Hacker News Reader

Comment by cgh | Hacker News Reader

There's nothing particularly special about LTS releases. According to Ron P, they are basically arbitrarily decided by sales and marketing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33039539

View on HN

There is a bit: GraalVM bases itself on LTS releases in terms of features, and Android also somewhat follows them but lags behind way too much (Android 13 came out this year and prides itself on getting up to date with JDK 11).

Ah right okay, I wasn't aware of those things. I've never used GraalVM or written for Android. Thanks for the info.

Ron is outspoken and knows the issues better than most. But he can be blunt on his perspectives and definitely does not represent the whole ecosystem or the majority perspective on all things Java.

For _many_ enterprise users, there is indeed something particularly special about the LTS releases. Even if it's just a marketing term, it's still important to realize that organizations value stability, and the LTS releases can offer that at a different comfort level (and price point).

Yes, LTS was dreamed up as a way for Oracle to make money on open source Java. But the other non-Oracle vendors (equally important to the ecosystem) very much have similar offers of support that Oracle provides.

I'm glad for the model, frankly. And I'm excited about Java's future. LTS releases helps smooth out discussions with CTO types about how to live with Java. Developers can use the latest-greatest and be sure to target a particular LTS version for deployment. Finally Java seems to be moving again.

When pron comes in here and smacks us down with his replies, that's OK, I'm comfortable with my perspective. :)

The operative word is perspective. He represents the perspective of the Java Platform Group where most of the project leads and key developers work (see my comment below). We certainly get that many in the industry see LTS releases as something special, but from the perspective of those that build the platform, they are just another release. This is an important distinction because thinking LTS is special might lead to the inaccurate notion that a non-LTS release is somehow of lower quality, which I hear surprisingly often.

And glad you are excited about the future of Java and the model itself! Most of this work is funded by the LTS model which was designed to give companies the flexibility to decide their upgrade strategy. Lots of teams want to move quickly and get new features, while others just want the app in the corner to be stable for years to come.

> According to Ron P, they are basically arbitrarily decided by sales and marketing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33039539

From the link:

> Oracle's sales arbitrarily selects some feature versions for which to offer an LTS service, and other companies follow their choice

This does not seem to be strictly true. The release cadence is scheduled, with mostly predictable release times.[1][2]

The idea was, if some feature didn't make it's way into this release, it'll just get into the next release (which is only a few months away). Very similar to how the Linux Kernel does releases - arbitrary in features, but not arbitrary in time.

And while Oracle may retain a great deal of influence over the OpenJDK project, Oracle is not the OpenJDK project anymore. There are a lot of other voices to be heard that decide when and what is done.

> BTW, [other companies] can choose to offer LTS even for releases that have already been made and retroactively make them "LTS releases." There's absolutely nothing special about them

He's right about this. However, the reality is most companies offer the same LTS as was scheduled, with extra paid support for anyone willing to pay (and be stuck on) a regular release.

[1] https://www.java.com/releases/

[2] https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/java-se-support-roa...

> And while Oracle may retain a great deal of influence over the OpenJDK project, Oracle is not the OpenJDK project anymore

While there is surely (very welcome) other voices as well, I am not sure I can agree with this statement given that 95+% of OpenJDK development is done by people working for Oracle.

And the projects that tend to be what pushes the platform forward are mostly led by folks at Oracle: Amber (Brian), Loom (Ron), Panama (Maurizio), Valhalla (Brian), Leyden (Mark), etc.

I don’t think they are arbitrary from the perspective of a business. LTS JDK builds offer bug and security fixes for an increased amount of time compared to non-LTS versions.

Unless your business is keen on upgrading the JDK every 1.5 quarters it’s simply easier to rely on LTS versions.

The LTS support guarantees are even true for non-Oracle JDK builds. For example, Amazon Coretto also follows the LTS cycle.

The commitment from OpenJDK to continue to support the LTS release for a number of years longer than the non-LTS releases is pretty significant to a lot of companies using Java.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com