Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

64-Bit Java For Linux

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the tipping-point dept.

Java 387

LWATCDR writes "First we got 64-bit Flash; then the beginnings of 64-bit Wine; now Sun is providing a 64-bit Java plugin. For most people there is nothing to hold you back from running 64-bit Linux."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Developers section red now ? (2, Funny)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128229)

what is this, moulin rouge ?

Re:Developers section red now ? (3, Informative)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128239)

Looks blue to me

Re:Developers section red now ? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128261)

64-bit Slashdot still has a few kinks to work out.

Re:Developers section red now ? (4, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26129099)

Well, if it were running on 64-bit java instead of 64-bit perl, it wouldn't - java ints are still only 32 bits in "64 bit java. [blogspot.com]

Someone forgot to future-proof their language. 10 years from now, when you're running a 128-bit cpu with a quarter-terrabyte of ram, those 32-bit signed ints are going to look mighty quaint. "What do you mean, I can't store the [file size|number of inodes|ipv6 address|whatever] in a 128-bit int? What do you mean, 128-bit java doesn't have 128-bit ints? You're shitting me, right? This is 2018 ... what's gonna happen in 2038 - we gonna have a 2k38 java problem? No? Why should I believe you? You can't even right-size your ints ..."

Re:Developers section red now ? (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128473)

I'm pretty sure most people would describe that color as green.

Re:Developers section red now ? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128983)

No. It's blue here too. If you were'n referring to the front page, you should go check your eyes.

Re:Developers section red now ? (2, Informative)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128257)

I think the red title might be a "new/hot off the press article" color. I saw it as well, but refreshing it changes it back. At least, that's my guess.

Re:Developers section red now ? (3, Funny)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128275)

I'm colorblind, you insensitive clod!

Re:Developers section red now ? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128467)

Makes a change, most people around here are joke blind.

Re:Developers section red now ? (4, Funny)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128655)

I don't get it.

Re:Developers section red now ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128433)

It's blue. The BSD section used to be red, but doesn't seem to properly exist anymore.

64 bit Java? (5, Informative)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128255)

Linux has had 64 bit java for donkeys years... *rereads summary* - oh, Java browser plugin. A piece of the 90s I was hoping we'd all left behind.

Re:64 bit Java? (5, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128311)

Someone has to be slower to load than the acrobat reader plugin.

Re:64 bit Java? (4, Funny)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128419)

Someone has to be slower to load than the acrobat reader plugin.

Not even Java can take that prize.

Java Joke:

Knock Knock.

Who's there?

...

...

...

...

Java!

Adobe Joke:

Knock Knock.

Who's there?

...

...

...

...

Crash.

Re:64 bit Java? (5, Funny)

Al Al Cool J (234559) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128605)

That's not really a properly-formed knock knock joke. How about:

Knock Knock.

Who's there?

...

...

...

...

Java!

Java who?

...

...

...

...

Java few minutes? 'Cause this might take a while.

Re:64 bit Java? (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128345)

Yeah, I was just as confused, and then just as disinterested.

Seriously, Java plug-ins are still around for some reason?

Re:64 bit Java? (1, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128441)

> Seriously, Java plug-ins are still around for some reason?

Can't recall seeing a big gaping hole on a page where a Java Applet would be in at least a year. And this story is only important if somebody out there has a burning need to run a 64bit Java app... in a web browser.

Good riddence to java 32 and 64bit, Sun freed it about a decade too late for most people to give a crap. Can anybody name a good reason to develop new code in the environment? Yes a lot of legacy stuff was created in the 1990s while Java was the new shiny for people too blind to see (or with a PHB too blind...) the myriad problems but new projects? And when Java goes away can it take Microsoft's lame me too C++/Mono disease with it?

Re:64 bit Java? (4, Insightful)

doktorjayd (469473) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128619)

you're confusing java applets circa 1997 with the java platform.

take a look through the it job listings and see how much java comes up.

much, if not most, server side *enterprise* work is done in java, which is a mature, robust, reliable, performant and scalable platform for which there are myriad commercial and open source libraries to give any project a great set of building blocks and frameworks on which to build.

i check out language du jour a couple times a year, and every time it reaffirms java's benefits.

the problem with applets is they were generally pretty hacky, but there are some good ones out there.

( check out the yahoo games website - my wife has been addicted to literati for years, and its a nice little java applet ).

java on the desktop has a place too, however its the same set of rules for design and structure as applets: done well, nobody would know/care what language its written in, but done poorly without care for threading models and it'll quickly turn into a steaming pile.

then theres j2me, and i'd wager if you have any tivo type device, or even set-top box for your cable service, or blu-ray player, or most mobile phones these days, then you have java working for you there too.

not that i'm arguing for applets by any means, but the more people spread the same old rants as above, the more i'm inclined to correct them.

Re:64 bit Java? (2, Insightful)

tyrione (134248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128863)

you're confusing java applets circa 1997 with the java platform.

take a look through the it job listings and see how much java comes up.

much, if not most, server side *enterprise* work is done in java, which is a mature, robust, reliable, performant and scalable platform for which there are myriad commercial and open source libraries to give any project a great set of building blocks and frameworks on which to build.

i check out language du jour a couple times a year, and every time it reaffirms java's benefits.

the problem with applets is they were generally pretty hacky, but there are some good ones out there.

( check out the yahoo games website - my wife has been addicted to literati for years, and its a nice little java applet ).

java on the desktop has a place too, however its the same set of rules for design and structure as applets: done well, nobody would know/care what language its written in, but done poorly without care for threading models and it'll quickly turn into a steaming pile.

then theres j2me, and i'd wager if you have any tivo type device, or even set-top box for your cable service, or blu-ray player, or most mobile phones these days, then you have java working for you there too.

not that i'm arguing for applets by any means, but the more people spread the same old rants as above, the more i'm inclined to correct them.

You're too professional. People around here suffer from SADD and if something doesn't tickle their leg just right it flies right over their heads.

Re:64 bit Java? (0, Flamebait)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26129095)

> much, if not most, server side *enterprise* work is done in java,

Yea and a decade ago that 'enterprise' stuff was steaming piles of VB. Now it's racks of big ass servers or blades groaning under badly designed layers and layers of Java 'middleware'. Not sure things have actually improved much.

> which is a mature, robust, reliable, performant and scalable platform...

If you have insane amounts of CPU and memory to throw at it to cover up the slowness you can keep a team of medium skill code monkeys permantly employed maintaining all that interfacing between the various middleware products from different vendors.

> java on the desktop has a place too

What? Must have missed it. Is there really a demand for slow bloated crap applications running on the local desktop instead of on slow overloaded webservers? Silly me, I thought the primary reason everybody rejected Java and Vista was the bloat and suck. Cross platform was the only possible reason why somebody might have been attracted to Java for a desktop app but until this year cross platform has basically meant Windows and Solaris. Mac on and off again and with an alien feel such that no Mac zealot would accept a Java app as anything but a temporary solution and the Linux situation so fudged up no sane vendor would depend on Java being available and stable. Ask the guys (Was it Borland???) who bet the company around the turn of the century on a Java based office suite and finally abandoned the unfinished projet too late to save themselves.

> done well, nobody would know/care what language its written in..

No, you notice when a small app starts sucking up all available memory. Java sucks memory so hard GNOME starts looking lean in comparison. Lools like they solve the sluggishness of garbage collection by not actually doing it until malloc returns ENOMEM. Ok, small exageration.

> then theres j2me, and i'd wager if you have any tivo type device, or even set-top box
> for your cable service, or blu-ray player, or most mobile phones these days, then you
> have java working for you there too.

That sort of thing was what Java was origionally created to do. Mixed results though. It's killing BluRay almost singlehandedly, even faster than Sony's own DRM stupidity is killing it off. All I had to do was see how goddamned SLOW a BluRay player was to lose all interest, and I'm not alone. They actually put players on shelves that take upwards of two minutes to go from tray close to anything useful appearing on the display. It is going to take Moore's Law longer to fix that much suck than BluRay is likely to be viable.

Number one complaint you hear about the typical STB? Too slow. I've got a cheap crappy basic cell phone. You can almost see individual pixels draw on the darned thing... smell the Java! BASIC on my old Tandy CoCo outperformed this danged phone's Java. It literally could push more pixels per second.

Re:64 bit Java? (2, Insightful)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128657)

I hope you mean "C#/Mono disease"...

Anyway, there are lots of reasons to use Java (though not in a browser setting) nowadays. Just my two cents. YMMV, not all languages are created equal, not every language is good for every project, etc etc etc.

Disclaimer: I have a great dislike for Java, but the job offer I just accepted is almost exclusively Java work. Silly me.

Re:64 bit Java? (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128861)

> I hope you mean "C#/Mono disease".

[voice Homer Simpson]

Doh!

[/voice]

Re:64 bit Java? (4, Informative)

glwtta (532858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26129015)

And this story is only important if somebody out there has a burning need to run a 64bit Java app... in a web browser.

Actually, the way I understand it, it's for those who want to use the plugin with a 64-bit browser (I didn't realize that was not possible until now). There's no such thing as a "64-bit Java app", only 64-bit JVM implementations.

Can anybody name a good reason to develop new code in the environment? Yes a lot of legacy stuff was created in the 1990s while Java was the new shiny for people too blind to see (or with a PHB too blind...) the myriad problems but new projects?

You're joking, right? Java Applets are dead and buried - and with good reason, they were a horrible hack from the beginning - but Java itself is one of the most important languages we have.

I know Java-bashing is a popular Slashdot pastime, and certainly it's not the most exciting and sexy language out there, but it's popular for a reason. It's got its share of problems (gasp! something that isn't perfect!) and more that its share of outdated myths (gasp! modern JVMs perform well!), but it strikes a pretty good balance between abstraction, performance, and complexity (much as I hate to use this argument, not every programmer out there is a rock star).

I really want to hear what you would recommend as a wholesale replacement for Java. I'm pretty sure I don't know of anything that's as broadly applicable.

(Plus, with projects like Scala and Clojure it's looking increasingly like the JVM isn't going anywhere any time soon, regardless of Java's fate)

Re:64 bit Java? (1)

bucky0 (229117) | more than 5 years ago | (#26129113)

java SSH applets are the only things that come to mind

Re:64 bit Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128413)

Why the hatred? What are the alternatives for things that you can only implement with a Java plugin?

Re:64 bit Java? (0, Troll)

crow (16139) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128589)

There is nothing that can only be implemented with a Java plugin. Javascript has reached the point where much of what plugins had been used for in the past can now be done directly. If you're using a Java plugin, you're doing it wrong.

Re:64 bit Java? (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128871)

Please. Do your worst to convert me and embrace the Ajax whore.

Re:64 bit Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128885)

There is nothing that can only be implemented with a Java plugin. Javascript has reached the point where much of what plugins had been used for in the past can now be done directly. If you're using a Java plugin, you're doing it wrong.

Please write the image bulk upload utility used on Facebook with identical functionality using only javscript and then post the code for it here. After you've done this, perhaps we can talk.

Re:64 bit Java? (4, Insightful)

Skrapion (955066) | more than 5 years ago | (#26129053)

Oh please. You're telling me you can implement a webcam viewer with Javascript?

The only real alternative for Java applets is Flash. Of course, compared to Flash, Java applets have a lot of downfalls. The VM takes a ridiculous amount of time to start up, and it's really intrusive when it sits in your system tray and constantly announces its new updates.

However, this is Slashdot, which means there's lots of open-source advocates around. So for all the OSS advocates out there, stop and think for a minute before you bash Java applets. They're not great, but they're the only open alternative to Flash right now.

Re:64 bit Java? (3, Informative)

TheUser0x58 (733947) | more than 5 years ago | (#26129069)

Java applets are the only cross-platform technology that can do full 3D rendering in the browser.

Re:64 bit Java? (4, Informative)

this great guy (922511) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128881)

Linux has had a full-featured 64-bit Java plugin that even includes LiveConnect [wikipedia.org] support for at least months [softwhere.org] via IcedTea [wikipedia.org] , a special build by Red Hat of the official OpenJDK source tree. For example Ubuntu 8.10 ships this 64-bit plugin as the icedtea6-plugin [ubuntu.com] package, which I have been using for the past 2 months. And, no, I am not talking about the GCJ or Blackdown Java implementations which are significantly more buggy or incomplete (lacks LiveConnect support).

What is new today is that Sun just released a development build of Java 6u12, build b02 [java.net] , which includes the 64-bit plugin. However technically we still have to wait for a couple months before 6u12 is officially released. But again you can already get a 64-bit plugin based on essentially the same source tree via IcedTea.

64-bit and 32-bit binaries (5, Informative)

robo_mojo (997193) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128277)

For most people there is nothing to hold you back from running 64-bit Linux.

Lack of 64-bit {Java,Flash,Wine} doesn't hold you back from 64-bit Linux. A decent Linux distro can handle both 64-bit and 32-bit binaries.

Re:64-bit and 32-bit binaries (2, Informative)

aled (228417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128331)

I think there is a problem running a 64 bit browser with a 32 bit Java plugin.

Re:64-bit and 32-bit binaries (1)

AeneaTech (1308711) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128767)

Can you explain what that problem might be? Since I'm running 64-bit firefox and 32-bit flash+java just fine...

Re:64-bit and 32-bit binaries (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 5 years ago | (#26129051)

You're almost certainly running IcedTea [iced-tea.org] if you're running a Java plugin in a 64-bit browser.

As a sibling pointed out, people have been bugging Sun to release a 64-bit plugin for years (including myself).

Re:64-bit and 32-bit binaries (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26129065)

Normally yes. But there's a wrapper for it. As is for flash. I used Firefox + nspluginwrapper + Flash for quite some time now. As soon as Flash 10 (64 bit) becomes stable (It's still slower and buggier here than Flash 9 (32 bit) with the wrapper.), nspluginwrapper becomes obsolete.

Re:64-bit and 32-bit binaries (1)

Skrapion (955066) | more than 5 years ago | (#26129157)

"Doctor, it hurts when I use a 64-bit browser!"

I think you can figure out the solution to the problem. [wikipedia.org]

Don't get me wrong, this is good news, but it's not a huge deal.

Re:64-bit and 32-bit binaries (1)

micheas (231635) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128385)

For me 32bit flash on amd64 is always on the top layer (on top of drop down menus) and crashes every few hours.

(I assume that is what is causing it as my laptop that runs in 32bit mode has none of those issues.)

Hopefully 64bit flash will fix those issues. (or GNASH will finally close the gap enough to work better than 32bit Flash. for youtube GNASH is better than Adobe Flash, but other than that one case GNASH fails so much more than Adobe Flash that it is hard to migrate. I wish I could spec GNASH with Midori and Galeon and Adobe Flash with Konquerer and Iceweasel, Hmm time to file a bug report, now if only I can figure out which packages to file it against...)

Re:64-bit and 32-bit binaries (2, Funny)

bobstreo (1320787) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128525)

Yeah if only running wireless in 64 bit worked without the ritual blood sacrifice. Or ndiswrapper, or having to re-install with every kernel update.

Stupid ath wireless.

Then maybe I'd care about Java/Flash...

Re:64-bit and 32-bit binaries (2, Informative)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128687)

Get a non-crappy wireless card.

In all seriousness though, my wireless card (Intel 3945 ABG) didn't work with kernel 2.6.25 x64 (though it did in 2.6.24 x86), but then I upgraded to 2.6.26 x64... and it works flawlessly, without redoing any wireless configuration or reinstalling anything else. Even the LED blinks appropriately :) (I wasn't even trying to make the wireless work when I upgraded the kernel, I was trying to make my audio work. Still no luck there.)

Re:64-bit and 32-bit binaries (2, Informative)

Froeschle (943753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128649)

While it is true that you can run 32 bit binaries under 64 bit Linux, one problem I have had in particular is the combination of the two. I have a 64 bit system but I could only run the 32 bit version of the Java plugin under 32 bit Firefox, which of course breaks most other existing 64 bit plugins that would not work under a 32 bit Firefox installation. There are wrappers and such but the whole thing is just a major PITA. I for one welcome the new 64 bit Java plugin!

Re:64-bit and 32-bit binaries (1)

Skrapion (955066) | more than 5 years ago | (#26129079)

That's really a distro problem. If you have a 32-bit version of Firefox, your distro should make it easy to install 32-bit plugins.

Of course, with 64-bit support taking off, it's a problem that may not need to be solved.

Re:64-bit and 32-bit binaries (1)

Eil (82413) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128851)

Lack of 64-bit {Java,Flash,Wine} doesn't hold you back from 64-bit Linux. A decent Linux distro can handle both 64-bit and 32-bit binaries.

But firefox can't. :(

Aw crap (1)

j-cloth (862412) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128279)

I finally got things setup just the way I want them in my 32-bit install and now the only things that were keeping me from running 64 bit are fixed. Obviously, I now have to reinstall.

Re:Aw crap (4, Funny)

aled (228417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128381)

obviously you need to reinstall... with 128-bits Linux...

Most of my 3rd-party apps do not work with Java 6 (3, Informative)

rminsk (831757) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128289)

Most of the 3rd-party applications my work run only work with with java runtime 5.0 and do not work with 6.0. Until sun provides a 64-bit version of Java 5.0 then I will be stuck on the 32-bit version with a 32-bit browser.

Re:Most of my 3rd-party apps do not work with Java (1)

Nicopa (87617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128449)

It's not easy to find things that stop working with new Java releases. Those must be very crappy applications.

Re:Most of my 3rd-party apps do not work with Java (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128709)

It's not easy to find things that stop working with new Java releases. Those must be very crappy applications.

Many cisco router web-management applications are crappy java programs, and will work with one AND ONLY ONE ancient version of java.

I think it's cisco's way of making newbies learn to configure routers from the command line.

Re:Most of my 3rd-party apps do not work with Java (3, Informative)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 5 years ago | (#26129123)

Yes, we have one we payed a few hundred grand for. SungardSCT can suck my balls. Not only does it only work with java 5, but it has to be the exact right version. Do the wrong patch and its all over.

Re:Most of my 3rd-party apps do not work with Java (2)

mabinogi (74033) | more than 5 years ago | (#26129153)

Except when you're talking about Java 6.
I don't know what the hell Sun did with Java 6.
I'd never had compatibility problems with any previous version, but 6 was full of them.

However, I believe 6u10 is finally a Java6 release that's actually safe to use.

Re:Most of my 3rd-party apps do not work with Java (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26129043)

And thus is the problem with Java. The "run anywhere" just doesn't hold any water.

Java is just 90's shit like practically everything from the dotboom era. I remember so many failed Java projects from back then. So many...

About time! (1)

jonesy2k (934862) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128295)

...that is all.

Re:About time! (3, Informative)

INeededALogin (771371) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128369)

...that is all.

yup, very much about time. All of us sysadmins in Java shops have been hitting the 4 GB maximum for awhile. Java really does love the memory

Re:About time! (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26129057)

Wasn't the actual limit for 32-bit Java a lot lower, something like 1.4GB, or was that just on Windows?

Anyway, I too have been enjoying being able to allocate 16GB Java heaps (hey, when you have 200GB of XML to parse/index, it helps).

128 bit computing is around the corner (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128305)

The time has come to begin discussing 128 bit computing.

Re:128 bit computing is around the corner (5, Funny)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128377)

64.0 bits should be enough for anyone.

Re:128 bit computing is around the corner (4, Funny)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128759)

My Intel processor claims that 63.99 bits should be enough for everybody.

Re:128 bit computing is around the corner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128461)

Oh please no. I'm already using at most 5 bytes from each 8-byte pointer, and you'd like to increase pointer size to 16-byte already?

Re:128 bit computing is around the corner (2, Insightful)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 5 years ago | (#26129021)

Who was the genius that modded this interesting? 128 bit computing is a joke. Even if we had anythin resembling the amount of memory you need to make 128 bit computing worthwhile (That's 16.8 million Terabytes of RAM,) it is likely that this hypothetical computer (if any possible use on the desktop could be conceived) would have something on the order of 2048 cores, if not many more.

In those circumstances, I would prefer the architecture that restricted each core (or a subset of cores) to their own 64 bit domain of memory addresses. Anything beyond that could be handled by speaking between the different cores.

I can accept that there could be some applications in a hundred years or so that might require 128 bit on the desktop. That said, while 64-bit might not be enough for anyone, it is almost without doubt enough for any individual processor.

And we've just nearly finished porting everything to 64 bit. I'd rather emulate 128 bit on 64 bit hardware than do that again.

For most people (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128333)

For most people there is nothing to hold you back from running 64-bit Linux.

Except the fact that Microsoft Windows is superior in every aspect.

Re:For most people (2, Funny)

kimvette (919543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128353)

Why? 1.84467441 x 10^19 bytes ought to be enough for anyone!

Glad to have it (1)

crow (16139) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128339)

My employer recently outsourced timesheets to ADP, and ADP uses a horrid Java plugin. Hopefully this will get it working in Linux (well, when the site is stable enough to work--I expected better of ADP).

64 bit this, 64 bit that... (0, Offtopic)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128343)

Okay, on one hand, native 64 bit apps are good because they speed up data execution--in theory. On the other hand, is this really "stuff that matters"? This isn't new technology. I read slashdot so I can get news on stuff in the industry that has some kind of impact, not to hear about product feature announcements. In other news, a network admin noticed the linoleum in the corner of the slashdot server room curled slightly today. x_x

Re:64 bit this, 64 bit that... (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128813)

Ignoring the little detail that java applet support doesn't matter anymore then yes, this is "stuff that matters". The kind of news you seem to be looking for you can find on c|net. Slashdot is the "News for nerds" site.

but seriously folks (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128359)

Is this something that a non-obsessed user would notice, or could be easily made to notice?

Pamplona: Running with the bits. (5, Funny)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128395)

""First we got 64-bit Flash; then the beginnings of 64-bit Wine; now Sun is providing a 64-bit Java plugin. For most people there is nothing to hold you back from running 64-bit Linux."

Owning a 32 bit computer might be an issue.

Re:Pamplona: Running with the bits. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128595)

Did you miss the most people part? Because you are not most people if you don't have a 64bit capable system...

And here's your impetus to upgrade! (2, Funny)

Wee (17189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128607)

Seriously! This is great news. I'm buying new hardware right now!

Be still my heart.

-B

Re:Pamplona: Running with the bits. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128625)

Owning a 32 bit computer might be an issue.

Being a 2 bit user would be an issue too.

Bloat-o-matic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128421)

Buy and build a nice 64 bit system, just to load it up with bloatware... nice.

Skip...

Let me get this striaght... (1, Troll)

Zadaz (950521) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128439)

So... the most desirable applications for 64 bit Linux are virtual machines to run applications meant for somewhere else?

So much for the "mainstream" myth.

Re:Let me get this striaght... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128537)

Mod parent up +1

Nice troll (1)

frieko (855745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128725)

They're not the three most desirable apps on Linux, they're the three apps that hadn't yet gone 64-bit.

About friggin time (1)

einer (459199) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128455)

Not that it matters now. Sun has already lost. They have zero desktop adoption and aren't going to get any, because they treat their biggest evangelists and early adopters like crap (flash for linux? sadly, yes). As a developer, I haven't been using JavaFX at ALL. No browser adoption, doesn't run on my chosen platform, doesn't show any interest in making my platform a priority. Why the hell should I write an app that requires yet another 30 meg download?

I get all the vendor lock in, it's not open source so it's evil arguments. Save them. This is about Sun totally missing the boat, and doing nothing to fix the problem.

Re:About friggin time (1)

Yfrwlf (998822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128601)

Well there are several ways to make things cross-platform, Java is just one of many. APIs are another. It's funny that something you wouldn't expect to be cross-platform is to some degree (when Wine works), the Windows API. More cross-platform libraries and APIs, and you don't really need virtual machines.

The OS companies and Linux distro companies don't want this to happen, but the trend is slowly creeping toward cross-platform/distro programs, and all it does is make the OS matter less, even though of course it's an essential part of the computer. Users just want to get to their software comfortably, safely, and as quickly as possible.

"Oh, cool game/program! What operating system are you running?"
"Operawhat?"

Re:About friggin time (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128743)

"Operawhat?"

op-er-a [reference.com] - noun
1. an extended dramatic composition, in which all parts are sung to instrumental accompaniment, that usually includes arias, choruses, and recitatives, and that sometimes includes ballet. Compare comic opera, grand opera.
2. the form or branch of musical and dramatic art represented by such compositions.
3. the score or the words of such a composition.
4. a performance of one: to go to the opera.
5. (sometimes initial capital letter) an opera house or resident company: the Paris Opera.

Re:About friggin time (1)

Nicopa (87617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128663)

So the proof that the newly released JavaFX will fail is that you haven't been using it for building applications? Uhm...

Re:About friggin time (1)

pallmall1 (882819) | more than 5 years ago | (#26129137)

So the proof that the newly released JavaFX will fail is that you haven't been using it for building applications?

A high percentage of developers code on linux systems, and if you want that code to run on windows, you're primarily limited to java or browser-based applications (although GTK [gtk.org] is starting to look appealing). Deploying java applet and webstart apps is a nightmare, but javafx is being trumpeted by Sun as a solution to this -- for windows and mac only. Note that you need to download javafx just to view the demos, so even though it was downloaded by a lot of windows/mac users doesn't mean that a high percentage of those downloads were by people wanting to develop javafx apps. So the problem isn't that the grandparent poster doesn't use javafx, it's that if you use linux, you CAN'T use javafx.

And it appears that that will be the case for quite awhile, because Sun has been purging comments from their blog post [sun.com] about javafx support on linux and solaris (all comments from December 6 and 7th are now missing, along with some others), and the editor of the java.net site says [java.net] that Sun has "better things to do" than release a linux or solaris version of javafx.

That may not be "proof that JavaFX will fail," but it certainly doesn't help foster its adoption.

Sun can still turn things around if they release a 64-bit linux port of javafx. The 64-bit plugin technology is related to javafx, so maybe if and when Sun ever releases a linux version of javafx, it will be for both 32-bit and 64-bit systems. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

No debian lenny support (3, Interesting)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128499)

But they still don't ship a debian package for Lenny with 64 bits support, we have to get the old Java 1.4...

Madwifi-NG (2, Interesting)

8086ed (876715) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128517)

For most people there is nothing to hold you back from running 64-bit Linux.

Except madwifi-ng drivers. I can't even count how many times people have bugged me about their Atheros cards not working in Linux, only to find that they were running a 64-bit distro.

Re:Madwifi-NG (2, Interesting)

dido (9125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128827)

Well, I have a laptop that has such a card, and well, I found a version of the MadWifi drivers that works well enough [madwifi-project.org] on my 64-bit Gentoo. I must admit though that the search was incredibly frustrating, but given the recent news that Atheros has gotten more [slashdot.org] open [slashdot.org] , the situation can only improve with time.

no DEB files? (4, Insightful)

supernova_hq (1014429) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128519)

What is it with large corporations and only creating RPM files for their software? I got the .bin file, but it just extracts to the current directory, without listing where all the files need to be copied to...

If anyone can post a quick tutorial (or list of folder locations), that would be awesome.

Re:no DEB files? (3, Informative)

atomic-penguin (100835) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128695)

What is it with large corporations and only creating RPM files for their software? I got the .bin file, but it just extracts to the current directory, without listing where all the files need to be copied to...

The simplest thing you could do, is use the "alien" package to convert it to a .deb file. The alien package manager works, most of the time, and it beats using cpio to extract the rpm file and repackage it as a deb.

As for where the Java files go, they usually go under /usr/lib/java or /usr/lib/jre if I recall correctly.

Re:no DEB files? (1)

styrotech (136124) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128745)

In the case of a bin file extracting to the current directory, the best place is to just extract it in /usr/local or /opt. Don't move the individual parts to places like /usr/bin /lib etc - leave those system dirs to be managed by the distros package manager.

You may need to do stuff like symlinking the browser plugin file(s) into your browsers plugin directory and maybe adding the java bin directory to your $PATH, but that should be about it.

Re:no DEB files? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128757)

alien [debian.org]

You can pay me in jellybeans.

OpenJDK already 64-bit (4, Informative)

thule (9041) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128541)

The article implied that IcedTea (OpenJDK) is already 64-bit. My system reports the plugin as a 64-bit shared object. This release from Sun just makes it part of the official Sun Java download.


$ rpm -ql java-1.6.0-openjdk-plugin-1.6.0.0-7.b12.fc10.x86_64

/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0.x86_64/jre/lib/amd64/IcedTeaPlugin.so

$ file /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0.x86_64/jre/lib/amd64/IcedTeaPlugin.so

/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0.x86_64/jre/lib/amd64/IcedTeaPlugin.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped

Re:OpenJDK already 64-bit (1)

LDoggg_ (659725) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128893)

And this has worked fine for the few applets I've run since being 64bit linux.

Still, it's nice to see the official version.

More Java please? (1)

recharged95 (782975) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128559)

"For most people there is nothing to hold you back from running 64-bit Linux."

.

Dang pesky 32-bit MacBooksPros!

.

Though a big Java fan, Java plugin into a browser ==fail. They should scrap it and get us a 64-bit javafx plugin.

Re:More Java please? (3, Informative)

Nicopa (87617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128681)

I don't think you quite understand what JavaFX is... JavaFX is an alternative way of creating Java applets, which will run on Java Plugin.

What is this Java you keep talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128673)

Been using 64 bit Linux for a while and never once had I needed this Java that you speak of.

Please provide more information as it sounds useful. Is this some sort of Ad-blocking software, a browser accelerator, or a bookmark saver?

Google Gears? (2, Insightful)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128847)

Just an example of something that doesn't work in 64 bit... not that it holds me back.

IBM Java (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128867)

IBM's 64-bit Java for Linux has been out for a long time...

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/linux/download.html

already have other options (4, Interesting)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128895)

What already works for me on 64-bit Ubuntu Intrepid Ibex is this:

apt-get install openjdk-6-jre openjdk-6-jdk icedtea-gcjwebplugin

Sun has always made it a royal pain to use their java. For years they've always wrapped everything in click-through licenses, so you couldn't just download it and install it using your distro's packaging system. This version seems like more of the same, or maybe even worse. I went to the java.net page linked to from the article, downloaded the file. It's a shell script, and when you run it, the first thing it does is print out a license and ask if you agree to it. Some of the contents of the license:

  • 3.1 Licensee may not duplicate Licensed Software other than for a single copy of Licensed Software for archival purposes only.
  • 3.3 Except as otherwise provided by law, Licensee may not modify or create derivative works of the Licensed Software, or reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile binary portions of the Licensed Software, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code from such portions.
  • 3.5 Licensee shall have no right to use the Licensed Software for productive or commercial use.
  • 6.1 This Agreement will commence on the date on which Licensee receives Licensed Software (the "Effective Date") and will expire twelve (12) months from the Effective Date, unless terminated earlier as provided herein.
  • 6.2 Either party may terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) days' written notice to the other party.

So in other words, it's not open source under the Open Source Definition [opensource.org] .

I think it's great that Sun has GPL'd their implementation of java. Three cheers for Sun for doing that. But they've proved over and over again that any open-source project they control will have a closed development process, will ignore their user community, and will be a massive pain to install and work with. So the really good thing about Sun GPLing their version of java is that now, finally, we've gotten to the point where people other than Sun -- people who Get It about open source -- can take the ball and run with it.

push this button (2, Insightful)

fatmatt_oz (680839) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128935)

All I need now is the ubuntu update manager to give me the option of a 64bit upgrade without a complete reinstall.

bug was submitted in uhhhh... 2003 ? (1)

goffster (1104287) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128953)

sheesh

Check me, please ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128995)

Check me, please ...
Doesn't Java have just about the slowest memory management ever created? Why would I ever run a program written in Java that needs over 4GB of data segment **inside** a browser JVM?

Seriously folks, why?

While I'm at it, why would I need a 64-bit browser? I certainly won't have that much data and integers and pointers that are 2x the normal size isn't good for any browser.

It isn't like 64-bit is twice as good as 32-bit. That's just something all the 64-bit crazy people who don't understand crap think.

BTW, I previously worked porting C/C++ code to Dec-Alpha machines in the mid-1990s, some of the first 64-bit UNIX code created.

Skype? Google Earth? (1)

Hell's Kitchen (142143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26129025)

So, when we're going to have a 64 bit Skype? And a 64 bit Google Earth?

Wrong question. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26129097)

The question is not "What is holding back 64-bit computing?"; the question is "What compelling reason is there for upgrading?". Short of hosting databases or crunching numbers, there really is no immediate reason. And if you are browsing the web on a database or scientific server, shame on you (although I don't see why you wouldn't just use a 32-bit browser build).

Works! But needs a minor fix (3, Informative)

StarHeart (27290) | more than 5 years ago | (#26129119)

It includes a plugin and javaws support. The two major things sun java 64bit has been lacking for years. It is still lacking the rim.cgi, but I have never had a need for it.

The plugin needs some polish. It doesn't properly declare it's version. Which makes a kvm application I use fail, because it tries to check the version.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?