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 <k...@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 <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:30 PM, Kant Kodali <k...@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 <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Benjamin Roth <benjamin.r...@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" <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-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 :) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
