4 ms·

Oracle mainly targets larger organisations that cannot switch quickly to OpenJDK, either because of compliance reasons or organisational inertness. These organi

Oracle mainly targets larger organisations that cannot switch quickly to OpenJDK, either because of compliance reasons or organisational inertness. These organisations have no choice but to pay.

re-thc 4y ago
That's still a choice aka paying is the "easier" choice.
- oxfordmale 4y ago
  A choice requires an active decision. Some companies prefer to use the "proper" version of Java, and have allocated a budget to pay Oracle. In other companies, no choice may have been made until the Oracle auditors knock at the door.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    OpenJDK and Oracle JDK are both the "proper" version of Java, developed by the same company. Only one of them has support, and support isn't free beer.
    - oxfordmale 4y ago
      Beyond support, Oracle JDK provides much better performance than OpenJDK in responsiveness and JVM performance. That is why I referred to it as Java's "proper" version (in quotes). However, in reality, it hardly makes a difference.
      - exabrial 4y ago
        I thought that gap was closed and was really just relevant to non-x86 architectures... I'm not betting any money on it :) but if you did happen to have a link I'd appreciate it
        pjmlp 4y ago
        The difference is mostly on the tooling and support. https://www.baeldung.com/oracle-jdk-vs-openjdk https://www.baeldung.com/oracle-jdk-vs-openjdk
lsllc 4y ago
Interesting, this is the first time I've heard compliance as a reason -- can you elaborate? Is Oracle Java somehow FIPS or ISO certified but not OpenJDK? Thx.
- everforward 4y ago
  When I worked in finance, compliance (the team, not the concept) strongly preferred us to use vendor-supported tech. The understanding I got was that using vendor-supported software would indemnify us if a bug in that software caused us to violate some regulation. Basically, violations caused by software could be passed off to the maintainer of that software, but for open source stuff we were considered the maintainer. It was generally worth it to them to pay for stuff to avoid the tail risk of upsetting the SEC.

Oracle mainly targets larger organisations that cannot switch quickly to OpenJDK, either because of compliance reasons or organisational inertness. These organisations have no choice but to pay.

re-thc 4y ago

That's still a choice aka paying is the "easier" choice.

oxfordmale 4y ago
A choice requires an active decision. Some companies prefer to use the "proper" version of Java, and have allocated a budget to pay Oracle. In other companies, no choice may have been made until the Oracle auditors knock at the door.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  OpenJDK and Oracle JDK are both the "proper" version of Java, developed by the same company. Only one of them has support, and support isn't free beer.
  - oxfordmale 4y ago
    Beyond support, Oracle JDK provides much better performance than OpenJDK in responsiveness and JVM performance. That is why I referred to it as Java's "proper" version (in quotes). However, in reality, it hardly makes a difference.
    - exabrial 4y ago
      I thought that gap was closed and was really just relevant to non-x86 architectures... I'm not betting any money on it :) but if you did happen to have a link I'd appreciate it
      - pjmlp 4y ago
        The difference is mostly on the tooling and support. https://www.baeldung.com/oracle-jdk-vs-openjdk https://www.baeldung.com/oracle-jdk-vs-openjdk

lsllc 4y ago

Interesting, this is the first time I've heard compliance as a reason -- can you elaborate? Is Oracle Java somehow FIPS or ISO certified but not OpenJDK? Thx.

everforward 4y ago
When I worked in finance, compliance (the team, not the concept) strongly preferred us to use vendor-supported tech. The understanding I got was that using vendor-supported software would indemnify us if a bug in that software caused us to violate some regulation. Basically, violations caused by software could be passed off to the maintainer of that software, but for open source stuff we were considered the maintainer. It was generally worth it to them to pay for stuff to avoid the tail risk of upsetting the SEC.