Study capabilities, not intent [LWN.net]

Study capabilities, not intent

Posted May 17, 2006 19:08 UTC (Wed) by felixfix (subscriber, #242)
In reply to: "System call semantics?" by cventers
Parent article: Java becomes more distributable

It is important to evaluate someone's capabilities more than their intent. Maybe current management at Sun has no intention of dropping a bomb on Linux, but all it would take is a bad year or two, a shareholder revolt, and a hostile takeover by some corporate raider or patent troll who sees a chance to make a quick buck.

(Log in to post comments)

Study capabilities, not intent

Posted May 17, 2006 20:00 UTC (Wed) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]

Oh, absolutely -- I agree. But in this case, the licensing agreement
seems to require nothing more that the distributor in question stop
shipping Java.

Scenario:

1. Sun says "Ooh, hey, Red Hat... you're not compatible because your
silly kernel doesn't guarantee that write() is atomic and ours does. Now
you must stop distributing Java"
2. Red Hat stops distributing Sun's version of Java
3. Sun continues to go broke
4. Even more people migrate from Sparc/Solaris to x86/Linux
5. Sun continues to go broke
6. Even more people migrate from Sparc/Solaris to x86/Linux
7. The last Java programmer sees the light and switches to
_________________ (perl/ruby/python) OR gcj continues to get better...
8. Sun goes broke (totally) and stops bothering people

OK, I'll admit it -- I really don't like Sun, Solaris, Java or the people
involved. And I agree with the notion that you should read the licenses
carefully. The reason for my comment was just that the way the article
was written - well, the language seemed to imply that Sun either had
control over the Linux system call interface or could use it to somehow
do damage to Linux vendors. I can't possibly see how Sun could do any
damage at all to Linux vendors in this way (unless being an Indian giver
counts).

Am I missing something? Is the compatibility clause a real cannon in the
weeds, or are we just nodding at eachother, expressing mutual distrust of
Sun Microsystems and their motives?

Study capabilities, not intent

Posted May 17, 2006 21:09 UTC (Wed) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link]

The hammer is potentially larger then you imply in that many vendors, Redhat and Novell for instance have enterprise editions that are in theory supposed to be stable for the multi year lifespan of a particular version. Swapping from one Java implamentation to another would basically break things badly in this case.

Study capabilities, not intent

Posted May 17, 2006 23:54 UTC (Wed) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

So would changing kernel system call semantics.

Study capabilities, not intent

Posted May 18, 2006 0:45 UTC (Thu) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link]

Exactly, rock meet hard place.

Study capabilities, not intent

Posted May 18, 2006 1:02 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]

While I don't think Java is anything close to irrelevant in the market,
there is a lot more to Linux than Java. I think that if anything like that
ever did happen, a patch author who wanted to change the system call
semantics would have to prove he could do so without side effects.

The distributions would always have options in a crunch - hell, you could
even do something crazy and temporarily hack the kernel to behave as Sun
defines compatibility, and even just for the Java process itself.

So maybe the distributions carry their own aftermarket Java patches until
they can migrate.

Study capabilities, not intent

Posted May 18, 2006 1:37 UTC (Thu) by miah (guest, #639) [Link]

RedHat has already been shipping Java, I'm not sure for how long, but I can easily install it on my RHEL systems by adding the proper channel. But guess what, its not Sun Java, its IBM, the IBM JDK, Bea WebLogic and other Java tools are already there. I'd be suprised if Redhat decided to go with Sun Java in RHEL 5.

A quick google turns up the following Press Release: http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2004/press_apps_s...

Study capabilities, not intent

Posted May 18, 2006 6:36 UTC (Thu) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link]

"OK, I'll admit it -- I really don't like Sun, Solaris, Java or the people
involved."

I too have generally got a bad vibe from Sun over Java and the CDDL. However, after hearing Simon Phipps here at Debconf talking about where they are going, where they have come from and why the licenses are the way they are, I have to say I am a lot more inclined to give them some slack than before. There are sun Java developers at Debconf, and Danese Cooper who wrote the CDDL. All of them appear to have an excellent understanding of the problems the Free Software community has with Sun and its licenses, and are doing a good job of explaining to the rest of the huge organisation how they need to change if they want us to stop being rude about them. But that is a really slow process for a multitude of reasons.

Now 3 good people in a 38,000 employee organisation does not guarantee anything, but it is clear to me that significant people are pushing in the right direction and Sun really is trying to be a proper friend of free software. The CDDL has been tweaked to make opensolaris free-er and more Debian-compatible - further tweakage is likely. The new Java licence is a (rather late) step in the right direction, and at least parts of Sun really do want to make it properly free (and realise that ultimately they have to if they don't want to become irrelevant). I think those people would benefit from our support (as well as constructive criticism).

So, Sun haters - there is genuine good will here; lets try to cultivate it.

Study capabilities, not intent

Posted May 18, 2006 1:58 UTC (Thu) by ttfkam (subscriber, #29791) [Link]

Because that worked so well for SCO in stopping Linux?