You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@cassandra.apache.org by Eric Evans <jo...@gmail.com> on 2017/01/02 16:56:23 UTC
Re: Why does Cassandra recommends Oracle JVM instead of OpenJDK?
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "I don't really have any opinions on Oracle per say, but Cassandra is a
> Free Software project and I would prefer that we not depend on
> commercial software, (and that's kind of what we have here, an
> implicit dependency)."
>
> We are a bit loose here with terms "free" and "commercial". The oracle JVM
> is open source, it is free to use and the trademark is owned by a company.
Are we? There are many definitions for the word "free", only one of
which means "without cost"; I assumed it was obvious that I was
talking about licensing terms (and of course the implications of that
licensing).
Cassandra is Free Software by virtue of the fact that it is Apache
Licensed. You are Free (as in Freedom) to modify and redistribute it.
The Oracle JVM ships with a commercial license. It is free only in
the sense that you are not required to pay anything to use it, (i.e.
you are not Free to do much of anything other than use it to run Java
software).
> That is not much different then using a tool for cassandra like a driver
> hosted on github but made my a company.
It is very different IME. Cassandra requires a JVM to function, this
is a hard dependency. A driver is merely a means to make use of it.
> The thing about a JVM is that like a kernel you want really smart dedicated
> people working on it. Oracle has moved the JVM forward since taking over
> sun. You can not just manage a JVM like say the freebsd port of x maintained
> by 3 part time dudes that all get paid to do something else.
I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,
or maybe that you just really like Oracle, I'm honestly not sure. It
doesn't seem relevant though, because there is in fact a Free Software
JVM (and in addition to some mere mortals, the fine people at Oracle
do contribute to it).
--
Eric Evans
john.eric.evans@gmail.com
Re: Why does Cassandra recommends Oracle JVM instead of OpenJDK?
Posted by Kai Wang <de...@gmail.com>.
Back in the day, HotSpot was recommended because OpenJDK had some stability
and performance issues. But in 2015 or maybe 2014 I heard in a presentation
(don't remember by whom) that OpenJDK is pretty on par with HotSpot for C*.
But I guess the documentation was never properly updated.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:50 AM, Kant Kodali <ka...@peernova.com> wrote:
> The fact that Oracle would even come up with something like this "Oracle's
> position was that Google should have to license code from them." is just
> messed up. And these kind of business practices are exactly the reason why
> to stay away. Of course every company is there to make money. You look at
> Google or FB and see how much open source contribution they have
> done. Oracle doesnt come anywhere close to that.
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:30 PM, Kant Kodali <ka...@peernova.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a subjective question and of course it would turn into
>>> opinionated answers and I think we should welcome that (Nothing wrong in
>>> debating a topic). we have many such debates as SE's such as programming
>>> language comparisons, Architectural debates, Framework/Library debates and
>>> so on. people who don't like this conversation can simply refrain from
>>> following this thread right. I don't know why they choose to Jump in if
>>> they dont like a topic
>>>
>>> Sun is a great company no doubt! I don't know if Oracle is. Things like
>>> this https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/220136-google-plans-
>>> to-remove-oracles-java-apis-from-android-n is what pisses me about
>>> Oracle which gives an impression that they are not up for open source. It
>>> would be awesome to see JVM running on more and more devices (not less) so
>>> Google taking away Oracle Java API's from Android is a big failure from
>>> Oracle.
>>>
>>> JVM is a great piece of Software and by far there isn't anything yet
>>> that comes close. And there are great people who worked at SUN at that time.
>>> open the JDK source code and read it. you will encounter some great
>>> ideas and Algorithms.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Benjamin Roth <be...@jaumo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Does this discussion really make sense any more? To me it seems it
>>>>> turned opinionated and religious. From my point of view anything that has
>>>>> to be said was said.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 02.01.2017 21:27 schrieb "Edward Capriolo" <ed...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Eric Evans <
>>>>>> john.eric.evans@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Edward Capriolo <
>>>>>>> edlinuxguru@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> > "I don't really have any opinions on Oracle per say, but Cassandra
>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>> > Free Software project and I would prefer that we not depend on
>>>>>>> > commercial software, (and that's kind of what we have here, an
>>>>>>> > implicit dependency)."
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > We are a bit loose here with terms "free" and "commercial". The
>>>>>>> oracle JVM
>>>>>>> > is open source, it is free to use and the trademark is owned by a
>>>>>>> company.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are we? There are many definitions for the word "free", only one of
>>>>>>> which means "without cost"; I assumed it was obvious that I was
>>>>>>> talking about licensing terms (and of course the implications of that
>>>>>>> licensing).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cassandra is Free Software by virtue of the fact that it is Apache
>>>>>>> Licensed. You are Free (as in Freedom) to modify and redistribute
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Oracle JVM ships with a commercial license. It is free only in
>>>>>>> the sense that you are not required to pay anything to use it, (i.e.
>>>>>>> you are not Free to do much of anything other than use it to run Java
>>>>>>> software).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > That is not much different then using a tool for cassandra like a
>>>>>>> driver
>>>>>>> > hosted on github but made my a company.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is very different IME. Cassandra requires a JVM to function, this
>>>>>>> is a hard dependency. A driver is merely a means to make use of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > The thing about a JVM is that like a kernel you want really smart
>>>>>>> dedicated
>>>>>>> > people working on it. Oracle has moved the JVM forward since
>>>>>>> taking over
>>>>>>> > sun. You can not just manage a JVM like say the freebsd port of x
>>>>>>> maintained
>>>>>>> > by 3 part time dudes that all get paid to do something else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
>>>>>>> JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,
>>>>>>> or maybe that you just really like Oracle, I'm honestly not sure. It
>>>>>>> doesn't seem relevant though, because there is in fact a Free
>>>>>>> Software
>>>>>>> JVM (and in addition to some mere mortals, the fine people at Oracle
>>>>>>> do contribute to it).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Eric Evans
>>>>>>> john.eric.evans@gmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are we? There are many definitions for the word "free", only one of
>>>>>> which means "without cost"; I assumed it was obvious that I was
>>>>>> talking about licensing terms (and of course the implications of that
>>>>>> licensing).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lets be clear:
>>>>>> What I am saying is avoiding being loose with the word "free"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many things with the JVM are free too. Most importantly it is free
>>>>>> to use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/distribution.xml
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As it relates to this conversation: I am not aware of anyone running
>>>>>> Cassandra that has modified upstream JVM to make Cassandra run
>>>>>> better/differently *. Thus the license around the Oracle JVM is roughly
>>>>>> meaningless to the user/developer of cassandra.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * The only group I know that took an action to modify upstream was
>>>>>> Acunu. They had released a modified Linux Kernel with a modified Apache
>>>>>> Cassandra. http://cloudtweaks.com/2011/02/data-storage-start
>>>>>> up-acunu-raises-3-6-million-to-launch-its-first-product/. That
>>>>>> product no longer exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
>>>>>> JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I am saying is something like the JVM "could" be produced as a
>>>>>> "free software project". However, the argument that I was making is that
>>>>>> the popular viable languages/(including vms or runtime to use them) today
>>>>>> including Java, C#, Go, Swift are developed by the largest tech companies
>>>>>> in the world, and as such I do believe a platform would be viable.
>>>>>> Specifically I believe without Oracle driving Java OpenJDK would not be
>>>>>> viable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are two specific reasons.
>>>>>> 1) I do not see large costly multi-year initiatives like G1 happening
>>>>>> 2) Without guidance/leadership that sun/oracle I do not see new
>>>>>> features that change the language like lambda's and try multi-catch
>>>>>> happening in a sane way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I expanded upon #2 be discussing my experience with standards like
>>>>>> c++ 11, 14,17 and attempting to take compiling working lambda code on linux
>>>>>> GCC to microsoft visual studio and having it not compile. In my opinion,
>>>>>> Java only wins because as a platform it is very portable as both source and
>>>>>> binary code. Without leadership on that front I believe that over time the
>>>>>> language would suffer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "It is very different IME. Cassandra requires a JVM to function, this
>>>>>> is a hard dependency. A driver is merely a means to make use of it."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL. Sure a database with a driver is very useful. I mean it sits
>>>>>> there flushing empty memtables and writing to its log file. You can run
>>>>>> nodetool ring and imagine where data would go if you could put data into
>>>>>> it. Very exciting stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> It does matter in some regards. Cassandra has historically been more
>>>> coupled to specific JVM's than other Java projects. Specifically, in the
>>>> past I attempted to run Cassandra on Azul JVM and the key cache did not
>>>> load as the key cache used some sun.misc.unsafe code that worked
>>>> differently on a different JVM. (I never confirmed if this was a bug in
>>>> oracle/azul/cassandra code)
>>>>
>>>> I have been burned by IceaTea and OpenJDK a few times over the years. I
>>>> do my best to install what is the "common" platform for most users. If the
>>>> project is going to take a position or bias development on one or the other
>>>> it matters.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Oracle's position was that Google should have to licence code from them.
>>
>> This has been a sticking point for the last few years. After a jury found
>> in favor of Google, a appeals court mostly reversed that judgement. A
>> petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case was rejected earlier
>> this year
>> <http://www.extremetech.com/computing/209073-supreme-court-wont-hear-googles-appeal-in-java-api-case>,
>> and the case now sits at a lower court waiting to decide on Google’s fair
>> use argument. In the meantime, Google is making sure this isn’t an issue
>> going forward.
>>
>> At once point Oracle released a 100+ page presentation about its case
>> siting emails from people at google making statements to the effect of "we
>> are going to need to licence this (jvm) at some point (from sun)".
>>
>> SUN was a great company. But you know SUN was out to make money as well.
>> I was a system admin for SUN hardware like SUN E450s. Some SUN systems had
>> "interesting features". One such "feature" was their "certified" hard
>> drives with special "firmware" with the rebranded drives being 2x-3x the
>> cost. See "spud brackets" and other "interesting" http://www.veryc
>> omputer.com/39_3960a4e1434e7562_1.htm things you had to do with firmware
>> etc. If you got caught needing support and happened to have a "non
>> certified" disk you could find yourself persona non grata.
>>
>> Yes, SUN had beautiful hardware, os, and software. But
>> 1) it was not cheap
>> 2) solaris OS was not open-solaris until after they leaked the code on
>> accident
>> 3) the majority of solaris users (that I knew) ran the entire GNU
>> toolchain side by side the solaris tool chain because Solaris had a funny
>> way of cornering you into buying their really pricey compiler if you tried
>> to use the "trusted" packages
>>
>> I am mainly a user of the SUN/Oracle JVM. My logic for switching is
>> based on the quality and frequency of releases. If I stuck with SUN though
>> there "spud brackets" and "special firmware", so I will give oracle some
>> leverage to drop the ball before I switch to the next thing with "open" in
>> the name :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Why does Cassandra recommends Oracle JVM instead of OpenJDK?
Posted by Kant Kodali <ka...@peernova.com>.
The fact that Oracle would even come up with something like this "Oracle's
position was that Google should have to license code from them." is just
messed up. And these kind of business practices are exactly the reason why
to stay away. Of course every company is there to make money. You look at
Google or FB and see how much open source contribution they have
done. Oracle doesnt come anywhere close to that.
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:30 PM, Kant Kodali <ka...@peernova.com> wrote:
>
>> This is a subjective question and of course it would turn into
>> opinionated answers and I think we should welcome that (Nothing wrong in
>> debating a topic). we have many such debates as SE's such as programming
>> language comparisons, Architectural debates, Framework/Library debates and
>> so on. people who don't like this conversation can simply refrain from
>> following this thread right. I don't know why they choose to Jump in if
>> they dont like a topic
>>
>> Sun is a great company no doubt! I don't know if Oracle is. Things like
>> this https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/220136-google-plans-
>> to-remove-oracles-java-apis-from-android-n is what pisses me about
>> Oracle which gives an impression that they are not up for open source. It
>> would be awesome to see JVM running on more and more devices (not less) so
>> Google taking away Oracle Java API's from Android is a big failure from
>> Oracle.
>>
>> JVM is a great piece of Software and by far there isn't anything yet that
>> comes close. And there are great people who worked at SUN at that time.
>> open the JDK source code and read it. you will encounter some great ideas
>> and Algorithms.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Benjamin Roth <be...@jaumo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does this discussion really make sense any more? To me it seems it
>>>> turned opinionated and religious. From my point of view anything that has
>>>> to be said was said.
>>>>
>>>> Am 02.01.2017 21:27 schrieb "Edward Capriolo" <ed...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Eric Evans <john.eric.evans@gmail.com
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Edward Capriolo <
>>>>>> edlinuxguru@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> > "I don't really have any opinions on Oracle per say, but Cassandra
>>>>>> is a
>>>>>> > Free Software project and I would prefer that we not depend on
>>>>>> > commercial software, (and that's kind of what we have here, an
>>>>>> > implicit dependency)."
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > We are a bit loose here with terms "free" and "commercial". The
>>>>>> oracle JVM
>>>>>> > is open source, it is free to use and the trademark is owned by a
>>>>>> company.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are we? There are many definitions for the word "free", only one of
>>>>>> which means "without cost"; I assumed it was obvious that I was
>>>>>> talking about licensing terms (and of course the implications of that
>>>>>> licensing).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cassandra is Free Software by virtue of the fact that it is Apache
>>>>>> Licensed. You are Free (as in Freedom) to modify and redistribute it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Oracle JVM ships with a commercial license. It is free only in
>>>>>> the sense that you are not required to pay anything to use it, (i.e.
>>>>>> you are not Free to do much of anything other than use it to run Java
>>>>>> software).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > That is not much different then using a tool for cassandra like a
>>>>>> driver
>>>>>> > hosted on github but made my a company.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is very different IME. Cassandra requires a JVM to function, this
>>>>>> is a hard dependency. A driver is merely a means to make use of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > The thing about a JVM is that like a kernel you want really smart
>>>>>> dedicated
>>>>>> > people working on it. Oracle has moved the JVM forward since taking
>>>>>> over
>>>>>> > sun. You can not just manage a JVM like say the freebsd port of x
>>>>>> maintained
>>>>>> > by 3 part time dudes that all get paid to do something else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
>>>>>> JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,
>>>>>> or maybe that you just really like Oracle, I'm honestly not sure. It
>>>>>> doesn't seem relevant though, because there is in fact a Free Software
>>>>>> JVM (and in addition to some mere mortals, the fine people at Oracle
>>>>>> do contribute to it).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Eric Evans
>>>>>> john.eric.evans@gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are we? There are many definitions for the word "free", only one of
>>>>> which means "without cost"; I assumed it was obvious that I was
>>>>> talking about licensing terms (and of course the implications of that
>>>>> licensing).
>>>>>
>>>>> Lets be clear:
>>>>> What I am saying is avoiding being loose with the word "free"
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license
>>>>>
>>>>> Many things with the JVM are free too. Most importantly it is free to
>>>>> use.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/distribution.xml
>>>>>
>>>>> As it relates to this conversation: I am not aware of anyone running
>>>>> Cassandra that has modified upstream JVM to make Cassandra run
>>>>> better/differently *. Thus the license around the Oracle JVM is roughly
>>>>> meaningless to the user/developer of cassandra.
>>>>>
>>>>> * The only group I know that took an action to modify upstream was
>>>>> Acunu. They had released a modified Linux Kernel with a modified Apache
>>>>> Cassandra. http://cloudtweaks.com/2011/02/data-storage-start
>>>>> up-acunu-raises-3-6-million-to-launch-its-first-product/. That
>>>>> product no longer exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> "I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
>>>>> JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,"
>>>>>
>>>>> What I am saying is something like the JVM "could" be produced as a
>>>>> "free software project". However, the argument that I was making is that
>>>>> the popular viable languages/(including vms or runtime to use them) today
>>>>> including Java, C#, Go, Swift are developed by the largest tech companies
>>>>> in the world, and as such I do believe a platform would be viable.
>>>>> Specifically I believe without Oracle driving Java OpenJDK would not be
>>>>> viable.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are two specific reasons.
>>>>> 1) I do not see large costly multi-year initiatives like G1 happening
>>>>> 2) Without guidance/leadership that sun/oracle I do not see new
>>>>> features that change the language like lambda's and try multi-catch
>>>>> happening in a sane way.
>>>>>
>>>>> I expanded upon #2 be discussing my experience with standards like c++
>>>>> 11, 14,17 and attempting to take compiling working lambda code on linux GCC
>>>>> to microsoft visual studio and having it not compile. In my opinion, Java
>>>>> only wins because as a platform it is very portable as both source and
>>>>> binary code. Without leadership on that front I believe that over time the
>>>>> language would suffer.
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is very different IME. Cassandra requires a JVM to function, this
>>>>> is a hard dependency. A driver is merely a means to make use of it."
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL. Sure a database with a driver is very useful. I mean it sits
>>>>> there flushing empty memtables and writing to its log file. You can run
>>>>> nodetool ring and imagine where data would go if you could put data into
>>>>> it. Very exciting stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> It does matter in some regards. Cassandra has historically been more
>>> coupled to specific JVM's than other Java projects. Specifically, in the
>>> past I attempted to run Cassandra on Azul JVM and the key cache did not
>>> load as the key cache used some sun.misc.unsafe code that worked
>>> differently on a different JVM. (I never confirmed if this was a bug in
>>> oracle/azul/cassandra code)
>>>
>>> I have been burned by IceaTea and OpenJDK a few times over the years. I
>>> do my best to install what is the "common" platform for most users. If the
>>> project is going to take a position or bias development on one or the other
>>> it matters.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> Oracle's position was that Google should have to licence code from them.
>
> This has been a sticking point for the last few years. After a jury found
> in favor of Google, a appeals court mostly reversed that judgement. A
> petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case was rejected earlier this
> year
> <http://www.extremetech.com/computing/209073-supreme-court-wont-hear-googles-appeal-in-java-api-case>,
> and the case now sits at a lower court waiting to decide on Google’s fair
> use argument. In the meantime, Google is making sure this isn’t an issue
> going forward.
>
> At once point Oracle released a 100+ page presentation about its case
> siting emails from people at google making statements to the effect of "we
> are going to need to licence this (jvm) at some point (from sun)".
>
> SUN was a great company. But you know SUN was out to make money as well. I
> was a system admin for SUN hardware like SUN E450s. Some SUN systems had
> "interesting features". One such "feature" was their "certified" hard
> drives with special "firmware" with the rebranded drives being 2x-3x the
> cost. See "spud brackets" and other "interesting" http://www.
> verycomputer.com/39_3960a4e1434e7562_1.htm things you had to do with
> firmware etc. If you got caught needing support and happened to have a "non
> certified" disk you could find yourself persona non grata.
>
> Yes, SUN had beautiful hardware, os, and software. But
> 1) it was not cheap
> 2) solaris OS was not open-solaris until after they leaked the code on
> accident
> 3) the majority of solaris users (that I knew) ran the entire GNU
> toolchain side by side the solaris tool chain because Solaris had a funny
> way of cornering you into buying their really pricey compiler if you tried
> to use the "trusted" packages
>
> I am mainly a user of the SUN/Oracle JVM. My logic for switching is based
> on the quality and frequency of releases. If I stuck with SUN though there
> "spud brackets" and "special firmware", so I will give oracle some leverage
> to drop the ball before I switch to the next thing with "open" in the name
> :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Why does Cassandra recommends Oracle JVM instead of OpenJDK?
Posted by Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:30 PM, Kant Kodali <ka...@peernova.com> wrote:
> This is a subjective question and of course it would turn into opinionated
> answers and I think we should welcome that (Nothing wrong in debating a
> topic). we have many such debates as SE's such as programming language
> comparisons, Architectural debates, Framework/Library debates and so on.
> people who don't like this conversation can simply refrain from following
> this thread right. I don't know why they choose to Jump in if they dont
> like a topic
>
> Sun is a great company no doubt! I don't know if Oracle is. Things like
> this https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/220136-google-
> plans-to-remove-oracles-java-apis-from-android-n is what pisses me about
> Oracle which gives an impression that they are not up for open source. It
> would be awesome to see JVM running on more and more devices (not less) so
> Google taking away Oracle Java API's from Android is a big failure from
> Oracle.
>
> JVM is a great piece of Software and by far there isn't anything yet that
> comes close. And there are great people who worked at SUN at that time.
> open the JDK source code and read it. you will encounter some great ideas
> and Algorithms.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Benjamin Roth <be...@jaumo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Does this discussion really make sense any more? To me it seems it
>>> turned opinionated and religious. From my point of view anything that has
>>> to be said was said.
>>>
>>> Am 02.01.2017 21:27 schrieb "Edward Capriolo" <ed...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Eric Evans <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Edward Capriolo <
>>>>> edlinuxguru@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > "I don't really have any opinions on Oracle per say, but Cassandra
>>>>> is a
>>>>> > Free Software project and I would prefer that we not depend on
>>>>> > commercial software, (and that's kind of what we have here, an
>>>>> > implicit dependency)."
>>>>> >
>>>>> > We are a bit loose here with terms "free" and "commercial". The
>>>>> oracle JVM
>>>>> > is open source, it is free to use and the trademark is owned by a
>>>>> company.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are we? There are many definitions for the word "free", only one of
>>>>> which means "without cost"; I assumed it was obvious that I was
>>>>> talking about licensing terms (and of course the implications of that
>>>>> licensing).
>>>>>
>>>>> Cassandra is Free Software by virtue of the fact that it is Apache
>>>>> Licensed. You are Free (as in Freedom) to modify and redistribute it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Oracle JVM ships with a commercial license. It is free only in
>>>>> the sense that you are not required to pay anything to use it, (i.e.
>>>>> you are not Free to do much of anything other than use it to run Java
>>>>> software).
>>>>>
>>>>> > That is not much different then using a tool for cassandra like a
>>>>> driver
>>>>> > hosted on github but made my a company.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is very different IME. Cassandra requires a JVM to function, this
>>>>> is a hard dependency. A driver is merely a means to make use of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> > The thing about a JVM is that like a kernel you want really smart
>>>>> dedicated
>>>>> > people working on it. Oracle has moved the JVM forward since taking
>>>>> over
>>>>> > sun. You can not just manage a JVM like say the freebsd port of x
>>>>> maintained
>>>>> > by 3 part time dudes that all get paid to do something else.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
>>>>> JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,
>>>>> or maybe that you just really like Oracle, I'm honestly not sure. It
>>>>> doesn't seem relevant though, because there is in fact a Free Software
>>>>> JVM (and in addition to some mere mortals, the fine people at Oracle
>>>>> do contribute to it).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Eric Evans
>>>>> john.eric.evans@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are we? There are many definitions for the word "free", only one of
>>>> which means "without cost"; I assumed it was obvious that I was
>>>> talking about licensing terms (and of course the implications of that
>>>> licensing).
>>>>
>>>> Lets be clear:
>>>> What I am saying is avoiding being loose with the word "free"
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license
>>>>
>>>> Many things with the JVM are free too. Most importantly it is free to
>>>> use.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/distribution.xml
>>>>
>>>> As it relates to this conversation: I am not aware of anyone running
>>>> Cassandra that has modified upstream JVM to make Cassandra run
>>>> better/differently *. Thus the license around the Oracle JVM is roughly
>>>> meaningless to the user/developer of cassandra.
>>>>
>>>> * The only group I know that took an action to modify upstream was
>>>> Acunu. They had released a modified Linux Kernel with a modified Apache
>>>> Cassandra. http://cloudtweaks.com/2011/02/data-storage-start
>>>> up-acunu-raises-3-6-million-to-launch-its-first-product/. That product
>>>> no longer exists.
>>>>
>>>> "I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
>>>> JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,"
>>>>
>>>> What I am saying is something like the JVM "could" be produced as a
>>>> "free software project". However, the argument that I was making is that
>>>> the popular viable languages/(including vms or runtime to use them) today
>>>> including Java, C#, Go, Swift are developed by the largest tech companies
>>>> in the world, and as such I do believe a platform would be viable.
>>>> Specifically I believe without Oracle driving Java OpenJDK would not be
>>>> viable.
>>>>
>>>> There are two specific reasons.
>>>> 1) I do not see large costly multi-year initiatives like G1 happening
>>>> 2) Without guidance/leadership that sun/oracle I do not see new
>>>> features that change the language like lambda's and try multi-catch
>>>> happening in a sane way.
>>>>
>>>> I expanded upon #2 be discussing my experience with standards like c++
>>>> 11, 14,17 and attempting to take compiling working lambda code on linux GCC
>>>> to microsoft visual studio and having it not compile. In my opinion, Java
>>>> only wins because as a platform it is very portable as both source and
>>>> binary code. Without leadership on that front I believe that over time the
>>>> language would suffer.
>>>>
>>>> "It is very different IME. Cassandra requires a JVM to function, this
>>>> is a hard dependency. A driver is merely a means to make use of it."
>>>>
>>>> LOL. Sure a database with a driver is very useful. I mean it sits there
>>>> flushing empty memtables and writing to its log file. You can run nodetool
>>>> ring and imagine where data would go if you could put data into it. Very
>>>> exciting stuff.
>>>>
>>>>
>> It does matter in some regards. Cassandra has historically been more
>> coupled to specific JVM's than other Java projects. Specifically, in the
>> past I attempted to run Cassandra on Azul JVM and the key cache did not
>> load as the key cache used some sun.misc.unsafe code that worked
>> differently on a different JVM. (I never confirmed if this was a bug in
>> oracle/azul/cassandra code)
>>
>> I have been burned by IceaTea and OpenJDK a few times over the years. I
>> do my best to install what is the "common" platform for most users. If the
>> project is going to take a position or bias development on one or the other
>> it matters.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Oracle's position was that Google should have to licence code from them.
This has been a sticking point for the last few years. After a jury found
in favor of Google, a appeals court mostly reversed that judgement. A
petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case was rejected earlier this
year
<http://www.extremetech.com/computing/209073-supreme-court-wont-hear-googles-appeal-in-java-api-case>,
and the case now sits at a lower court waiting to decide on Google’s fair
use argument. In the meantime, Google is making sure this isn’t an issue
going forward.
At once point Oracle released a 100+ page presentation about its case
siting emails from people at google making statements to the effect of "we
are going to need to licence this (jvm) at some point (from sun)".
SUN was a great company. But you know SUN was out to make money as well. I
was a system admin for SUN hardware like SUN E450s. Some SUN systems had
"interesting features". One such "feature" was their "certified" hard
drives with special "firmware" with the rebranded drives being 2x-3x the
cost. See "spud brackets" and other "interesting"
http://www.verycomputer.com/39_3960a4e1434e7562_1.htm things you had to do
with firmware etc. If you got caught needing support and happened to have a
"non certified" disk you could find yourself persona non grata.
Yes, SUN had beautiful hardware, os, and software. But
1) it was not cheap
2) solaris OS was not open-solaris until after they leaked the code on
accident
3) the majority of solaris users (that I knew) ran the entire GNU toolchain
side by side the solaris tool chain because Solaris had a funny way of
cornering you into buying their really pricey compiler if you tried to use
the "trusted" packages
I am mainly a user of the SUN/Oracle JVM. My logic for switching is based
on the quality and frequency of releases. If I stuck with SUN though there
"spud brackets" and "special firmware", so I will give oracle some leverage
to drop the ball before I switch to the next thing with "open" in the name
:)
Re: Why does Cassandra recommends Oracle JVM instead of OpenJDK?
Posted by Kant Kodali <ka...@peernova.com>.
This is a subjective question and of course it would turn into opinionated
answers and I think we should welcome that (Nothing wrong in debating a
topic). we have many such debates as SE's such as programming language
comparisons, Architectural debates, Framework/Library debates and so on.
people who don't like this conversation can simply refrain from following
this thread right. I don't know why they choose to Jump in if they dont
like a topic
Sun is a great company no doubt! I don't know if Oracle is. Things like
this
https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/220136-google-plans-to-remove-oracles-java-apis-from-android-n
is what pisses me about Oracle which gives an impression that they are not
up for open source. It would be awesome to see JVM running on more and more
devices (not less) so Google taking away Oracle Java API's from Android is
a big failure from Oracle.
JVM is a great piece of Software and by far there isn't anything yet that
comes close. And there are great people who worked at SUN at that time.
open the JDK source code and read it. you will encounter some great ideas
and Algorithms.
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Benjamin Roth <be...@jaumo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Does this discussion really make sense any more? To me it seems it turned
>> opinionated and religious. From my point of view anything that has to be
>> said was said.
>>
>> Am 02.01.2017 21:27 schrieb "Edward Capriolo" <ed...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Eric Evans <jo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > "I don't really have any opinions on Oracle per say, but Cassandra is
>>>> a
>>>> > Free Software project and I would prefer that we not depend on
>>>> > commercial software, (and that's kind of what we have here, an
>>>> > implicit dependency)."
>>>> >
>>>> > We are a bit loose here with terms "free" and "commercial". The
>>>> oracle JVM
>>>> > is open source, it is free to use and the trademark is owned by a
>>>> company.
>>>>
>>>> Are we? There are many definitions for the word "free", only one of
>>>> which means "without cost"; I assumed it was obvious that I was
>>>> talking about licensing terms (and of course the implications of that
>>>> licensing).
>>>>
>>>> Cassandra is Free Software by virtue of the fact that it is Apache
>>>> Licensed. You are Free (as in Freedom) to modify and redistribute it.
>>>>
>>>> The Oracle JVM ships with a commercial license. It is free only in
>>>> the sense that you are not required to pay anything to use it, (i.e.
>>>> you are not Free to do much of anything other than use it to run Java
>>>> software).
>>>>
>>>> > That is not much different then using a tool for cassandra like a
>>>> driver
>>>> > hosted on github but made my a company.
>>>>
>>>> It is very different IME. Cassandra requires a JVM to function, this
>>>> is a hard dependency. A driver is merely a means to make use of it.
>>>>
>>>> > The thing about a JVM is that like a kernel you want really smart
>>>> dedicated
>>>> > people working on it. Oracle has moved the JVM forward since taking
>>>> over
>>>> > sun. You can not just manage a JVM like say the freebsd port of x
>>>> maintained
>>>> > by 3 part time dudes that all get paid to do something else.
>>>>
>>>> I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
>>>> JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,
>>>> or maybe that you just really like Oracle, I'm honestly not sure. It
>>>> doesn't seem relevant though, because there is in fact a Free Software
>>>> JVM (and in addition to some mere mortals, the fine people at Oracle
>>>> do contribute to it).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Eric Evans
>>>> john.eric.evans@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are we? There are many definitions for the word "free", only one of
>>> which means "without cost"; I assumed it was obvious that I was
>>> talking about licensing terms (and of course the implications of that
>>> licensing).
>>>
>>> Lets be clear:
>>> What I am saying is avoiding being loose with the word "free"
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license
>>>
>>> Many things with the JVM are free too. Most importantly it is free to
>>> use.
>>>
>>> https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/distribution.xml
>>>
>>> As it relates to this conversation: I am not aware of anyone running
>>> Cassandra that has modified upstream JVM to make Cassandra run
>>> better/differently *. Thus the license around the Oracle JVM is roughly
>>> meaningless to the user/developer of cassandra.
>>>
>>> * The only group I know that took an action to modify upstream was
>>> Acunu. They had released a modified Linux Kernel with a modified Apache
>>> Cassandra. http://cloudtweaks.com/2011/02/data-storage-start
>>> up-acunu-raises-3-6-million-to-launch-its-first-product/. That product
>>> no longer exists.
>>>
>>> "I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
>>> JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,"
>>>
>>> What I am saying is something like the JVM "could" be produced as a
>>> "free software project". However, the argument that I was making is that
>>> the popular viable languages/(including vms or runtime to use them) today
>>> including Java, C#, Go, Swift are developed by the largest tech companies
>>> in the world, and as such I do believe a platform would be viable.
>>> Specifically I believe without Oracle driving Java OpenJDK would not be
>>> viable.
>>>
>>> There are two specific reasons.
>>> 1) I do not see large costly multi-year initiatives like G1 happening
>>> 2) Without guidance/leadership that sun/oracle I do not see new features
>>> that change the language like lambda's and try multi-catch happening in a
>>> sane way.
>>>
>>> I expanded upon #2 be discussing my experience with standards like c++
>>> 11, 14,17 and attempting to take compiling working lambda code on linux GCC
>>> to microsoft visual studio and having it not compile. In my opinion, Java
>>> only wins because as a platform it is very portable as both source and
>>> binary code. Without leadership on that front I believe that over time the
>>> language would suffer.
>>>
>>> "It is very different IME. Cassandra requires a JVM to function, this
>>> is a hard dependency. A driver is merely a means to make use of it."
>>>
>>> LOL. Sure a database with a driver is very useful. I mean it sits there
>>> flushing empty memtables and writing to its log file. You can run nodetool
>>> ring and imagine where data would go if you could put data into it. Very
>>> exciting stuff.
>>>
>>>
> It does matter in some regards. Cassandra has historically been more
> coupled to specific JVM's than other Java projects. Specifically, in the
> past I attempted to run Cassandra on Azul JVM and the key cache did not
> load as the key cache used some sun.misc.unsafe code that worked
> differently on a different JVM. (I never confirmed if this was a bug in
> oracle/azul/cassandra code)
>
> I have been burned by IceaTea and OpenJDK a few times over the years. I do
> my best to install what is the "common" platform for most users. If the
> project is going to take a position or bias development on one or the other
> it matters.
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Why does Cassandra recommends Oracle JVM instead of OpenJDK?
Posted by Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Benjamin Roth <be...@jaumo.com>
wrote:
> Does this discussion really make sense any more? To me it seems it turned
> opinionated and religious. From my point of view anything that has to be
> said was said.
>
> Am 02.01.2017 21:27 schrieb "Edward Capriolo" <ed...@gmail.com>:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Eric Evans <jo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > "I don't really have any opinions on Oracle per say, but Cassandra is a
>>> > Free Software project and I would prefer that we not depend on
>>> > commercial software, (and that's kind of what we have here, an
>>> > implicit dependency)."
>>> >
>>> > We are a bit loose here with terms "free" and "commercial". The oracle
>>> JVM
>>> > is open source, it is free to use and the trademark is owned by a
>>> company.
>>>
>>> Are we? There are many definitions for the word "free", only one of
>>> which means "without cost"; I assumed it was obvious that I was
>>> talking about licensing terms (and of course the implications of that
>>> licensing).
>>>
>>> Cassandra is Free Software by virtue of the fact that it is Apache
>>> Licensed. You are Free (as in Freedom) to modify and redistribute it.
>>>
>>> The Oracle JVM ships with a commercial license. It is free only in
>>> the sense that you are not required to pay anything to use it, (i.e.
>>> you are not Free to do much of anything other than use it to run Java
>>> software).
>>>
>>> > That is not much different then using a tool for cassandra like a
>>> driver
>>> > hosted on github but made my a company.
>>>
>>> It is very different IME. Cassandra requires a JVM to function, this
>>> is a hard dependency. A driver is merely a means to make use of it.
>>>
>>> > The thing about a JVM is that like a kernel you want really smart
>>> dedicated
>>> > people working on it. Oracle has moved the JVM forward since taking
>>> over
>>> > sun. You can not just manage a JVM like say the freebsd port of x
>>> maintained
>>> > by 3 part time dudes that all get paid to do something else.
>>>
>>> I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
>>> JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,
>>> or maybe that you just really like Oracle, I'm honestly not sure. It
>>> doesn't seem relevant though, because there is in fact a Free Software
>>> JVM (and in addition to some mere mortals, the fine people at Oracle
>>> do contribute to it).
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Eric Evans
>>> john.eric.evans@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>> Are we? There are many definitions for the word "free", only one of
>> which means "without cost"; I assumed it was obvious that I was
>> talking about licensing terms (and of course the implications of that
>> licensing).
>>
>> Lets be clear:
>> What I am saying is avoiding being loose with the word "free"
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license
>>
>> Many things with the JVM are free too. Most importantly it is free to
>> use.
>>
>> https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/distribution.xml
>>
>> As it relates to this conversation: I am not aware of anyone running
>> Cassandra that has modified upstream JVM to make Cassandra run
>> better/differently *. Thus the license around the Oracle JVM is roughly
>> meaningless to the user/developer of cassandra.
>>
>> * The only group I know that took an action to modify upstream was Acunu.
>> They had released a modified Linux Kernel with a modified Apache Cassandra.
>> http://cloudtweaks.com/2011/02/data-storage-start
>> up-acunu-raises-3-6-million-to-launch-its-first-product/. That product
>> no longer exists.
>>
>> "I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
>> JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,"
>>
>> What I am saying is something like the JVM "could" be produced as a "free
>> software project". However, the argument that I was making is that the
>> popular viable languages/(including vms or runtime to use them) today
>> including Java, C#, Go, Swift are developed by the largest tech companies
>> in the world, and as such I do believe a platform would be viable.
>> Specifically I believe without Oracle driving Java OpenJDK would not be
>> viable.
>>
>> There are two specific reasons.
>> 1) I do not see large costly multi-year initiatives like G1 happening
>> 2) Without guidance/leadership that sun/oracle I do not see new features
>> that change the language like lambda's and try multi-catch happening in a
>> sane way.
>>
>> I expanded upon #2 be discussing my experience with standards like c++
>> 11, 14,17 and attempting to take compiling working lambda code on linux GCC
>> to microsoft visual studio and having it not compile. In my opinion, Java
>> only wins because as a platform it is very portable as both source and
>> binary code. Without leadership on that front I believe that over time the
>> language would suffer.
>>
>> "It is very different IME. Cassandra requires a JVM to function, this
>> is a hard dependency. A driver is merely a means to make use of it."
>>
>> LOL. Sure a database with a driver is very useful. I mean it sits there
>> flushing empty memtables and writing to its log file. You can run nodetool
>> ring and imagine where data would go if you could put data into it. Very
>> exciting stuff.
>>
>>
It does matter in some regards. Cassandra has historically been more
coupled to specific JVM's than other Java projects. Specifically, in the
past I attempted to run Cassandra on Azul JVM and the key cache did not
load as the key cache used some sun.misc.unsafe code that worked
differently on a different JVM. (I never confirmed if this was a bug in
oracle/azul/cassandra code)
I have been burned by IceaTea and OpenJDK a few times over the years. I do
my best to install what is the "common" platform for most users. If the
project is going to take a position or bias development on one or the other
it matters.
Re: Why does Cassandra recommends Oracle JVM instead of OpenJDK?
Posted by Benjamin Roth <be...@jaumo.com>.
Does this discussion really make sense any more? To me it seems it turned
opinionated and religious. From my point of view anything that has to be
said was said.
Am 02.01.2017 21:27 schrieb "Edward Capriolo" <ed...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Eric Evans <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > "I don't really have any opinions on Oracle per say, but Cassandra is a
>> > Free Software project and I would prefer that we not depend on
>> > commercial software, (and that's kind of what we have here, an
>> > implicit dependency)."
>> >
>> > We are a bit loose here with terms "free" and "commercial". The oracle
>> JVM
>> > is open source, it is free to use and the trademark is owned by a
>> company.
>>
>> Are we? There are many definitions for the word "free", only one of
>> which means "without cost"; I assumed it was obvious that I was
>> talking about licensing terms (and of course the implications of that
>> licensing).
>>
>> Cassandra is Free Software by virtue of the fact that it is Apache
>> Licensed. You are Free (as in Freedom) to modify and redistribute it.
>>
>> The Oracle JVM ships with a commercial license. It is free only in
>> the sense that you are not required to pay anything to use it, (i.e.
>> you are not Free to do much of anything other than use it to run Java
>> software).
>>
>> > That is not much different then using a tool for cassandra like a driver
>> > hosted on github but made my a company.
>>
>> It is very different IME. Cassandra requires a JVM to function, this
>> is a hard dependency. A driver is merely a means to make use of it.
>>
>> > The thing about a JVM is that like a kernel you want really smart
>> dedicated
>> > people working on it. Oracle has moved the JVM forward since taking over
>> > sun. You can not just manage a JVM like say the freebsd port of x
>> maintained
>> > by 3 part time dudes that all get paid to do something else.
>>
>> I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
>> JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,
>> or maybe that you just really like Oracle, I'm honestly not sure. It
>> doesn't seem relevant though, because there is in fact a Free Software
>> JVM (and in addition to some mere mortals, the fine people at Oracle
>> do contribute to it).
>>
>>
>> --
>> Eric Evans
>> john.eric.evans@gmail.com
>>
>
> Are we? There are many definitions for the word "free", only one of
> which means "without cost"; I assumed it was obvious that I was
> talking about licensing terms (and of course the implications of that
> licensing).
>
> Lets be clear:
> What I am saying is avoiding being loose with the word "free"
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license
>
> Many things with the JVM are free too. Most importantly it is free to use.
>
>
> https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/distribution.xml
>
> As it relates to this conversation: I am not aware of anyone running
> Cassandra that has modified upstream JVM to make Cassandra run
> better/differently *. Thus the license around the Oracle JVM is roughly
> meaningless to the user/developer of cassandra.
>
> * The only group I know that took an action to modify upstream was Acunu.
> They had released a modified Linux Kernel with a modified Apache Cassandra.
> http://cloudtweaks.com/2011/02/data-storage-startup-acunu-raises-3-6-
> million-to-launch-its-first-product/. That product no longer exists.
>
> "I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
> JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,"
>
> What I am saying is something like the JVM "could" be produced as a "free
> software project". However, the argument that I was making is that the
> popular viable languages/(including vms or runtime to use them) today
> including Java, C#, Go, Swift are developed by the largest tech companies
> in the world, and as such I do believe a platform would be viable.
> Specifically I believe without Oracle driving Java OpenJDK would not be
> viable.
>
> There are two specific reasons.
> 1) I do not see large costly multi-year initiatives like G1 happening
> 2) Without guidance/leadership that sun/oracle I do not see new features
> that change the language like lambda's and try multi-catch happening in a
> sane way.
>
> I expanded upon #2 be discussing my experience with standards like c++ 11,
> 14,17 and attempting to take compiling working lambda code on linux GCC to
> microsoft visual studio and having it not compile. In my opinion, Java only
> wins because as a platform it is very portable as both source and binary
> code. Without leadership on that front I believe that over time the
> language would suffer.
>
> "It is very different IME. Cassandra requires a JVM to function, this
> is a hard dependency. A driver is merely a means to make use of it."
>
> LOL. Sure a database with a driver is very useful. I mean it sits there
> flushing empty memtables and writing to its log file. You can run nodetool
> ring and imagine where data would go if you could put data into it. Very
> exciting stuff.
>
>
Re: Why does Cassandra recommends Oracle JVM instead of OpenJDK?
Posted by Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>.
On Monday, February 13, 2017, Brice Dutheil <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Android battle is another thing that I wouldn't consider for OracleJDK
> / OpenJDK.
> While I do like what Google did from a technical point of view, Google may
> have overstepped fair use (or not – I don't know). Anyway Sun didn't like
> what Google did, they probably considered going to court at that time.
>
>
>
>
> -- Brice
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:20 AM, kurt greaves <kurt@instaclustr.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kurt@instaclustr.com');>> wrote:
>
>> are people actually trying to imply that Google is less evil than oracle?
>> what is this shill fest
>>
>>
>> On 12 Feb. 2017 8:24 am, "Kant Kodali" <kant@peernova.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kant@peernova.com');>> wrote:
>>
>> Saw this one today...
>>
>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13624062
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Eric Evans <john.eric.evans@gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','john.eric.evans@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxguru@gmail.com
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','edlinuxguru@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>> > Lets be clear:
>>> > What I am saying is avoiding being loose with the word "free"
>>> >
>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license
>>> >
>>> > Many things with the JVM are free too. Most importantly it is free to
>>> use.
>>> >
>>> > https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/distribution.xml
>>> >
>>> > As it relates to this conversation: I am not aware of anyone running
>>> > Cassandra that has modified upstream JVM to make Cassandra run
>>> > better/differently *. Thus the license around the Oracle JVM is roughly
>>> > meaningless to the user/developer of cassandra.
>>> >
>>> > * The only group I know that took an action to modify upstream was
>>> Acunu.
>>> > They had released a modified Linux Kernel with a modified Apache
>>> Cassandra.
>>> > http://cloudtweaks.com/2011/02/data-storage-startup-acunu-ra
>>> ises-3-6-million-to-launch-its-first-product/.
>>> > That product no longer exists.
>>> >
>>> > "I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
>>> > JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,"
>>> >
>>> > What I am saying is something like the JVM "could" be produced as a
>>> "free
>>> > software project". However, the argument that I was making is that the
>>> > popular viable languages/(including vms or runtime to use them) today
>>> > including Java, C#, Go, Swift are developed by the largest tech
>>> companies in
>>> > the world, and as such I do believe a platform would be viable.
>>> Specifically
>>> > I believe without Oracle driving Java OpenJDK would not be viable.
>>> >
>>> > There are two specific reasons.
>>> > 1) I do not see large costly multi-year initiatives like G1 happening
>>> > 2) Without guidance/leadership that sun/oracle I do not see new
>>> features
>>> > that change the language like lambda's and try multi-catch happening
>>> in a
>>> > sane way.
>>> >
>>> > I expanded upon #2 be discussing my experience with standards like c++
>>> 11,
>>> > 14,17 and attempting to take compiling working lambda code on linux
>>> GCC to
>>> > microsoft visual studio and having it not compile. In my opinion, Java
>>> only
>>> > wins because as a platform it is very portable as both source and
>>> binary
>>> > code. Without leadership on that front I believe that over time the
>>> language
>>> > would suffer.
>>>
>>> I realize that you're trying to be pragmatic about all of this, but
>>> what I don't think you realize, is that so am I.
>>>
>>> Java could change hands at any time (it has once already), or Oracle
>>> leadership could decide to go in a different direction. Imagine for
>>> example that they relicensed it to exclude use by orientation or
>>> religion, Cassandra would implicitly carry these restrictions as well.
>>> Imagine that they decided to provide a back-door to the NSA, Cassandra
>>> would then also contain such a back-door. These might sound
>>> hypothetical, but there is plenty of precedent here.
>>>
>>> OpenJDK benefits from the same resources and leadership from Oracle
>>> that you value, but is licensed and distributed in a way that
>>> safeguards us from a day when Oracle becomes less benevolent, (if that
>>> were to happen, some other giant company could assume the mantle of
>>> leadership).
>>>
>>> All I'm really suggesting is that we at least soften our requirement
>>> on the Oracle JVM, and perhaps perform some test runs in CI against
>>> OpenJDK. Actively discouraging people from using the Free Software
>>> alternative here, one that is working well for many, isn't the
>>> behavior I'd normally expect from a Free Software project.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Eric Evans
>>> john.eric.evans@gmail.com
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','john.eric.evans@gmail.com');>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
https://www.google.com/amp/gizmodo.com/5941817/what-really-made-steve-jobs-so-angry-about-google/amp
Steve jobs too believes google stole from him.
Anyway the other alernative pull a sylacca and re write in c. Then we have
no jvm overlords
--
Sorry this was sent from mobile. Will do less grammar and spell check than
usual.
Re: Why does Cassandra recommends Oracle JVM instead of OpenJDK?
Posted by Brice Dutheil <br...@gmail.com>.
The Android battle is another thing that I wouldn't consider for OracleJDK
/ OpenJDK.
While I do like what Google did from a technical point of view, Google may
have overstepped fair use (or not – I don't know). Anyway Sun didn't like
what Google did, they probably considered going to court at that time.
-- Brice
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:20 AM, kurt greaves <ku...@instaclustr.com> wrote:
> are people actually trying to imply that Google is less evil than oracle?
> what is this shill fest
>
>
> On 12 Feb. 2017 8:24 am, "Kant Kodali" <ka...@peernova.com> wrote:
>
> Saw this one today...
>
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13624062
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Eric Evans <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Lets be clear:
>> > What I am saying is avoiding being loose with the word "free"
>> >
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license
>> >
>> > Many things with the JVM are free too. Most importantly it is free to
>> use.
>> >
>> > https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/distribution.xml
>> >
>> > As it relates to this conversation: I am not aware of anyone running
>> > Cassandra that has modified upstream JVM to make Cassandra run
>> > better/differently *. Thus the license around the Oracle JVM is roughly
>> > meaningless to the user/developer of cassandra.
>> >
>> > * The only group I know that took an action to modify upstream was
>> Acunu.
>> > They had released a modified Linux Kernel with a modified Apache
>> Cassandra.
>> > http://cloudtweaks.com/2011/02/data-storage-startup-acunu-ra
>> ises-3-6-million-to-launch-its-first-product/.
>> > That product no longer exists.
>> >
>> > "I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
>> > JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,"
>> >
>> > What I am saying is something like the JVM "could" be produced as a
>> "free
>> > software project". However, the argument that I was making is that the
>> > popular viable languages/(including vms or runtime to use them) today
>> > including Java, C#, Go, Swift are developed by the largest tech
>> companies in
>> > the world, and as such I do believe a platform would be viable.
>> Specifically
>> > I believe without Oracle driving Java OpenJDK would not be viable.
>> >
>> > There are two specific reasons.
>> > 1) I do not see large costly multi-year initiatives like G1 happening
>> > 2) Without guidance/leadership that sun/oracle I do not see new features
>> > that change the language like lambda's and try multi-catch happening in
>> a
>> > sane way.
>> >
>> > I expanded upon #2 be discussing my experience with standards like c++
>> 11,
>> > 14,17 and attempting to take compiling working lambda code on linux GCC
>> to
>> > microsoft visual studio and having it not compile. In my opinion, Java
>> only
>> > wins because as a platform it is very portable as both source and binary
>> > code. Without leadership on that front I believe that over time the
>> language
>> > would suffer.
>>
>> I realize that you're trying to be pragmatic about all of this, but
>> what I don't think you realize, is that so am I.
>>
>> Java could change hands at any time (it has once already), or Oracle
>> leadership could decide to go in a different direction. Imagine for
>> example that they relicensed it to exclude use by orientation or
>> religion, Cassandra would implicitly carry these restrictions as well.
>> Imagine that they decided to provide a back-door to the NSA, Cassandra
>> would then also contain such a back-door. These might sound
>> hypothetical, but there is plenty of precedent here.
>>
>> OpenJDK benefits from the same resources and leadership from Oracle
>> that you value, but is licensed and distributed in a way that
>> safeguards us from a day when Oracle becomes less benevolent, (if that
>> were to happen, some other giant company could assume the mantle of
>> leadership).
>>
>> All I'm really suggesting is that we at least soften our requirement
>> on the Oracle JVM, and perhaps perform some test runs in CI against
>> OpenJDK. Actively discouraging people from using the Free Software
>> alternative here, one that is working well for many, isn't the
>> behavior I'd normally expect from a Free Software project.
>>
>> --
>> Eric Evans
>> john.eric.evans@gmail.com
>>
>
>
>
Re: Why does Cassandra recommends Oracle JVM instead of OpenJDK?
Posted by kurt greaves <ku...@instaclustr.com>.
are people actually trying to imply that Google is less evil than oracle?
what is this shill fest
On 12 Feb. 2017 8:24 am, "Kant Kodali" <ka...@peernova.com> wrote:
Saw this one today...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13624062
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Eric Evans <jo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Lets be clear:
> > What I am saying is avoiding being loose with the word "free"
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license
> >
> > Many things with the JVM are free too. Most importantly it is free to
> use.
> >
> > https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/distribution.xml
> >
> > As it relates to this conversation: I am not aware of anyone running
> > Cassandra that has modified upstream JVM to make Cassandra run
> > better/differently *. Thus the license around the Oracle JVM is roughly
> > meaningless to the user/developer of cassandra.
> >
> > * The only group I know that took an action to modify upstream was Acunu.
> > They had released a modified Linux Kernel with a modified Apache
> Cassandra.
> > http://cloudtweaks.com/2011/02/data-storage-startup-acunu-ra
> ises-3-6-million-to-launch-its-first-product/.
> > That product no longer exists.
> >
> > "I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
> > JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,"
> >
> > What I am saying is something like the JVM "could" be produced as a "free
> > software project". However, the argument that I was making is that the
> > popular viable languages/(including vms or runtime to use them) today
> > including Java, C#, Go, Swift are developed by the largest tech
> companies in
> > the world, and as such I do believe a platform would be viable.
> Specifically
> > I believe without Oracle driving Java OpenJDK would not be viable.
> >
> > There are two specific reasons.
> > 1) I do not see large costly multi-year initiatives like G1 happening
> > 2) Without guidance/leadership that sun/oracle I do not see new features
> > that change the language like lambda's and try multi-catch happening in a
> > sane way.
> >
> > I expanded upon #2 be discussing my experience with standards like c++
> 11,
> > 14,17 and attempting to take compiling working lambda code on linux GCC
> to
> > microsoft visual studio and having it not compile. In my opinion, Java
> only
> > wins because as a platform it is very portable as both source and binary
> > code. Without leadership on that front I believe that over time the
> language
> > would suffer.
>
> I realize that you're trying to be pragmatic about all of this, but
> what I don't think you realize, is that so am I.
>
> Java could change hands at any time (it has once already), or Oracle
> leadership could decide to go in a different direction. Imagine for
> example that they relicensed it to exclude use by orientation or
> religion, Cassandra would implicitly carry these restrictions as well.
> Imagine that they decided to provide a back-door to the NSA, Cassandra
> would then also contain such a back-door. These might sound
> hypothetical, but there is plenty of precedent here.
>
> OpenJDK benefits from the same resources and leadership from Oracle
> that you value, but is licensed and distributed in a way that
> safeguards us from a day when Oracle becomes less benevolent, (if that
> were to happen, some other giant company could assume the mantle of
> leadership).
>
> All I'm really suggesting is that we at least soften our requirement
> on the Oracle JVM, and perhaps perform some test runs in CI against
> OpenJDK. Actively discouraging people from using the Free Software
> alternative here, one that is working well for many, isn't the
> behavior I'd normally expect from a Free Software project.
>
> --
> Eric Evans
> john.eric.evans@gmail.com
>
Re: Why does Cassandra recommends Oracle JVM instead of OpenJDK?
Posted by Kant Kodali <ka...@peernova.com>.
Saw this one today...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13624062
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Eric Evans <jo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Lets be clear:
> > What I am saying is avoiding being loose with the word "free"
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license
> >
> > Many things with the JVM are free too. Most importantly it is free to
> use.
> >
> > https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/distribution.xml
> >
> > As it relates to this conversation: I am not aware of anyone running
> > Cassandra that has modified upstream JVM to make Cassandra run
> > better/differently *. Thus the license around the Oracle JVM is roughly
> > meaningless to the user/developer of cassandra.
> >
> > * The only group I know that took an action to modify upstream was Acunu.
> > They had released a modified Linux Kernel with a modified Apache
> Cassandra.
> > http://cloudtweaks.com/2011/02/data-storage-startup-acunu-
> raises-3-6-million-to-launch-its-first-product/.
> > That product no longer exists.
> >
> > "I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
> > JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,"
> >
> > What I am saying is something like the JVM "could" be produced as a "free
> > software project". However, the argument that I was making is that the
> > popular viable languages/(including vms or runtime to use them) today
> > including Java, C#, Go, Swift are developed by the largest tech
> companies in
> > the world, and as such I do believe a platform would be viable.
> Specifically
> > I believe without Oracle driving Java OpenJDK would not be viable.
> >
> > There are two specific reasons.
> > 1) I do not see large costly multi-year initiatives like G1 happening
> > 2) Without guidance/leadership that sun/oracle I do not see new features
> > that change the language like lambda's and try multi-catch happening in a
> > sane way.
> >
> > I expanded upon #2 be discussing my experience with standards like c++
> 11,
> > 14,17 and attempting to take compiling working lambda code on linux GCC
> to
> > microsoft visual studio and having it not compile. In my opinion, Java
> only
> > wins because as a platform it is very portable as both source and binary
> > code. Without leadership on that front I believe that over time the
> language
> > would suffer.
>
> I realize that you're trying to be pragmatic about all of this, but
> what I don't think you realize, is that so am I.
>
> Java could change hands at any time (it has once already), or Oracle
> leadership could decide to go in a different direction. Imagine for
> example that they relicensed it to exclude use by orientation or
> religion, Cassandra would implicitly carry these restrictions as well.
> Imagine that they decided to provide a back-door to the NSA, Cassandra
> would then also contain such a back-door. These might sound
> hypothetical, but there is plenty of precedent here.
>
> OpenJDK benefits from the same resources and leadership from Oracle
> that you value, but is licensed and distributed in a way that
> safeguards us from a day when Oracle becomes less benevolent, (if that
> were to happen, some other giant company could assume the mantle of
> leadership).
>
> All I'm really suggesting is that we at least soften our requirement
> on the Oracle JVM, and perhaps perform some test runs in CI against
> OpenJDK. Actively discouraging people from using the Free Software
> alternative here, one that is working well for many, isn't the
> behavior I'd normally expect from a Free Software project.
>
> --
> Eric Evans
> john.eric.evans@gmail.com
>
Re: Why does Cassandra recommends Oracle JVM instead of OpenJDK?
Posted by Eric Evans <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lets be clear:
> What I am saying is avoiding being loose with the word "free"
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license
>
> Many things with the JVM are free too. Most importantly it is free to use.
>
> https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/distribution.xml
>
> As it relates to this conversation: I am not aware of anyone running
> Cassandra that has modified upstream JVM to make Cassandra run
> better/differently *. Thus the license around the Oracle JVM is roughly
> meaningless to the user/developer of cassandra.
>
> * The only group I know that took an action to modify upstream was Acunu.
> They had released a modified Linux Kernel with a modified Apache Cassandra.
> http://cloudtweaks.com/2011/02/data-storage-startup-acunu-raises-3-6-million-to-launch-its-first-product/.
> That product no longer exists.
>
> "I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
> JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,"
>
> What I am saying is something like the JVM "could" be produced as a "free
> software project". However, the argument that I was making is that the
> popular viable languages/(including vms or runtime to use them) today
> including Java, C#, Go, Swift are developed by the largest tech companies in
> the world, and as such I do believe a platform would be viable. Specifically
> I believe without Oracle driving Java OpenJDK would not be viable.
>
> There are two specific reasons.
> 1) I do not see large costly multi-year initiatives like G1 happening
> 2) Without guidance/leadership that sun/oracle I do not see new features
> that change the language like lambda's and try multi-catch happening in a
> sane way.
>
> I expanded upon #2 be discussing my experience with standards like c++ 11,
> 14,17 and attempting to take compiling working lambda code on linux GCC to
> microsoft visual studio and having it not compile. In my opinion, Java only
> wins because as a platform it is very portable as both source and binary
> code. Without leadership on that front I believe that over time the language
> would suffer.
I realize that you're trying to be pragmatic about all of this, but
what I don't think you realize, is that so am I.
Java could change hands at any time (it has once already), or Oracle
leadership could decide to go in a different direction. Imagine for
example that they relicensed it to exclude use by orientation or
religion, Cassandra would implicitly carry these restrictions as well.
Imagine that they decided to provide a back-door to the NSA, Cassandra
would then also contain such a back-door. These might sound
hypothetical, but there is plenty of precedent here.
OpenJDK benefits from the same resources and leadership from Oracle
that you value, but is licensed and distributed in a way that
safeguards us from a day when Oracle becomes less benevolent, (if that
were to happen, some other giant company could assume the mantle of
leadership).
All I'm really suggesting is that we at least soften our requirement
on the Oracle JVM, and perhaps perform some test runs in CI against
OpenJDK. Actively discouraging people from using the Free Software
alternative here, one that is working well for many, isn't the
behavior I'd normally expect from a Free Software project.
--
Eric Evans
john.eric.evans@gmail.com
Re: Why does Cassandra recommends Oracle JVM instead of OpenJDK?
Posted by Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Eric Evans <jo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > "I don't really have any opinions on Oracle per say, but Cassandra is a
> > Free Software project and I would prefer that we not depend on
> > commercial software, (and that's kind of what we have here, an
> > implicit dependency)."
> >
> > We are a bit loose here with terms "free" and "commercial". The oracle
> JVM
> > is open source, it is free to use and the trademark is owned by a
> company.
>
> Are we? There are many definitions for the word "free", only one of
> which means "without cost"; I assumed it was obvious that I was
> talking about licensing terms (and of course the implications of that
> licensing).
>
> Cassandra is Free Software by virtue of the fact that it is Apache
> Licensed. You are Free (as in Freedom) to modify and redistribute it.
>
> The Oracle JVM ships with a commercial license. It is free only in
> the sense that you are not required to pay anything to use it, (i.e.
> you are not Free to do much of anything other than use it to run Java
> software).
>
> > That is not much different then using a tool for cassandra like a driver
> > hosted on github but made my a company.
>
> It is very different IME. Cassandra requires a JVM to function, this
> is a hard dependency. A driver is merely a means to make use of it.
>
> > The thing about a JVM is that like a kernel you want really smart
> dedicated
> > people working on it. Oracle has moved the JVM forward since taking over
> > sun. You can not just manage a JVM like say the freebsd port of x
> maintained
> > by 3 part time dudes that all get paid to do something else.
>
> I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
> JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,
> or maybe that you just really like Oracle, I'm honestly not sure. It
> doesn't seem relevant though, because there is in fact a Free Software
> JVM (and in addition to some mere mortals, the fine people at Oracle
> do contribute to it).
>
>
> --
> Eric Evans
> john.eric.evans@gmail.com
>
Are we? There are many definitions for the word "free", only one of
which means "without cost"; I assumed it was obvious that I was
talking about licensing terms (and of course the implications of that
licensing).
Lets be clear:
What I am saying is avoiding being loose with the word "free"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license
Many things with the JVM are free too. Most importantly it is free to use.
https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/distribution.xml
As it relates to this conversation: I am not aware of anyone running
Cassandra that has modified upstream JVM to make Cassandra run
better/differently *. Thus the license around the Oracle JVM is roughly
meaningless to the user/developer of cassandra.
* The only group I know that took an action to modify upstream was Acunu.
They had released a modified Linux Kernel with a modified Apache Cassandra.
http://cloudtweaks.com/2011/02/data-storage-startup-acunu-raises-3-6-million-to-launch-its-first-product/.
That product no longer exists.
"I don't how to read any of this. It sounds like you're saying that a
JVM is something that cannot be produced as a Free Software project,"
What I am saying is something like the JVM "could" be produced as a "free
software project". However, the argument that I was making is that the
popular viable languages/(including vms or runtime to use them) today
including Java, C#, Go, Swift are developed by the largest tech companies
in the world, and as such I do believe a platform would be viable.
Specifically I believe without Oracle driving Java OpenJDK would not be
viable.
There are two specific reasons.
1) I do not see large costly multi-year initiatives like G1 happening
2) Without guidance/leadership that sun/oracle I do not see new features
that change the language like lambda's and try multi-catch happening in a
sane way.
I expanded upon #2 be discussing my experience with standards like c++ 11,
14,17 and attempting to take compiling working lambda code on linux GCC to
microsoft visual studio and having it not compile. In my opinion, Java only
wins because as a platform it is very portable as both source and binary
code. Without leadership on that front I believe that over time the
language would suffer.
"It is very different IME. Cassandra requires a JVM to function, this
is a hard dependency. A driver is merely a means to make use of it."
LOL. Sure a database with a driver is very useful. I mean it sits there
flushing empty memtables and writing to its log file. You can run nodetool
ring and imagine where data would go if you could put data into it. Very
exciting stuff.