Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

307 comments

"from user's machines" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416088)

Canonical is the new Apple.

Re:"from user's machines" (5, Informative)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416122)

The difference is that automatic updates are optional for Ubuntu, so if you've turned them on you have already opted in to Canonical managing your system. This is especially true because in this case there are security reasons to remove the packages.

Re:"from user's machines" (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416306)

What "difference" are you talking about? There are *no* automatic updates on Apple stuff (OSX or iOS) - you have to agree to them each time. Please stop trolling about things you clearly don't know anything about.

Re:"from user's machines" (3, Insightful)

grumling (94709) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416340)

You could argue that by putting in your password when update manager asks for it, you are agreeing to let Canonical update your machine.

Re:"from user's machines" (2)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416568)

And you'd be correct because that's exactly what you are doing. If you want control of the updates use synaptic and you can pick and choose which updates to install. Now that I think about it you may well be able to refuse individual actions with update manager as well. Generally I just look it over and see if anything is objectionable but have never actually denied any action before.

Re:"from user's machines" (2, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416448)

What "difference" are you talking about? There are *no* automatic updates on Apple stuff (OSX or iOS) - you have to agree to them each time. Please stop trolling about things you clearly don't know anything about.

The OP is talking about Apple's ability to remote kill applications for security reasons (already demonstrated on iOS, presumably coming soon on OS/X). This comes from itunes, bypasses all need for acknowlegements and has nothing to do with software updates. I will leave you to stew in the irony of your last sentence.

Re:"from user's machines" (4, Informative)

toriver (11308) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416808)

"Already demonstrated" how? To my knowledge, NO app has ever been remotely killed on iOS, though they have said they have the ability to do so. However, both Amazon Kindle (with the unlicensed "1984" edition) and Google (repeatedly to nuke apps that turned out to be trojans) have done so.

Not for long? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416218)

I can see how Apple can survive and prosper. They've targeted customers who are either spending somebody else's money (mainly the children of the wealthy living off of "daddy's money" or trust funds), those who are financially foolish (people who buy useless gadgets on credit), and those seeking a modern religion (the so-called Apple fanatics). This has let them put out sub-par products with pretty horrible limitations, but they can still sell them outrageous prices, and coupled with third-world manufacturing it allows them to make a very sizable profit.

Canonical has none of this. While it did put out some useful extensions to the Debian Linux distribution, they just don't seem to have the ongoing financial stranglehold that Apple has acquired. They aren't targeting the children of the wealthy, or those who waste money. Some degree of religious fanaticism has arisen around Ubuntu, but it surely doesn't seem capable of providing the financial support that Apple's religious following does.

Moves like continuing to use GNOME when KDE was clearly the better desktop environment, then later ruining the desktop experience by moving to Unity, and now stuff like this are exactly what will drive users away. Many of the smartest Ubuntu users have moved to Linux Mint. The remaining Ubuntu users seem to be those who aren't smart enough to learn about the alternatives. They don't seem like the kind of people who will pay good money for Ubuntu, either.

Apple's financial strategy seems to be pretty solid, but I just can't see Canonical's at all. How can they survive as a company without financial backing?

Re:Not for long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416316)

Moves like continuing to use GNOME when KDE was clearly the better desktop environment

Um, Kubuntu.

Re:Not for long? (2)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416640)

He was talking about Ubuntu - the main offering. As a smart operation, of course Canonical has alternative offerings. Their main distro came with Gnome,

Whether that was good or bad, is a matter of opinion. Personally, I preferred KDE but chopped and changed between the two.

Re:Not for long? (5, Insightful)

GordonBX (1059078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416404)

Whoah. Tone down on the bitterness man. I wish I had some of your insight into the world - on second thoughts I'm glad I don't.

They've targeted customers who are either spending somebody else's money (mainly the children of the wealthy living off of "daddy's money" or trust funds), those who are financially foolish (people who buy useless gadgets on credit), and those seeking a modern religion (the so-called Apple fanatics)

Yeah - those are the *only* people who buy Apple gadgets. Those millions and millions of foolish people living off daddy's money. Damn them! Damn them to Hell!

This has let them put out sub-par products with pretty horrible limitations,

Yeah, those MacBook Airs are just *rubbish* man. I *totally* can't see why Intel is giving other notebook vendors $100m just to try and come up with a reasonable competitor

but they can still sell them outrageous prices, and coupled with third-world manufacturing it allows them to make a very sizable profit.

obviously Samsung (and by extension Google), Amazon, Motorola, HTC and the rest are *good* companies because the fact that they have to sell their stuff at half the price just to try and get people to buy one and therefore don't make a profit at all means that *their* exploration of third world labour is somehow alright?

TL;DR version: OMFG get off your high horse mr AC anti-apple troll.

Re:Not for long? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416736)

"Yeah, those MacBook Airs are just *rubbish* man. I *totally* can't see why Intel is giving other notebook vendors $100m just to try and come up with a reasonable competitor"

Because all popular products are good?

Re:"from user's machines" (4, Insightful)

tixxit (1107127) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416424)

Will it be removed from the user's machine, or just (I'm going to guess not-so-sliently) "upgraded" to OpenJDK? I'm suspecting the latter. I'll bet there is a big box that comes up, warns the user Oracle's Java is being replaced, and that if they choose not to upgrade, that no new security updates will be forthcoming. Frankly, the bad press from replacing Java is probably better than the bad press that would've come had they left an insecure, non-updateable version of the JVM on all their releases.

Re:"from user's machines" (4, Interesting)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416514)

No, they're just going to remove it. If you want OpenJDK, you have to install that by hand.

For almost all users, OpenJDK is just fine and is the one to use. (e.g. any Java plugins in the browser, almost any Java app). Anyone who is affected by this went to some effort to install Sun Java by hand specifically.

Re:"from user's machines" (3, Insightful)

Thomas Charron (1485) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416600)

Software which someones tested and released under a given JDK was generally using it for a reason. I can, for one, specifically say that a project I'm working on will specifically *not* run under the OpenJDK.

Re:"from user's machines" (1, Insightful)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416680)

Yep. Been there, done that.

The problem is that proprietary software is generally badly-written rubbish, well below the typical quality of open source (and many studies have shown this). However, many companies still run proprietary software, and being terrible rubbish with no peer-review it's often only certified against specific versions of Java and will actually break with any other version. Heck, one package we're stuck with was only certified against Sun Java 6 a few months ago, and Java 5 was EOLed end 2009!

tl;dr proprietary software, being shit, can be very platform-specific.

Re:"from user's machines" (1)

rec9140 (732463) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416812)

"For almost all users, OpenJDK is just fine and is the one to use. (e.g. any Java plugins in the browser, almost any Java app). Anyone who is affected by this went to some effort to install Sun Java by hand specifically."

Wrong. OJDK is broken, and my software that I use daily doesn't and has never worked on it.

As for installing REAL Java by hand and alot of effort.

Nope. Came with my distro KMint, aka Linux Mint KDE (now defunct)

My new distro Julep, added a PPA, apt-get install and done.

Bad move canoncial, bad bad bad....

Re:"from user's machines" (5, Informative)

Targen (844972) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416478)

While I love to bash on Ubuntu on every (reasonable and merited) opportunity available, and they certainly aren't scarce, this isn't one of them. As others have already pointed out, the packages were removed because Oracle will not license updates, and the latest distributable version has important security vulnerabilities. It would be irresponsible to keep the current packages in the distribution and illegal to update them.

More importantly, this move is exactly what Oracle wants done, and no, it's not any sort of evil move. Dalibor Topic explains in his blog [livejournal.com] the reasons behind this change in licensing: OpenJDK is (the basis of) the reference implementation for Java 7 [oracle.com] , and the Sun (now Oracle) JDK implementation is now (going to be) based on OpenJDK; the gratis, non-free licensing for the Sun (now Oracle) JDK was a temporary solution that's reached the end of its applicability:

That non-open-source license was introduced by Sun Microsystems back in 2006, when the open-sourcing of Sun's Java SE implementation was announced at JavaOne, as a stop-gap measure until OpenJDK matured. It was a way to enable Linux distributions to take Sun's JDK 5.0 and provide their own 'native packages' based on Sun's non-open-source bits.

It was always intended to be a temporary solution, and the final solution has always been migrating to OpenJDK. Yeah, it sucks, compatibility is far from complete, and things will break as a result of this move, but it's always been the plan, and it's not Canonical fucking it up this time. For reference, as one of the comments in TFA points out, Debian did it too [debian.org] .

In short: nothing to see here; move along. If this makes you lose sleep, maybe you shouldn't have used Java, and maybe you should migrate to something better.

Re:"from user's machines" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416662)

There is no new "Apple". There are the Gates, the Jobs and the Wozniaks. They can all go bad in their own way. Just look at Microsoft, Apple and Google. It isn't the camp you belong to, but your goal and size.

Is this April first? (0, Troll)

reedk (43097) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416090)

WTF? I'm no fan of Java (we all know the logo is coffee because you have time to get some while your app loads), but this is another challenge for the Linux desktop.

Re:Is this April first? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416114)

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Re:Is this April first? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416192)

In what way?
It being a challenge for the linux dextop?
or java being so slow that it's standard practice to build in a progress bar so people don't think the program is hanging?

Re:Is this April first? (5, Informative)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416248)

On Linux, most java developers consider that OpenJDK is the default implementation and that Sun JDK is more or less discontinued.

OpenJDK is a GPL release of Sun's code. It is the official Java (SE) implementation :

http://blogs.oracle.com/henrik/entry/moving_to_openjdk_as_the [oracle.com]

Re:Is this April first? (4, Interesting)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416332)

On Linux, most java developers consider that OpenJDK is the default implementation and that Sun JDK is more or less discontinued.

And yet, a customer that I used to support has an app that will not run on OpenJDK, only on Sun Java. I do not know if it is sniffing the JVM or if it makes use of an undocumented feature AKA bug but it won't even load with OpenJDK. No, I don't have the source.

Re:Is this April first? (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416412)

Red5 hangs more often on openjdk ;)

Not a fan of IcedTea (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416438)

I have encountered numerous problems in recent years with Java code that simply doesn't work on IcedTea. It's not doing anything clever or undocumented. It runs fine on Windows, on MacOS, and on the same Linux boxes but with a different Java run-time. On some of these projects, we had so many problems that we explicitly no longer support IcedTea and won't even consider support requests from customers who insist on using it.

I don't know about any other JREs based on OpenJDK, but IcedTea is so bug-ridden as to be unusable, and has been for a long time.

Re:Is this April first? (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416512)

Same experience for me; OpenJDK just doesn't work.

Re:Is this April first? (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416532)

Bet it's a subtle bug that only works because of implementation-specific behaviour. We just got bitten by one of those, relating to different behaviour between Sun Java 6 on Solaris SPARC and Sun Java 6 on Linux. Never trust, always verify!

Re:Is this April first? (2, Insightful)

grumbel (592662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416286)

This is what you get when you have infrastructure that is build around one centrally maintained dependency tree, you are slave to whatever decisions they make. It's not even a new problem, similar software removals against the users will have happened with Gnome2 vs Gnome3 and even back with Gnome1 vs Gnome2 and counterless times when a working version of Gimp was replaced with a broken one and only fixed month later. This one seems a bit more sinister as from the looks of it it seems they remove it in a regular software update, not a dist-upgrade, but it's essentially the same issue. And to all those "This isn't a problem"-sayers, the existence of complicated time consuming workarounds by manual compilation/installation, thus by-passing the binary package distribution, is part of the problem, not the solution.

It should really be time for Debian to move to a more flexible, more free form of package distribution that doesn't depend on a single dependency tree and fixed locations in the file system.

Re:Is this April first? (2)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416648)

Well there is always Linux from Scratch.

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/ [linuxfromscratch.org]

Have fun!

Java is obsolete! (0, Flamebait)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416100)

Java was always a huge fuckup of a language, with its balonulous lazily-typed variables and its snordoblulous memory "management" and flubriglated syntax. Only idiots use it, good riddance.

Re:Java is obsolete! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416432)

Hmm, you must be one of those IT Support shit stains that do nothing but reboot "your" user's machines for them.

An the point is? (4, Interesting)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416110)

To shoot oneself in the foot?! I just don't get it. Wouldn't Oracle want to have their platform deployed as widely as possible? Someone's asleep at the helm. Just like at the media companies. Seems some big corporations these days are like chicken running around headless...

Re:An the point is? (4, Insightful)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416324)

That's oh so typical of Oracle, even before they swallowed up SUN. They don't want the unwashed masses to touch their products (Database, Solaris, SPARC, now Java?, ...). This elitist mentality was part of their DNA makeup from the very beginning.

Re:An the point is? (2)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416360)

I think they've more or less given up on Java as a desktop platform, and are focusing on a mixture of enterprise (all that J2EE and Java Beans stuff) and mobile (hence the Google lawsuit).

Re:An the point is? (2, Informative)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416516)

Wouldn't Oracle want to have their platform deployed as widely as possible?

What Oracle wants is money, they don't care anything else. The new license forced Debian to stop distributing Oracle Java from the non-free repositories, I'm not surprised this happens to Canonical.

Re:An the point is? (5, Interesting)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416674)

It's being replace by OpenJDK. It was planned to happen like this for years. This was planned obsolescence with a gradual move to OpenJDK. Their is no surprise here except for those who didn't know it was coming. The summary is inflammatory but if you read the article you see that this is nothing really.

Re:An the point is? (2, Interesting)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416564)

I have ten years' Solaris experience. Oracle buying Sun was when I took my boss and my boss's boss aside and strongly put the case that we needed to get the hell off Solaris immediately and go to Linux. (That I was advocating against my own CV was persuasive in itself.)

We commissioned a new box (12-core x86) to run a proprietary Java app; Linux versus Solaris would have made no difference; but Oracle charged another £300 for one year's Solaris licensing when CentOS was free. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE HELL THEY THINK THEY'RE DOING.

Re:An the point is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416630)

If only my friend would See The Light.
Things like this is why I absolutely despise Oracle with a passion. They are actually worse than Microsoft.
In fact, I'd go as far as saying I actually like some parts of Microsoft, even the IE team now since they seem to be pushing forwards in to actually supporting standards now.
Meanwhile, over at Oracle, "STOP USING OUR THINGS, WE DON'T LIKE YOU!"

Bad summary! (5, Informative)

xavdeman (946931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416128)

From the article: "Oracle, in retiring the ‘Operating System Distributor License for Java’, means Canonical no longer have permission to distribute the package." So it's not that Oracle has lost their right to distribute Java (JDK) or something, but they are retiring the license Canonical is using that granted them the right to distribute it with Ubuntu. The summary also states (correctly) that Ubuntu will remove the sun-java package from the repository and user's machines, but does not state why: “Due to the severity of the security risk, Canonical is immediately releasing a security update for the Sun JDK browser plugin which will disable the plugin on all machines.” Ubuntu’s Marc Deslauriers wrote in a mail to the Ubuntu Security Mailing list. “This will mitigate users’ risk from malicious websites exploiting the vulnerable version of the Sun JDK.” Summarizing: there are two things going on here, one is that Oracle has revoked the license Canonical is using to distribute Java (JDK) freely so it will not come with Ubuntu anymore. Java must now be downloaded from Oracle's site. Second: The java jdk package will be removed from user's computers because of severe security holes. Java must now be downloaded from Oracle's site. So, two things, one article and one terrible summary.

Re:Bad summary! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416168)

OpenJDK is still the default, and still distributed. And like TFA pointed out, the Sun/Oracle version is old and has security issues anyway.

Re:Bad summary! (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416370)

The unfortunate part is that there seem to be some applications that only seem to like "Sun Java v6" that comes from the repositories. I've tried the manual install of Java 7 from oracle, and Open JDK and neither work for them. I may have to leave the exploitable version installed just to use this software (and only this software, hopefully).

Re:Bad summary! (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416594)

Remove the distro package, do the fiddling about to hand-install from the Oracle tarball for Sun Java 6 latest. We're doing something similar at work. (Well, I'll be handrolling a deb for internal maintainability, but I'll be starting with the Oracle tarball.)

Re:Bad summary! (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416664)

That sort of thing has plagued Java from day one. It's never been more than write once, run anywhere that has exactly the same JVM down to the sub-sub-minor version. That seems to be improving, but can't be said to be fixed entirely. Back when Sun was pushing Java on the desktop they had a lot of complaints internally about having to have 3 versions of Java installed to cover these issues.

Re:Bad summary! (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416716)

We got bitten at this at work between Sun Java 6 on Solaris SPARC versus Sun Java 6 on Linux x86. What the fuck.

Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416130)

This will be a huge problem that I didn't see coming. I wonder what the wide ranging effect will be.

But more importantly I wonder if Canonical will some how notify Ubuntu users, better than this obscure blog post, that Canonical is about to wreak havoc on their systems.

Re:Wow! (2)

kwark (512736) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416188)

The impact will be about zero, replace sun-java with openjdk if you need java.

Re:Wow! (1)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416322)

I know six months ago openjdk did not work with crashplan and I had to set the jdk to sun.

Re:Wow! (2)

heson (915298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416338)

Maybe for you, but the applets I run do require sun/oracle java and fails with the alternatives.

Re:Wow! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416374)

Right, because nothing breaks if you do that.

The only reason I have Sun's JRE on my system is that I have software that won't run on OpenJDK because of improper dependency on com.sun.* packages. Is Canonical going to distribute a com.sun jar for use with OpenJDK?

Re:Wow! (2)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416720)

Yuh. The problem is existing code by mediocre programmers.

OpenJDK (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416136)

Sensationalist headline is sensationalist.

Ubuntu will still have the OpenJDK, which is maintained in part by Oracle. "Sun Java" refers to a specific JVM installation.

Re:OpenJDK (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416474)

You meant
"Ubuntu will still have the OpenJDK, which is not actually working for most stuff"
And alternatively users can download the JRE 7 from Oracle, which also does not work for a lot of stuff.
Great help that.
Java: Fails everywhere.

Re:OpenJDK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416686)

Nor are they removing the package: they're disabling the browser plugin, because it has known holes and it's not maintained.

But yeah this is slashdot, the FOX News of tech.

Re:OpenJDK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416790)

Of course "Sun Java" refers to a specific implementation, otherwise the headline would omit "Sun" and just write "Java". Kids these days have no deductive skills.

Re:OpenJDK (4, Insightful)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416798)

It's not about them no longer supplying it, but actually ripping it out of your box. They've already distributed it, and under an appropriate license- it wasn't leased out and the license doesn't require removal once the license is retired.

It does not make any sense to do what Canonical's doing here. Not happy about that thinking.

This won't work (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416138)

All it takes is someone to pick apart the update, someone else to mirror it a few times and then all the people googleing for "java is broken in Ubuntu" find a modified update that fixes it. anyway, why does a distribution license expiry mean that people who already have copies may no longer use it?

Re:This won't work (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416506)

why does a distribution license expiry mean that people who already have copies may no longer use it?

Lack of security updates. Canonical thinks that if you want to keep it, you can just apt pin it, while people who might not even know they have it installed are better off not being exposed to its problems.

Re:This won't work (4, Insightful)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416604)

It doesn't - bad summary conflates "no license to distribute" with "security hole" - the security hole is why Ubuntu needs to fix this, but the only fix they can apply is to remove the package since they can't distribute the fixed version any more.

Re:This won't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416618)

You can still use it, but Canonical is prohibited from packaging the newest version containing security updates because of Oracle's withdrawal of the distribution license. All Ubuntu's update does is disable the browser java plugin, which is the most likely vector to exploit the vulnerabilities in 6u26. It won't remove the jre/jdk from your system. The users will have to do that themselves. When they do, the package manager will work out the dependencies and install the appropriate OpenJDK packages to fullfill them. Users can still run Oracle's version, but they'll have to install and check for updates themselves. There's plenty of online guides on how to do that.

And OpenJDK still not working (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416140)

All the while OpenJDK still doesn't work with half of the stuff out there, for example Juniper's SSL VPN.
Great! Java: Compile once, works nowhere.

Re:And OpenJDK still not working (3, Informative)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416342)

doesn't work with crashplan, either

Re:And OpenJDK still not working (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416476)

Remember when they used to call C a portable programming language?

Remember when they used to call Java a portable programming language?

Bad news. (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416150)

Let's hope they handle this well (aka a de updater that lets people know what and why it happens).
I am critical about ubuntu usually, and I can almost hear some bearded guy saying: "Told you so, next time learn to build upon Free Software instead". But I think this time they would have rather avoided this and they couldn't.

I dunno, the industry seems to be killing java and flash ahead of time.

We all knew this would happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416152)

Seriously, most people knew this would happen if Oracle got their hands on Sun's intellectual property. However, didn't think it would happen so quickly. My only question is, how good are the other alternatives. Pros, and Cons.

Re:We all knew this would happen (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416530)

Uh, OpenJDK is now the official Java release from Oracle, the closed source JDK is basically obsolete. You shouldn't use it unless you really need to.

SUN JAVA is not the only JAVA (5, Informative)

xee (128376) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416182)

Ubuntu uses OpenJDK Java by default. Users have for years had the option to switch out the default OpenJDK Java for an alternative package in the 3rd party repository which is Sun Java. That alternative is being removed. In fact, it has never been available in the latest Oneiric 11.10 release of ubuntu. In the latest release OpenJDK is the default & the only java available from the package repos.

Most people use OpenJDK on Ubuntu and for them this news means nothing.

If you're using an older release (11.04 or earlier) and you have sun-java installed, simply remove the package & install default-jdk. problem solved.

just replace your cars water pump (4, Insightful)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416350)

with a different water pump. problem solved!!!

other than your car being out of commission for several days, and untold problems being encountered due to the incompatabilities between the old water pump and the new water pump. but whatever.

in the fantasy land of free software, you can replace word with openoffice, exchange with ????, and it wont cost anyone anything!

Re:just replace your cars water pump (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416416)

BadAnalogyGuy, is that you?

Re:just replace your cars water pump (4, Insightful)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416462)

Continuing this stupid analogy: Your current water pump has security issues. Thieves can use it to steal your car! It has to be replaced, even if you're so incompetent that it takes you "several days" to get the job done.

Ubuntu no longer has access to OEM pumps, due to decisions made by the manufacturer. If Ubuntu's 3rd-party pump won't work for you, you can still go directly to the OEM, download the exact replacement pump and install it, for free.

Re:just replace your cars water pump (4, Informative)

xee (128376) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416590)

You're confused. OpenJDK is the OEM pump in Ubuntu. Sun java is the aftermarket optional part which isn't an available option on ubuntu cars anymore. (Though you can still do it yourself.)

Re:just replace your cars water pump (4, Insightful)

xee (128376) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416464)

Exactly! You already replaced your car's stock water pump with some aftermarket thing, now that's not working out so well for you. So do the right thing and replace that aftermarket water pump with an OEM part like the car came with.

Why do they need a distribution license? (1)

TrekkieGod (627867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416208)

Why does Canonical even need a "Operating System Distributor License" for Java? Wasn't Java re-licensed as GPL v2 back in the Sun days? How can they stop anyone from distributing something under the GPL?

Re:Why do they need a distribution license? (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416354)

OpenJDK is based on the open-sourced version of Java, and Canonical continues to distribute that (and it's the default on Ubuntu). What's being removed is the official Sun (now Oracle) Java packages. They used to include those as well, because there were some compatibility issues with OpenJDK and some apps (especially commercial apps).

Re:Why do they need a distribution license? (1)

dominux (731134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416362)

because this particular version that is being retired is not the GPL version. It is the yuccy non-free edition and being proprietary software you are using it at the whim of the copyright owner (Oracle) and not by the user. It is also buggy and insecure. It is being removed from users machines because it is buggy and insecure. If you want the GPL version that is safe to use long term and is actually in Ubuntu (rather than in the *canonical* partner repo) then use openJDK which is GPL licensed and you use it at your own discretion, not that of Oracle.

Re:Why do they need a distribution license? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416388)

Why does Canonical even need a "Operating System Distributor License" for Java? Wasn't Java re-licensed as GPL v2 back in the Sun days? How can they stop anyone from distributing something under the GPL?

1) That's OpenJDK, not Sun/Oracle JDK.
2) Yes, Oracle can stop people because Oracle is the copyright holder, the copyright holder is not bound by the terms of the license they use on their own software. [Oracle can distribute a program as both GPL w/ source and a proprietary w/ extras and that's ok, they are the copyright holder and would have to sue themself for violating the GPL*]

* (If you think you can sue Oracle then you haven't understood how copyright works, if some guy sells proprietary software containing GPL stuff, only the other guy who wrote the GPL stuff has grounds to sue [the GPL license is between proprietary guy and author guy, not you (user guy), you are under proprietary guy's license and have no standing])

What about updates? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416210)

Are all Linux user going to have to know manually install *every* update to Oracle's Java then? No offense to the OpenJDK guys but some stuff just doesn't work right with it. If I remember correctly, a lot of the really big performance boost are also only in Oracle's JVM...

And... (0)

sensationull (889870) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416220)

Nothing of value was lost. Seriously Java was always an abortion from a security point of view then Oracle got a hold of it and two updates a week later its still a security nightmare. The best thing that could happen is it's end, Java is more like Flash than Flash is now from a security point of view.

Kill java and remove half the attack surface from your systems.

What about Ubuntu server? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416222)

I know people use Ubuntu on server systems as well. I can just imagine production systems falling over because, suddenly, there's no JRE/JDK installed anymore after routine maintenance security upgrades. Sounds like fun.

Re:What about Ubuntu server? (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416796)

That would be us! I'll be handrolling a deb for now, and then we'll do extensive testing to move to OpenJDK.

Ah fuck, that means OpenJDK on devs' Windows boxes. And there's no OpenJDK 6 for Windows, only 7. And I thought Java 5 to Java 6 was politically tedious. Arsebiscuits.

Writing was on the wall (5, Interesting)

strredwolf (532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416244)

Gentoo saw the license expiring, and did a proactive thing: flipped the "fetch restriction" flag back on, forcing users to pull it manually and slap it into the right place to install/upgrade.

Don't Mess With My Computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416250)

I have my computers setup the way I want it. That is why I disable automatic updates and selectively update. None of my windows machines are connected to the internet, and I don't have any iOS or android devices.

Re:Don't Mess With My Computer (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416704)

If they're really out to get you it's not paranoia.

This underscores the importance of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416274)

Reading the license agreements.

Get my Hitchhiker's Guide Tribute Novella From Pirate Bay
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6848623/Perfect_Me_By_Jason_Z._Christie

Oracle needs to be less stupid and less greedy... (1, Insightful)

Cheerio Boy (82178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416296)

First - I want to see in the license where it requires them to pull it off systems.

Second - What the hell are they going to replace it with? Are they saying you have to download and install Java manually? OpenJDK supposedly doesn't work with all things.

Third - What does this mean for Ubuntu derivatives like Mint? Are they going to have to pull the jdk as well?

Forth - Can we _please_ take up a collection to have the Oracle execs framed for terrorism and shipped off to Gitmo?

Honestly this is just stupid.

Re:Oracle needs to be less stupid and less greedy. (1)

WorBlux (1751716) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416364)

First, it doesn't but it prevents the distribution of security fixes, leaving systems where it is still installed vulnerable to publicly available exploits. Second nothing, you'll have to manage updates by yourself if you want the Sun JVK. Third, not certain, but likely. Fourth, no.

Running Ubuntu 11.04 (1)

phrostie (121428) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416300)

I just checked and i'm showing OpenJDK

Great one more package I need to manage by hand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416352)

Gaah it's like being on Windows again, having to check every single package to make sure it's up to date or deal with their own specific stupid updaters. There's a reason we have apt, why does it have to break? This isn't earning Oracle any love in my book right now.

Minecraft needs Sun JVM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416366)

On Noes!
How will I get my Minecraft fix now!

Re:Minecraft needs Sun JVM (2)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416818)

Really? I've had no trouble running it on OpenJDK, despite what the download pages claim.

Third Party Repo Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416372)

Fuck it, there goes our 4 month Ubuntu workstation trial down the drain. We have Java crap which only works with Sun Java.

Not gonna happen! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416392)

I want to see them try that with my live disk!

Absolutely incorrect (1)

zsitvaij (1150191) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416456)

No, Sun JDK is not being removed from users' computers, only the browser plugin is disabled, which is riddled with security flaws that are only corrected in newer versions that cannot be distributed by Canonical.

And no, removing the package from the repositories does not remove it from the system when already installed.

Re:Absolutely incorrect (2)

makomk (752139) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416542)

Not quite. The browser plugin is being disabled immediately and at some point in the future they'll also be pushing out dummy packages to remove the Sun JDK from user's machines altogether. See the mailing list post [ubuntu.com] .

Re:Absolutely incorrect (1)

zsitvaij (1150191) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416642)

I stand corrected. That leaves yours the only factually correct post in this ./ discussion. I wish the mailing list post was the one linked and quoted in the summary.

If only Java were always Java (3, Interesting)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38416488)

I work in a Java shop. We run Sun Java 6 on a mix of Solaris and Ubuntu. I'll be handrolling a deb [github.com] from the Sun Java tarball precisely because not everything can be trusted to work identically between Sun Java 6 and OpenJDK 6.

We just recently hit a weird bug which turned out to be a "how did that ever work?" moment - revolving around different implementation-specific behaviours in Sun Java 6u24 for Solaris SPARC and Sun Java 6u26 for Linux.

We'll be moving to OpenJDK, but only after thorough testing. OpenJDK 6 is a proper Java, but we've discovered the hard way not to make any such move without thorough testing. Because programmers are human and bugs happen. Never trust, always verify.

No More Ubuntu (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416560)

Canonical has breached their trust with me. I am in the process of building a new PC - I will definitely not be installing Ubuntu this time. I am very shocked and very angry at this action from a company that is supposed to be upholding the principles of free software and computer freedom.

I did not give them permission to remove software that I have installed. I only signed up for updates, not crippling of functionality at the whim of some pencil-pushing dweeb at Canonical HQ.

This sort of behavior should result in an automatic death penalty - collective deinstallation of their OSes everywhere and refusal to recommend it to others.

yOU BETTER lEAvE tHE sUn aLONE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416622)

Go ahead steak my java rotten scumbag globalist thief I don't use it anyway. But try to remove the Sun and it's WAR!

Is sun-javaX-fonts now also unsupported? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416682)

Does this also mean that the sun-javaX-fonts (where X is the version) package won't be supported, which has the Lucida TrueType fonts. I rely on Lucida Sans Typewriter from this package

10.04 LTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416702)

I just did a synaptic update and it in fact upgraded sun-java6-jre and jdk, to 6.26-2lucid1.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...