Hacker News Reader

Comment by karianna | Hacker News Reader

The AdoptOpenJDK community (a consortium of vendors and users that produce business ready OpenJDK binaries) will work with the Debian maintainers to course correct this going forwards. If you’d like to get involved see https://AdoptOpenJDK.net

View on HN

I'm still astounded how much of an (intentional?) mess Oracle have made of Java and OpenJDK. If you search for Java you get to a Oracle page with a big download button and a cryptic yellow warning about license changes, with a little link at the bottom directing people to OpenJDK. The official OpenJDK builds they send people to have no Windows installer - they're just a ZIP of the JDK. There is no way for an ordinary Windows user searching the internet for a way to install Java on their work PC to end up with a working Java install that doesn't leave their employer on the hook for Oracle licensing fees. AdoptOpenJDK have working builds with a proper Windows installer, but unless you already know about them somehow (for instance, by reading HN regularly) there's no way to find them.

The changes to the process were absolutely necessary for Java to keep growing and remain competitive, but the ecosystem will take a few years to adapt (and I don't think the warning is cryptic).

As to an installer -- the JDK does not require any installation (just point JAVA_HOME at it). In addition, the JDK is for developers only. The days of the "system desktop JRE" are over, and it is against the recommended practice to have the JDK on non-developer machines. Instead, the recommended practice is to have the developer create a small custom runtime with jlink and bundle it with their application (or perhaps a runtime shared for all of the developer's applications, in case the users are all in the same company).

Yes, the current practice is such because Oracle wants to tax all creators of java applications. Java is not run anywhere anymore.

The JDK is for "developers only" because it is open and java is not. Oracle cannot tax and legally threaten an open system the same way it can one where you need a license to actually run java.

I don't know what you're talking about. Oracle has recently, for the first time ever, open sourced the entire JDK. It is 100% open source. No one is threatened, and the license is the same one as that used by Linux.

Just to be clear: Java is a standard; OpenJDK is the name of Oracle's implementation of the Java standard.

That the JDK is for developers who then build their own custom runtimes using the JDK tools is a result of shifts in software distribution -- on the desktop, the shift to app stores, and on the server, the shift to containers -- that made the "desktop JRE" irrelevant (and unpopular). But if you prefer that old model, the JDK contains all you need to create such a runtime easily.

The current thinking is that end users are not supposed to install Java - it will be bundled with every application. That kind of solves the problem, but I guess we'll have to forget about writing small utility programs in Java.

Also, complicating things a bit if you want a traditional shared Java installation, AdoptOpenJDK has apparently been refused a license for the test suite, making it not quite properly offical Java.

> but I guess we'll have to forget about writing small utility programs in Java.

Developers will continue using the JDK (for which no installation is necessary; just setting JAVA_HOME). A tool suite intended for users will share the same runtime. And when it comes to small, user-oriented, standalone utilities, Graal's native image makes that more compelling than ever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com