7 ms·

Experts warn of steep increase in Java costs

53 points by jjgreen 4y ago

meitros 4y ago
I never quite understood the relationship between oracle Java and openjdk. Could a company have zero licensing fees if they were to only use openjdk?
- AdamN 4y ago
  Correct (afaik). Oracle would love for that to not be the case but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....
  - kaba0 4y ago
    Oracle is literally the steward of the whole platform, 95+% of all OpenJDK commits come from Oracle-salaried developers and they were literally the company that made the whole project completely open source to the point where the OracleJDK that used to differ is now only a different brand of the OpenJDK sources. In other news, they charge money for commercial support, that you can buy, what a concept..
    - za3faran 4y ago
      They've been doing a very good job at it as well. The developments that have and are going into Java in the past few years have been quite great. From projects like Amber, Loom, Valhalla, GraalVM, Lilliput, Panama, and more!
- bradleyjg 4y ago
  Yes. Even if you need support, other companies offer supported jdks
- fayten 4y ago
  This is correct, these pricing changes are only regarding enterprise licenses for Oracles specific build of Java. Builds of openjdk are free to use and the Eclipse foundation provides builds here: https://adoptium.net/ https://adoptium.net/ Many other companies provide OpenJdK builds for free alongside offering a paid JDK. An example is Azul, they release a free build of Openjdk named Zulu, but also sell a custom JDK that includes a custom high performance GC.
  - Tomte 4y ago
    > Many other companies provide OpenJdK builds for free Including Oracle, by the way. You don't have to buy a commercially supported version if you don't want to pay for Java.
- KingOfCoders 4y ago
  Several Java implementations can be viewed and easily installed with sdkman - I currently use the one from Amazon.
- captn3m0 4y ago
  WhichJDK has a nice summary: > The OpenJDK is the open source reference implementation of the Java SE Specification, but it is only the source code. Binary distributions are provided by different vendors for a number of supported platforms. The OpenJDK project itself is managed on openjdk.java.net where you can find specifications, source code, and mailing lists, but there are no builds that you can download. You need to choose a distribution. Oracle itself provides builds of OpenJDK[2], but they aren't maintained: > Oracle provides OpenJDK builds for Linux, macOS and windows in a compressed archive format. These builds will only be updated for a 6-month period. Updates and security patches will not be available after this short period. This also applies for LTS versions! e.g., the latest OpenJDK 11 build was 11.0.2+9 while the current OpenJDK version is 11.0.12+7. Then there is the Oracle Java SE SDK[3]. This is the one with the terrible license: > Oracle provides a commercial version of the OpenJDK, which are based on the exactly same sources of the OpenJDK: The Oracle Java SE Development Kit (JDK). Oracle provides updates regular updates and security patches for these builds. The main issue with these builds is Oracle’s licensing policy. [1]: https://whichjdk.com/ https://whichjdk.com/ [2]: https://whichjdk.com/#openjdk-builds-by-oracle-jdkjavanet https://whichjdk.com/#openjdk-builds-by-oracle-jdkjavanet [3]: https://whichjdk.com/#oracle-java-se-development-kit-jdk https://whichjdk.com/#oracle-java-se-development-kit-jdk
- fidgewidge 4y ago
  By analogy: OpenJDK = Fedora Linux Oracle JDK = Red Hat Enterprise Linux
hellothere1337 4y ago
Java in general is deprecated anyway, the sooner enterprises realize this the better
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  Legacy code just means anything currently in production I suppose.
  - rtkwe 4y ago
    In some sense that's not far from the truth. As soon as something goes to production it starts slipping out of sync with how it could/should be and the layers of dependencies start accumulating that make it harder to change (unless it's just dead code no one is using I suppose).
  - dwheeler 4y ago
    That is exactly my point in my presentation "If it works, it’s legacy: analysis of legacy code": https://www.adacore.com/uploads/products/SSAS-Presentations/legacy_01_wheeler_v2.pdf https://www.adacore.com/uploads/products/SSAS-Presentations/... If your software will be used, you are "building the legacy systems of tomorrow".
  - captaincaveman 4y ago
    That is painfully close to being true, and truth is, no one wants to maintain code.
- jjgreen 4y ago
  Thanks for the reminder, we'll get to it as soon at the COBOL migration to Java is completed enterprises
- JustSomeNobody 4y ago
  I get that HNers lean towards the web and Startup/throw-away culture, but do people really not get that some systems have to run decades?
Ajunne 4y ago
Seems like a non-issue to me. People using Oracle JDK for their applications can easily switch to one of the OpenJDK variants (Temurin, Corretto, you name it, heck even Microsoft or AliBaba if you really hate yourself), if they haven't so already (Oracle has been charging money for their JDK for quite some time, while there are more than enough free alternatives). The only reason to stick with the Oracle JDK would be to use an application that only supports that specific JDK (like WebLogic), which probably means another Oracle product, so you are giving them $$$ already, so that won't make a difference.
- gibsonf1 4y ago
  My guess is that these companies who are paying for the Oracle version are unaware of the open source version they could use at no cost.
  - VWWHFSfQ 4y ago
    They're all well aware. But companies like paying for things. They don't like legal gray areas about licensing, patents, copyrights. They just want to pay for a license and get indemnification and some kind of assurance they won't get sued or extorted later by some trolls.
    - somerandomqaguy 4y ago
      A little bit of that. A lot of it is also they like having the capability of picking up the phone and getting someone to prioritize / look at an issue they care about. Good luck trying to get an OSS dev to do that for you if you're in an industry that dev doesn't like (i.e. military development). With a negotiated support contract you have assurances that developers are willing to deal with you, that they're probably not going to just up and vanish, and that they've at least agreed to at least consider issues that you run into.
      - marcosdumay 4y ago
        > A lot of it is also they like having the capability of picking up the phone and getting someone to prioritize / look at an issue they care about. Good luck trying to get any large software vendor to do that.
WJW 4y ago
Wow Oracle being aggressive with licensing terms, who would've thought. \s Although when you look at the actual numbers: "[someone] estimated that a company with 250 employees, 20 Java Desktop Users and eight Java Installed Processors would pay $3,000 a year on the old model, which grows to $45,000 a year under the new subscription, a 1,400 percent increase." 45k per year is a lot compared to 3k, and obviously it's even more compared to other languages which are completely free to use. But at the same time 45k is not all that much for a 250 employee software company. Probably not enough to justify a complete rewrite.
- KingOfCoders 4y ago
  On that topic, https://bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts https://bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts
- KingOfCoders 4y ago
  Not sure, why would you rewrite instead of changing the SDK/JDK?
- wongarsu 4y ago
  If you count just the 20 Java Desktop Users, that's $2250/user/year. Sure, it's not a lot compared to salary, but on the other hand at that point Delphi starts looking cheap again. Not enough to justify a rewrite, but enough to consider what to do with new projects.
- kaba0 4y ago
  Java is a language which is completely free to use.
- ensignavenger 4y ago
  Its enough to use as additional proof that Oracle is a bad vendor to rely on in the long run, as they have demonstrated that they don't mind massively raising prices at the drop of a hat because "its not enough to justify a rewrite". Of course, I said 'additional evidence'.... if Oracles many other shenanigans haven't convinced the pointy-haired bosses by now, I'm not sure anything will.
mmastrac 4y ago
I saw an offhand comment that Oracle's Java acquisition was a monkey's-paw wish to have someone step in to evolve the language and fix all the SDK bugs and I think that was a pretty good comparison. There's an alternate universe where Google bought out either Sun or just Java, and then probably abandoned the commercial part of it entirely within a few years, leaving nothing but OpenSDK and a steering committee.
- ec109685 4y ago
  A bunch of the original Java engineers went to Google, so they had enough say that they didn’t need to buy it.
- kaba0 4y ago
  You do realize that Oracle was literally the company that open sourced the whole OpenJDK to the point that the only difference between Oracle’s version and the free open-source reference implementation (95+% developed by Oracle employees) is just some a tiny bit of branding? Also, with respect to Google’s inability to continuously support any project for more than like 4 years, no, Oracle is a much better steward of the platform.
binkHN 4y ago
Who here works for a company that's paying for a Java license? What software are you using that requires this?
blakesterz 4y ago
Nathan Biggs, House of Bricks CEO, estimated that a company with 250 employees, 20 Java Desktop Users and eight Java Installed Processors would pay $3,000 a year on the old model, which grows to $45,000 a year under the new subscription, a 1,400 percent increase. I know someone who works at a large place that got hit by a similar increase. I assume Oracle thought they were large enough to not care and would just pay the HUGE increase. Instead they had a team that spent a couple months ripping Java out of everything. Oracle went from making something, to making nothing. I don't understand how they could think these increases are a good idea.
- francisofascii 4y ago
  Maybe they are betting enough firms will NOT have sufficient staff or budget to rip Java out of everything, and they need to keep apps working.
- moonchrome 4y ago
  If you lose half of your customers but the remaining half pays 15x - worth ?
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    If they are not stupid this is probably the calculation they did. Serve fewer customers but charge them a LOT more.
- weavie 4y ago
  They can afford to lose 14 clients if they can retain one that pays the increase.
  - wongarsu 4y ago
    Short term they make more money if the only lose 9 out of 10 clients. But long term the loss in mind share might do a lot of damage. Java's biggest selling point is that everyone (or at least every enterprise) is using Java. If they manage to push people away they will just lose to C# as the industry slowly shifts to greener pastures. Of course you can also make money on Cobol, and IBM presumably makes decent money on System Z mainframes. So in the short term it might be great.
TurboHaskal 4y ago
No one I know pays for Java licensing. I'm way more worried about the AWS bill from all those Java "micro" services.
ohyes 4y ago
Does this create a loophole where you have a shell company with 1 person in charge of “running” your Java applications. You can obviously still do development on OpenJDK or whatever. I mean, too much of a PITA to do when there are reasonable alternatives, but interesting to think about. I remember when oracle bought sun and it really felt like java was likely to die because of its new owner. It is amazing how successful it has continued to be in spite of that.
- VWWHFSfQ 4y ago
  Oracle would immediately sue that customer out of existence.
  - ohyes 4y ago
    Oh, to be sure, and even if the customer were following the letter of the contract, Oracle would force them to settle by simply making the court case incredibly expensive to fight. You’d be made an example of absolutely.
- kaba0 4y ago
  > It is amazing how successful it has continued to be in spite of that. It won’t be a popular opinion, but it is likely thanks to that. Oracle managed to hold onto almost the whole core team since the Sun times, which is very very rare in case of take overs.
okokwhatever 4y ago
I never knew a programming language with more disrespect and constant attacks than Java (Ok, maybe that old Visual Basic thing). It's mindblowing.
Aeolun 4y ago
Why would you ever pay for the privilege of building something in Java, of all things? There’s so many better and free alternatives.
- KingOfCoders 4y ago
  I think Scala and Kotlin are rather enjoyable languages.
- za3faran 4y ago
  OpenJDK is free. Given the things that Java does, there aren't really any serious competitors - C# comes to mind, but not much else.
AJRF 4y ago
I've not written Java for a very long time, but why are people paying for Java when Azul and OpenJDK exist? I know there must be a reason for it - but I don't know what that is? Is it support? How is that useful for a programming language - do Oracle engineers come and tweak some Java code at your megacorp, or what is it? I don't understand the model
- KingOfCoders 4y ago
  Sometimes people pay because they have something from Oracle and the sales stuff throws Java etc. in/pushes hard. Those CIO/CEOs makeing the decision might not now that it's free. Or they are scared away by Oracle to use these. Or some external company does your IT project like EY. Or they got sold some Java extension by Oracle. And if you pay millions for the database, the Java costs might be trivial. (Haven't payed myself for Java as CTO so this is pure speculation).
  - AJRF 4y ago
    > Those CIO/CEOs makeing the decision might not now that it's free I like to think if I ever ran a company i'd never hire someone to a position where they wouldn't know how to sniff this out, but I imagine I am being incredibly naive. It's mind boggling to me that some bill going from $30k -> $450k as mentioned earlier in the comments on this page would just be swallowed. Seems so wasteful.
    - KingOfCoders 4y ago
      I had to swallow once a bill that went up from $80k to >$500k YoY.
      - AJRF 4y ago
        I'd love to hear that story :D
        KingOfCoders 4y ago
KingOfCoders 4y ago
The challenge with Oracle is this: They easily let people who are unaware in a company install software (happened in the past with Virtualbox to me) and extensions and then after some time do a license audit.
KingOfCoders 4y ago
I think Oracle is the only company that spawned a huge industry of consultants just to help you survice license audits. E.g. https://blog.usu.com/en-us/beat-the-oracle-shock-audit https://blog.usu.com/en-us/beat-the-oracle-shock-audit
tluyben2 4y ago
Oracle used to have some clause in their enterprise license that you cannot ‘touch’ Oracle products with other products than Oracle products (with lists of what needs to work with what). They were a premium partner of us for a short while (because our previous premium partner was bought by them) and we couldn’t run open Java at the time without breaching the license. Not sure if that changed or if it was limited in scope to some of their products.
PedroBatista 4y ago
Java "costs" nothing. If you can't pay 45K a year, why on earth are you still using Oracle's JDK? There are literally dozens of $0 JDK's and companies that offer support for a much lower fee. I think this is one of those non-news stories that should live and die on the company's internal chat. This stuff happens all the time and with companies that have nothing to do with software, surprise, rage, heated phone calls, exquisitely written emails with proposals back and forth and finally some closure. There are thousands of people who only do that every day.
fidgewidge 4y ago
Guy quoted in article is very misleading. Oracle promises to allow legacy users to renew under their current Ts&Cs So no price increases for any existing Oracle Java deployments. Yet then they quote the CEO of a compliance firm who says: We have one customer who has a Java subscription, a Universal License Agreement for Oracle Java, the whole company, but now with the new pricing, their cost for Java goes up 10-fold. Uh no, their price doesn't go up at all, you just said that. Also the new thing is the "universal license agreement" that applies to the whole company, so they can't have that already. the average we're seeing is 2x to 4x price increase that this will incur because customers were very good about minimizing Oracle Java usage and getting a lower price If you are minimizing usage then you don't need to buy any new licenses, and so prices do not increase. This whole article seems to revolve around the view of this one guy that although Oracle has already said existing licenses will continue as is, actually that doesn't count for anything and should be ignored.
raincom 4y ago
A large company I know of, has a deployed a tool on all fleet to check everyday whether Oracle Java exists across the fleet, and send a stern warning to the team that owns these servers to remove it. Maybe, it is ripe to opensource such a tool.

53 points by jjgreen 4y ago

I never quite understood the relationship between oracle Java and openjdk. Could a company have zero licensing fees if they were to only use openjdk?

AdamN 4y ago
Correct (afaik). Oracle would love for that to not be the case but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....
- kaba0 4y ago
  Oracle is literally the steward of the whole platform, 95+% of all OpenJDK commits come from Oracle-salaried developers and they were literally the company that made the whole project completely open source to the point where the OracleJDK that used to differ is now only a different brand of the OpenJDK sources. In other news, they charge money for commercial support, that you can buy, what a concept..
  - za3faran 4y ago
    They've been doing a very good job at it as well. The developments that have and are going into Java in the past few years have been quite great. From projects like Amber, Loom, Valhalla, GraalVM, Lilliput, Panama, and more!
bradleyjg 4y ago
Yes. Even if you need support, other companies offer supported jdks
fayten 4y ago
This is correct, these pricing changes are only regarding enterprise licenses for Oracles specific build of Java. Builds of openjdk are free to use and the Eclipse foundation provides builds here: https://adoptium.net/ https://adoptium.net/ Many other companies provide OpenJdK builds for free alongside offering a paid JDK. An example is Azul, they release a free build of Openjdk named Zulu, but also sell a custom JDK that includes a custom high performance GC.
- Tomte 4y ago
  > Many other companies provide OpenJdK builds for free Including Oracle, by the way. You don't have to buy a commercially supported version if you don't want to pay for Java.
KingOfCoders 4y ago
Several Java implementations can be viewed and easily installed with sdkman - I currently use the one from Amazon.
captn3m0 4y ago
WhichJDK has a nice summary: > The OpenJDK is the open source reference implementation of the Java SE Specification, but it is only the source code. Binary distributions are provided by different vendors for a number of supported platforms. The OpenJDK project itself is managed on openjdk.java.net where you can find specifications, source code, and mailing lists, but there are no builds that you can download. You need to choose a distribution. Oracle itself provides builds of OpenJDK[2], but they aren't maintained: > Oracle provides OpenJDK builds for Linux, macOS and windows in a compressed archive format. These builds will only be updated for a 6-month period. Updates and security patches will not be available after this short period. This also applies for LTS versions! e.g., the latest OpenJDK 11 build was 11.0.2+9 while the current OpenJDK version is 11.0.12+7. Then there is the Oracle Java SE SDK[3]. This is the one with the terrible license: > Oracle provides a commercial version of the OpenJDK, which are based on the exactly same sources of the OpenJDK: The Oracle Java SE Development Kit (JDK). Oracle provides updates regular updates and security patches for these builds. The main issue with these builds is Oracle’s licensing policy. [1]: https://whichjdk.com/ https://whichjdk.com/ [2]: https://whichjdk.com/#openjdk-builds-by-oracle-jdkjavanet https://whichjdk.com/#openjdk-builds-by-oracle-jdkjavanet [3]: https://whichjdk.com/#oracle-java-se-development-kit-jdk https://whichjdk.com/#oracle-java-se-development-kit-jdk
fidgewidge 4y ago
By analogy: OpenJDK = Fedora Linux Oracle JDK = Red Hat Enterprise Linux

hellothere1337 4y ago

Java in general is deprecated anyway, the sooner enterprises realize this the better

hotpotamus 4y ago
Legacy code just means anything currently in production I suppose.
- rtkwe 4y ago
  In some sense that's not far from the truth. As soon as something goes to production it starts slipping out of sync with how it could/should be and the layers of dependencies start accumulating that make it harder to change (unless it's just dead code no one is using I suppose).
- dwheeler 4y ago
  That is exactly my point in my presentation "If it works, it’s legacy: analysis of legacy code": https://www.adacore.com/uploads/products/SSAS-Presentations/legacy_01_wheeler_v2.pdf https://www.adacore.com/uploads/products/SSAS-Presentations/... If your software will be used, you are "building the legacy systems of tomorrow".
- captaincaveman 4y ago
  That is painfully close to being true, and truth is, no one wants to maintain code.
jjgreen 4y ago
Thanks for the reminder, we'll get to it as soon at the COBOL migration to Java is completed enterprises
JustSomeNobody 4y ago
I get that HNers lean towards the web and Startup/throw-away culture, but do people really not get that some systems have to run decades?

Ajunne 4y ago

Seems like a non-issue to me. People using Oracle JDK for their applications can easily switch to one of the OpenJDK variants (Temurin, Corretto, you name it, heck even Microsoft or AliBaba if you really hate yourself), if they haven't so already (Oracle has been charging money for their JDK for quite some time, while there are more than enough free alternatives). The only reason to stick with the Oracle JDK would be to use an application that only supports that specific JDK (like WebLogic), which probably means another Oracle product, so you are giving them $$$ already, so that won't make a difference.

gibsonf1 4y ago
My guess is that these companies who are paying for the Oracle version are unaware of the open source version they could use at no cost.
- VWWHFSfQ 4y ago
  They're all well aware. But companies like paying for things. They don't like legal gray areas about licensing, patents, copyrights. They just want to pay for a license and get indemnification and some kind of assurance they won't get sued or extorted later by some trolls.
  - somerandomqaguy 4y ago
    A little bit of that. A lot of it is also they like having the capability of picking up the phone and getting someone to prioritize / look at an issue they care about. Good luck trying to get an OSS dev to do that for you if you're in an industry that dev doesn't like (i.e. military development). With a negotiated support contract you have assurances that developers are willing to deal with you, that they're probably not going to just up and vanish, and that they've at least agreed to at least consider issues that you run into.
    - marcosdumay 4y ago
      > A lot of it is also they like having the capability of picking up the phone and getting someone to prioritize / look at an issue they care about. Good luck trying to get any large software vendor to do that.

WJW 4y ago

Wow Oracle being aggressive with licensing terms, who would've thought. \s Although when you look at the actual numbers: "[someone] estimated that a company with 250 employees, 20 Java Desktop Users and eight Java Installed Processors would pay $3,000 a year on the old model, which grows to $45,000 a year under the new subscription, a 1,400 percent increase." 45k per year is a lot compared to 3k, and obviously it's even more compared to other languages which are completely free to use. But at the same time 45k is not all that much for a 250 employee software company. Probably not enough to justify a complete rewrite.

KingOfCoders 4y ago
On that topic, https://bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts https://bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts
KingOfCoders 4y ago
Not sure, why would you rewrite instead of changing the SDK/JDK?
wongarsu 4y ago
If you count just the 20 Java Desktop Users, that's $2250/user/year. Sure, it's not a lot compared to salary, but on the other hand at that point Delphi starts looking cheap again. Not enough to justify a rewrite, but enough to consider what to do with new projects.
kaba0 4y ago
Java is a language which is completely free to use.
ensignavenger 4y ago
Its enough to use as additional proof that Oracle is a bad vendor to rely on in the long run, as they have demonstrated that they don't mind massively raising prices at the drop of a hat because "its not enough to justify a rewrite". Of course, I said 'additional evidence'.... if Oracles many other shenanigans haven't convinced the pointy-haired bosses by now, I'm not sure anything will.

mmastrac 4y ago

I saw an offhand comment that Oracle's Java acquisition was a monkey's-paw wish to have someone step in to evolve the language and fix all the SDK bugs and I think that was a pretty good comparison. There's an alternate universe where Google bought out either Sun or just Java, and then probably abandoned the commercial part of it entirely within a few years, leaving nothing but OpenSDK and a steering committee.

ec109685 4y ago
A bunch of the original Java engineers went to Google, so they had enough say that they didn’t need to buy it.
kaba0 4y ago
You do realize that Oracle was literally the company that open sourced the whole OpenJDK to the point that the only difference between Oracle’s version and the free open-source reference implementation (95+% developed by Oracle employees) is just some a tiny bit of branding? Also, with respect to Google’s inability to continuously support any project for more than like 4 years, no, Oracle is a much better steward of the platform.

binkHN 4y ago

Who here works for a company that's paying for a Java license? What software are you using that requires this?

blakesterz 4y ago

Nathan Biggs, House of Bricks CEO, estimated that a company with 250 employees, 20 Java Desktop Users and eight Java Installed Processors would pay $3,000 a year on the old model, which grows to $45,000 a year under the new subscription, a 1,400 percent increase. I know someone who works at a large place that got hit by a similar increase. I assume Oracle thought they were large enough to not care and would just pay the HUGE increase. Instead they had a team that spent a couple months ripping Java out of everything. Oracle went from making something, to making nothing. I don't understand how they could think these increases are a good idea.

francisofascii 4y ago
Maybe they are betting enough firms will NOT have sufficient staff or budget to rip Java out of everything, and they need to keep apps working.
moonchrome 4y ago
If you lose half of your customers but the remaining half pays 15x - worth ?
- ekianjo 4y ago
  If they are not stupid this is probably the calculation they did. Serve fewer customers but charge them a LOT more.
weavie 4y ago
They can afford to lose 14 clients if they can retain one that pays the increase.
- wongarsu 4y ago
  Short term they make more money if the only lose 9 out of 10 clients. But long term the loss in mind share might do a lot of damage. Java's biggest selling point is that everyone (or at least every enterprise) is using Java. If they manage to push people away they will just lose to C# as the industry slowly shifts to greener pastures. Of course you can also make money on Cobol, and IBM presumably makes decent money on System Z mainframes. So in the short term it might be great.

TurboHaskal 4y ago

No one I know pays for Java licensing. I'm way more worried about the AWS bill from all those Java "micro" services.

ohyes 4y ago

Does this create a loophole where you have a shell company with 1 person in charge of “running” your Java applications. You can obviously still do development on OpenJDK or whatever. I mean, too much of a PITA to do when there are reasonable alternatives, but interesting to think about. I remember when oracle bought sun and it really felt like java was likely to die because of its new owner. It is amazing how successful it has continued to be in spite of that.

VWWHFSfQ 4y ago
Oracle would immediately sue that customer out of existence.
- ohyes 4y ago
  Oh, to be sure, and even if the customer were following the letter of the contract, Oracle would force them to settle by simply making the court case incredibly expensive to fight. You’d be made an example of absolutely.
kaba0 4y ago
> It is amazing how successful it has continued to be in spite of that. It won’t be a popular opinion, but it is likely thanks to that. Oracle managed to hold onto almost the whole core team since the Sun times, which is very very rare in case of take overs.

okokwhatever 4y ago

I never knew a programming language with more disrespect and constant attacks than Java (Ok, maybe that old Visual Basic thing). It's mindblowing.

Aeolun 4y ago

Why would you ever pay for the privilege of building something in Java, of all things? There’s so many better and free alternatives.

KingOfCoders 4y ago
I think Scala and Kotlin are rather enjoyable languages.
za3faran 4y ago
OpenJDK is free. Given the things that Java does, there aren't really any serious competitors - C# comes to mind, but not much else.

AJRF 4y ago

I've not written Java for a very long time, but why are people paying for Java when Azul and OpenJDK exist? I know there must be a reason for it - but I don't know what that is? Is it support? How is that useful for a programming language - do Oracle engineers come and tweak some Java code at your megacorp, or what is it? I don't understand the model

KingOfCoders 4y ago
Sometimes people pay because they have something from Oracle and the sales stuff throws Java etc. in/pushes hard. Those CIO/CEOs makeing the decision might not now that it's free. Or they are scared away by Oracle to use these. Or some external company does your IT project like EY. Or they got sold some Java extension by Oracle. And if you pay millions for the database, the Java costs might be trivial. (Haven't payed myself for Java as CTO so this is pure speculation).
- AJRF 4y ago
  > Those CIO/CEOs makeing the decision might not now that it's free I like to think if I ever ran a company i'd never hire someone to a position where they wouldn't know how to sniff this out, but I imagine I am being incredibly naive. It's mind boggling to me that some bill going from $30k -> $450k as mentioned earlier in the comments on this page would just be swallowed. Seems so wasteful.
  - KingOfCoders 4y ago
    I had to swallow once a bill that went up from $80k to >$500k YoY.
    - AJRF 4y ago
      I'd love to hear that story :D
      - KingOfCoders 4y ago

KingOfCoders 4y ago

The challenge with Oracle is this: They easily let people who are unaware in a company install software (happened in the past with Virtualbox to me) and extensions and then after some time do a license audit.

KingOfCoders 4y ago

I think Oracle is the only company that spawned a huge industry of consultants just to help you survice license audits. E.g. https://blog.usu.com/en-us/beat-the-oracle-shock-audit https://blog.usu.com/en-us/beat-the-oracle-shock-audit

tluyben2 4y ago

Oracle used to have some clause in their enterprise license that you cannot ‘touch’ Oracle products with other products than Oracle products (with lists of what needs to work with what). They were a premium partner of us for a short while (because our previous premium partner was bought by them) and we couldn’t run open Java at the time without breaching the license. Not sure if that changed or if it was limited in scope to some of their products.

PedroBatista 4y ago

Java "costs" nothing. If you can't pay 45K a year, why on earth are you still using Oracle's JDK? There are literally dozens of $0 JDK's and companies that offer support for a much lower fee. I think this is one of those non-news stories that should live and die on the company's internal chat. This stuff happens all the time and with companies that have nothing to do with software, surprise, rage, heated phone calls, exquisitely written emails with proposals back and forth and finally some closure. There are thousands of people who only do that every day.

fidgewidge 4y ago

Guy quoted in article is very misleading. Oracle promises to allow legacy users to renew under their current Ts&Cs So no price increases for any existing Oracle Java deployments. Yet then they quote the CEO of a compliance firm who says: We have one customer who has a Java subscription, a Universal License Agreement for Oracle Java, the whole company, but now with the new pricing, their cost for Java goes up 10-fold. Uh no, their price doesn't go up at all, you just said that. Also the new thing is the "universal license agreement" that applies to the whole company, so they can't have that already. the average we're seeing is 2x to 4x price increase that this will incur because customers were very good about minimizing Oracle Java usage and getting a lower price If you are minimizing usage then you don't need to buy any new licenses, and so prices do not increase. This whole article seems to revolve around the view of this one guy that although Oracle has already said existing licenses will continue as is, actually that doesn't count for anything and should be ignored.

raincom 4y ago

A large company I know of, has a deployed a tool on all fleet to check everyday whether Oracle Java exists across the fleet, and send a stern warning to the team that owns these servers to remove it. Maybe, it is ripe to opensource such a tool.