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" <edlinuxg...@gmail.com>: > > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Eric Evans <john.eric.ev...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@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.ev...@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. > >
