15 ms·

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 JD

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 The majority of their products are flawed and outdated.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.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        > 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. I had the "pleasure" of working with Oracle BPMS 10 at one point. It was a piece of crap they'd acquired (but apparently a better piece of crap that the other ones available at the time that the team had evaluated). It has pretty much zero code reuse features, and the consultants had taught the team to do stuff like cram all kinds of barely-related stuff into one "screen" so parts could be "reused." Getting support for all the bugs in 10 was extremely painful. It seemed like there was one guy who know what he was doing, and the rest just repeatedly asked for more logs. BPMS 11 was a rewrite with no migration path offered (but by the time that came around I'd noped out of that team). The team eventually re-implemented everything in Activiti before support for BPMS 10 ended. BPMS 12 might have had a migration path (IIRC, a crappy one), but by then Oracle had burned their bridges.
    - eitland 5y ago
      > The products themselves are fine. As someone who has done a bit of Oracle installation I disagree: It is worse than Windows.
  - marktangotango 5y ago
    Who does the work is immaterial to a lot of people. When Oracle bought Sun, literally everyone knew they'd move to a paid commercial license eventually. Which they did. I personally am amused at this sequence of events. It happened to other Sun products as well; open office, and mysql primarily. Commercial licensing didn't work for those open source projects either. What did Oracle actually gain from the Sun acquisition? With this news it seems like nothing. No tears shed for Larry.
    - kmonsen 5y ago
      They got an Android lawsuit against Google over Android.
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        Rightfully so, we don't need Google's own flavour of J++.
        monocasa 5y ago
        Apparently not rightfully so since the courts struck it down.
        pjmlp 5y ago
        Unfortunately, hence the Java community got screwed by your employer and now have to put up with Android Java.
        monocasa 5y ago
        I'm not employed by Google, and never have been; not everyone who disagrees with you has been paid off to do so.
        pjmlp 5y ago
        You have an history defending Google's actions to screw the Java community in name of Android Java, so that is a natural thought. And no, not an Oracle employee, but actually employed by one of the Java main contributors, quite easy to find out which one, although I speak in name of the Java community unable to write proper Java on Android, while ISO C and ISO C++ are fully supported.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Oracle has indeed worked incredibly hard over a long period of time to accomplish that outcome. By “that outcome”, I’m of course talking about the hatred of their business practices rather than the OpenJDK.
tyingq 5y ago
Seems expected. Everyone moved away when they announced it wasn't free anymore. https://support.oracle.com/knowledge/Middleware/2511229_1.html https://support.oracle.com/knowledge/Middleware/2511229_1.ht...
- laurent92 5y ago
  And it wasn’t possible to perform unattended installations, because they required to approve the license manually (“y” from keyboard input), so Oracle JDK was excluded from any Ansible/Puppet/Docker deployment or Linux distribution. Immediate roadblock.
  - Spivak 5y ago
    You can absolutely programmatically have apt make arbitrary selections like this with debconf. debconf-set-selections is your friend.
    - lillecarl 5y ago
      yes | apt install whatever could work too.
      - 3np 5y ago
        or just apt -y
        Zardoz84 5y ago
        It just worked great with the apt packages to install Oracle Java 7 and 8 (when that packages worked...)
        capableweb 5y ago
        Not sure that would work in this case, `apt -y` would tell apt to skip confirmations, packages can still do their own confirmation. Also, NONINTERACTIVE=true (or what it is) I don't think would have worked either, as Oracle famously do their own thing.
xpressvideoz 5y ago
It is ironic that the very distribution that is not recommended by @pron (AdoptOpenJDK) is the most widely used one! [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28821316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28821316
- outjected 5y ago
  The simple reason is that they made it the easiest to install and keep updated with deb / rpm repos. Unfortunately they migrated from adoptopenjdk to adoptium back in September and have yet to provide repos. Microsoft however makes it very easy to install their build in linux. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/java/openjdk/download#linux-deb-and-rpm-packages https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/java/openjdk/download#linux...
  - vbezhenar 5y ago
    How is it easier than azul? It’s just marketing. Adopt spent a lot of money on marketing in the right time.
    - outjected 5y ago
      No reason. Looks like Azul has repos as well. I've never really considered Azul as I wasn't interested in the GC or JIT complier. Looks like their Zulu (non-prime) builds don't include them anyway.
chakkepolja 5y ago
> Developers seem to prefer OpenJDK distributions from AdoptOpenJDK (now Eclipse Temurin), Amazon, Microsoft, Azul, and other vendors. Is "Oracle OpenJDK" option in IntelliJ safe?
- kaba0 5y ago
  OracleJDK got free for even commercial use for the latest LTS version with a “migration window” of 1 year after the next LTS version get released. So LTS to LTS jumping is perfectly fine.
- krzyk 5y ago
  Safe in what means? Licensing? Yes, it always was. (Oracle JDK != Oracle OpenJDK)
  - chakkepolja 5y ago
    Yep about licensing. Thank you.

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.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > 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. I had the "pleasure" of working with Oracle BPMS 10 at one point. It was a piece of crap they'd acquired (but apparently a better piece of crap that the other ones available at the time that the team had evaluated). It has pretty much zero code reuse features, and the consultants had taught the team to do stuff like cram all kinds of barely-related stuff into one "screen" so parts could be "reused." Getting support for all the bugs in 10 was extremely painful. It seemed like there was one guy who know what he was doing, and the rest just repeatedly asked for more logs. BPMS 11 was a rewrite with no migration path offered (but by the time that came around I'd noped out of that team). The team eventually re-implemented everything in Activiti before support for BPMS 10 ended. BPMS 12 might have had a migration path (IIRC, a crappy one), but by then Oracle had burned their bridges.
  - eitland 5y ago
    > The products themselves are fine. As someone who has done a bit of Oracle installation I disagree: It is worse than Windows.
- marktangotango 5y ago
  Who does the work is immaterial to a lot of people. When Oracle bought Sun, literally everyone knew they'd move to a paid commercial license eventually. Which they did. I personally am amused at this sequence of events. It happened to other Sun products as well; open office, and mysql primarily. Commercial licensing didn't work for those open source projects either. What did Oracle actually gain from the Sun acquisition? With this news it seems like nothing. No tears shed for Larry.
  - kmonsen 5y ago
    They got an Android lawsuit against Google over Android.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      Rightfully so, we don't need Google's own flavour of J++.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        Apparently not rightfully so since the courts struck it down.
        pjmlp 5y ago
        Unfortunately, hence the Java community got screwed by your employer and now have to put up with Android Java.
        monocasa 5y ago
        I'm not employed by Google, and never have been; not everyone who disagrees with you has been paid off to do so.
        pjmlp 5y ago
        You have an history defending Google's actions to screw the Java community in name of Android Java, so that is a natural thought. And no, not an Oracle employee, but actually employed by one of the Java main contributors, quite easy to find out which one, although I speak in name of the Java community unable to write proper Java on Android, while ISO C and ISO C++ are fully supported.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Oracle has indeed worked incredibly hard over a long period of time to accomplish that outcome. By “that outcome”, I’m of course talking about the hatred of their business practices rather than the OpenJDK.

tyingq 5y ago

Seems expected. Everyone moved away when they announced it wasn't free anymore. https://support.oracle.com/knowledge/Middleware/2511229_1.html https://support.oracle.com/knowledge/Middleware/2511229_1.ht...

laurent92 5y ago
And it wasn’t possible to perform unattended installations, because they required to approve the license manually (“y” from keyboard input), so Oracle JDK was excluded from any Ansible/Puppet/Docker deployment or Linux distribution. Immediate roadblock.
- Spivak 5y ago
  You can absolutely programmatically have apt make arbitrary selections like this with debconf. debconf-set-selections is your friend.
  - lillecarl 5y ago
    yes | apt install whatever could work too.
    - 3np 5y ago
      or just apt -y
      - Zardoz84 5y ago
        It just worked great with the apt packages to install Oracle Java 7 and 8 (when that packages worked...)
      - capableweb 5y ago
        Not sure that would work in this case, `apt -y` would tell apt to skip confirmations, packages can still do their own confirmation. Also, NONINTERACTIVE=true (or what it is) I don't think would have worked either, as Oracle famously do their own thing.

xpressvideoz 5y ago

It is ironic that the very distribution that is not recommended by @pron (AdoptOpenJDK) is the most widely used one! [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28821316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28821316

outjected 5y ago
The simple reason is that they made it the easiest to install and keep updated with deb / rpm repos. Unfortunately they migrated from adoptopenjdk to adoptium back in September and have yet to provide repos. Microsoft however makes it very easy to install their build in linux. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/java/openjdk/download#linux-deb-and-rpm-packages https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/java/openjdk/download#linux...
- vbezhenar 5y ago
  How is it easier than azul? It’s just marketing. Adopt spent a lot of money on marketing in the right time.
  - outjected 5y ago
    No reason. Looks like Azul has repos as well. I've never really considered Azul as I wasn't interested in the GC or JIT complier. Looks like their Zulu (non-prime) builds don't include them anyway.

chakkepolja 5y ago

> Developers seem to prefer OpenJDK distributions from AdoptOpenJDK (now Eclipse Temurin), Amazon, Microsoft, Azul, and other vendors. Is "Oracle OpenJDK" option in IntelliJ safe?

kaba0 5y ago
OracleJDK got free for even commercial use for the latest LTS version with a “migration window” of 1 year after the next LTS version get released. So LTS to LTS jumping is perfectly fine.
krzyk 5y ago
Safe in what means? Licensing? Yes, it always was. (Oracle JDK != Oracle OpenJDK)
- chakkepolja 5y ago
  Yep about licensing. Thank you.