. This was extremely expensive, but in the long run, it was still a lot cheaper than ponying up for oracle licensing costs. I don't work there anymore, but I doubt they are repeating the process to migrate back, especially given how well OpenJDK works.

Cullinet 5y ago
can I ask you for some illumination of the licensing costs components involved with remaining licensed by Oracle? this page https://dzone.com/articles/how-much-does-java-cost https://dzone.com/articles/how-much-does-java-cost gives $28,500 pa for a 200 core runtime that sounds negligible compared to the engineering investment that was preferred instead. the logic of a commercially supported license is obviously the engineering depth of the original author's knowledge and in particular being able to refer to the authoritative / canonical answers were savings the only objective? if so, what did the savings get? anything better?
- murderfs 5y ago
  > that sounds negligible compared to the engineering investment that was preferred instead. Can you trust Oracle not to raise the pricing in the future, given that they've raised it once already?
  - Sparkle-san 5y ago
    >Can you trust Oracle No
    - 5y ago

flyinprogrammer 5y ago

I wonder if Docker Inc will learn from this.

easton 5y ago
They probably can't. Every other business model they've tried hasn't worked. Their only other option is a buyout, and I can only assume Microsoft hasn't offered them enough money yet, because otherwise I assume that would have happened years ago.
oneplane 5y ago
They won't because it's not the same situation and not the issue at hand. If you want to make a comparison: Docker is more like Sun. They will have three options: 1. Go bankrupt 2. Get bought 3. Find a way to make money
- miked85 5y ago
  Aren't those options pretty much identical for every company?
  - secondaryacct 5y ago
    It's missing: continue what we're doing since it working. My company already found a way to make money, we don't need to be bought and are far from bankrupcy.
    - oneplane 5y ago
      That doesn't work for docker since they are on a decline and the business isn't sustainable as it is anymore. So they are on a bankruptcy trajectory already.
  - oneplane 5y ago
    No, you can also be profitable (or healthy) as-is and keep humming along. In docker's case they are on the bankruptcy trajectory so now they have to make choices to change that trajectory (or select option 1 and go bankrupt).

overgard 5y ago

Dumb question, but what's the difference between the Open JDK and the Oracle JDK? Are they separate codebases?

kaba0 5y ago
They are largely the same, OracleJDK building on OpenJDK. There used to be some paid only features like flight recorder, but all were open-sourced by oracle. So as with most java vendors, you pay for the support.
toyg 5y ago
They share 98% of the codebase. Oracle then sprinkles on top a small number of proprietary patches (some optimizations, a couple of tools) and their installer.
panny 5y ago
The OpenJDK and OracleJDK are identical code bases since JDK 11 and are fully interchangeable. The only patches that exist for OracleJDK were the paid support patches for back ports. If you stay on the latest JDK, then this was never relevant to you. If your company is not nimble enough to do that, then it could pay for the tired dinosaur patches and stay on old JDKs. Since other companies have started contributing to the effort of tired dinosaur patches again, it's no longer necessary for Oracle to charge a fee to produce them. In other words, Oracle successfully averted a "tragedy of the commons" by asserting property rights long enough to make others behave and stop abusing the system.
vbezhenar 5y ago
I can’t find sources to support those claims. But AFAIK the main difference from practical POV is support time. Oracle OpenJDK builds are provided on rolling release cadence, there’s no LTS concept. Once Java 18 is out, you’re supposed to migrate ASAP. Oracle JDK does have LTS. You have a year after Java 21 LTS to migrate to it. But those 17.0.x patches will not be open source.
papercrane 5y ago
Depends on the version. Oracle has been working to shrink the difference with each version. They include a bullet list in their release notes for the differences. At this point probably the biggest differences are that usage logging is only available with Oracle's build, and the Oracle build requires 3rd party crypto providers to be signed. Other than that it's license difference, branding, and the installer does some things differently. https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/javase/17-relnote-issues.html https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/javase/17-relnote-i...

amachefe 5y ago

Why would anyone talk them seriously again. Thay did this same thing with OpenOffice. At the rate things are going, MySQL would also get this in the next 10yrs. Oracle wants to extra as much resources as possible from any product. And when they realise the tech world has moved on, would try to throw a hinge to the wheel.

PedroBatista 5y ago

Fuck them, that's what I have to say. And also thank you, for giving many companies the necessary push for them to realize Oracle's JDK was not the only game in town and many others could deliver a perfectly fine JDK. There are few things worse in this business than being labeled an "unreliable partner" and Oracle is being seen as just that even at big companies. Oracle's wisdom to pull this kind of bullshit is already legendary, the Open Solaris train-wreck, the MySQL writing on the wall, the OpenOffice implosion, the JDK shoot-in-foot, those samurais at Oracle's board sure know what they're doing..

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
xorcist 5y ago
Missing from the list is Hudson, which was killed even more dead than OpenOffice. Exactly everyone uses the fork Jenkins instead. Maybe KSplice deserves a spot on the list too, it's far from dead but used to be promising and isn't now used much outside Oracle. The only mystery is Virtualbox, which somehow escaped death and is still useful.
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  It's dead the Apple ecosystem now. They're not bothering to port to ARM64.
- PedroBatista 5y ago
  Oh yeah I forgot Hudson, maybe that one wins 1st place as far as shamelessness is concerned, but because the fork was so swift and Jenkins took over very few people even remember Hudson. Virtualbox was poisoned to take over the whole VM desktop "business" and then.. it stayed there. Not dead but not much vitality going on.
  - koolba 5y ago
    s/poisoned/poised/ Poisoned is what Oracle did to it with the plug-in and extension licensing nonsense.

rubyist5eva 5y ago

Too late, fuck Oracle.

onimishra 5y ago

There are many other good JDKs out there, and with Oracle changing their license back and forth like a pendulum, I can not stress enough that going with the Oracle JDK should be considered a bad idea. See http://whichjdk.com/ http://whichjdk.com/ for further detail (was posted here a couple of months ago)

kaba0 5y ago
This page was heavily criticized as it provides next to no reason on the recommendations. Also, it’s really easy, just use OpenJDK (not adopt) packaged by your distro and stick to the latest version, which will continue to get security updates forever, will be much more performant, etc. In the rare case you need to sit on an older version that is no longer getting security updates, OracleJDK may be preferred as they employ the actual people working on the JDK, and not just backporting commits from the most recent version. So eg. a deprecated feature may not get a security update in time with some other vendors, because it will not have commits from upstream.
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  > Also, it’s really easy, just use OpenJDK (not adopt) packaged by your distro and stick to the latest version, which will continue to get security updates forever, will be much more performant, etc. * Updates for the life of the distro version support policy. I seriously doubt it'd be any more performant. They're all just doing a build of JDK from the same central repo.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    I meant as in most recent JDK version. And openjdk-17 will be faster than 8
5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
Just no. This page should be censored from HN. Consult this instead: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28821316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28821316