Linux JVMs Running Under BSD? 41
Mock asks: "I work for a web services company, and so part of our business process involves setting up web servers for our customers that include a JVM for running our software. Although I've found FreeBSD to be rock-solid for server applications and the quickest to fix security issues, the JVM support has been lagging behind other systems, for some time now. I would like to know if it is wise, or even possible, to run the Linux JVM under BSD? Are there other alternatives I'd be better off considering (besides using a different operating system)?"
Whaaaaaat? (Score:4, Informative)
It's called the ports tree. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-blackdo
http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-blackdo
http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-ibm-jdk
http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-ibm-jdk1
http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-sun-jdk12
http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-sun-jdk13/
http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-sun-jdk14/
or you could just use the native ones
http://www.freshports.org/java/jdk12/
http
http://www.fres
That said I used it to run a small enhydra/xmlc java web app. In my last job and I performed well and with the recent (last six months) inclusion of the hotspot stuff it's much faster.
Re:It's called the ports tree. Tsarkon Reports (Score:1, Insightful)
And learn to use fucking links.
http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-blackdown-jdk 12/ [freshports.org] k 13/ [freshports.org] k 14/ [freshports.org]
http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-blackdown-jd
http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-blackdown-jd
http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-ibm-jdk13/ [freshports.org]
http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-ibm-jdk14/ [freshports.org]
http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-sun-jdk12/ [freshports.org]
http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-sun-jdk13/ [freshports.org]
http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-sun-jdk14/ [freshports.org]
or you could just use the native ones
http://www.freshports.org/java/jdk12/ [freshports.org]
http://www.freshports.org/java/jdk13/ [freshports.org]
http://www.freshports.org/java/jdk14/ [freshports.org]
Re:It's called the ports tree. Tsarkon Reports (Score:2, Insightful)
I have been using jdk131 for production app dev and web serving for about 2.5 years w/ no problems. The recent inclusion of the hotspot realy inproved performance in 1.3.
I have started to use jdk14 on freebsd5-current for testing and it seems fine. I would not deploy with it yet it is a beta it still fails 20 out 2700 tests. It is worth noting that both the native and linux jdk14 really like running on freebsd5 and are not as happy on 4.X
Re:It's called the ports tree. Tsarkon Reports (Score:2)
Or do you just have a really fucking limited vocabulary?
Or are you just lacking in human interaction skills?
Or are you just a mindless git?
Or what?
[Note to mods: -1 Offtopic, -1 Flamebait, +1 ParentSubmittedByWanker]
You could use? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:You could use? (Score:5, Insightful)
and the JDK has source freely available, so while it
is not Open Source (tm), it is open source, but not
Free Software (tm) -- just free software.
That, and you can also use gcj. gcj doesn't do AWT
or Swing yet, so use SWT for GUI stuff.
please stop confusing people (Score:3, Informative)
Kaffe and GNU gcj are not implementations of Java. At best, they are implementations of the Java language or virtual machine, but even in that capacity, they are not blessed by Sun. Porting most substantial Sun Java-based software system to Kaffe or gcj is essentially impossible.
So, please spare us your cynicism or misleading use of language. Sun's implementation of Java is not "open source" in any sense that the term is commonly understood (and the term was created and defined by Eric Raymond). It isn't even close to open source; you enter into legal obligations to Sun just by looking at it. If you treat it like it's open source, you may get into lots of legal trouble with Sun. Neither are gcj or kaffe an implementation of "Java"; they aren't even close, as you would find out if you tried porting anything to them.
However, we agree on this: gcj is a pretty good compiler, and SWT is a pretty good toolkit. I do recommend using them instead of Sun Java. They also have lots of practical advantages, like being smaller, starting up faster, and requiring less memory. But gcj and SWT together don't make "Java". If you are really careful, you can write libraries that will compile and run under both gcj and Sun Java, but it's a significant amount of work and requires a lot of care (as I can tell you from first hand experience).
Re:please stop confusing people (Score:2, Informative)
Sun has a proprietary java compiler / JVM but there is nothing to stop someone from implementing there own (jikes for example).
Same situation as gcc vs. Borland C compiler (for example)
Re:please stop confusing people (Score:3, Informative)
The source to Windows NT has been released, too. That doesn't make Windows NT open source, and talking about it in that way would be very confusing.
The Java Language specification is open.. ie. it can be viewed and implemented by anyone.
Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant. We are not talking about the Java Language, we are talking about Java, which is a language and a set of libraries.
But your claim actually does not even appear to be true: as far as I can tell, Sun has made no legally binding commitment to allow "anyone" to implement Java. So far, all we have is a letter of intent, as part of the JCP, to allow open source implementations.
Re:please stop confusing people (Score:2)
Does this count?
It's from the copyright statement for The Java Language Specification, Second Edition by Sun. You can download your own copy, complete with this license, here [sun.com].
Re:please stop confusing people (Score:2)
Re:please stop confusing people (Score:2)
to the norms of ordinary and dictionary usage.
What's misleading is loading words with political
baggage and trademark crapola.
I've ported more than one large application to gcj,
and it's not rocket science.
I agree that running under both gcj and jdk is
frought with annoyances -- it's a death of a
thousand cuts. That's why I just use GCC as my
platform, my portability layer, for Java code.
And yes, I'll call it Java, just as I'll call
this paper thingy a kleenex. And when I open
a box of candy, a gift from a sweetheart, I'll
call it an Open Box, full of Free Candy.
So sue me.
Re:please stop confusing people (Score:2)
Which would that be? The term "open source" had no meaning before Raymond defined it.
And yes, I'll call it Java, just as I'll call this paper thingy a kleenex.
Well, you can call it "Java". You can also call your dog your girlfriend if you like. But the guy was asking about setting stuff up for customers. Customers expect something Sun Java compatible, not "Aminorex Java". Furthermore, since he would be misusing the Java trademark as part of a business transaction, he would be liable for trademark infringement.
Re:please stop confusing people (Score:2)
refer to information sources which are not
clandestine.
JavaScript is JavaScript, whether it is called
JScript or ECMAScript or JavaScript. In ordinary
usage, Java refers to a language which may or may
not correspond to Sun Java in its particulars, but
does so in the main.
My customers don't give a rip about Sun's
trademarks, because they don't use them.
I use the word Java to refer to the Java language
abstractly considered, and there is no actionable
infrigment i
Re:please stop confusing people (Score:1, Informative)
Java is defined less and less by Sun alone as it matures. One of the best things about Java is the JCP (Java Community Process) which defines the growth of the Java platform. So, while Java is not as "Open" as some would like, it is a very open and robust language. It's not like Sun defines everything, and reaps all the benefits. The licensing is designed to protect their substantial investment in the technology.
YOU stop confusing people (Score:1, Insightful)
"Open Source" will never, has never, will never has already have been going to be, mean what you think it means.
Java source code is available, under license, which doesn't cost.
Whilst GPL/LGPL has open source, open source doesn't have GPL/LGPL.
Source
One is the code, the other is the License.
You are confusing the agreeable instincts of the open source movement/GPL'd licenses, and open source, community driven well managed software, that has a key and important role for many industries, managed by a superb company, but with a license term that protects the product.
Of course, you may choose to use the SWT libraries, go ahead! They are good, I like them, hope they development on all platforms continues.
On the matter of GTK's, AWT and swing were designed to be two distinct APIs, and that stupid 10 reasons why we need Java 3 article was written by the Football equivilent of a pissed up 59 year old mental patient down you local, who screams 'REF YOUR BLIND' and hurls abuse at the players on the small TV, long after the match finished, and he didn't even know who was playing.
Woah, I'm Kramer.
You could go toe-to-toe with RMS (Score:2)
For what it's worth, gcj actually is not as awesome as you would expect just because it's a native code compiler. IBM's JDK/JVM produces code significantly faster under Linux, even without native code compilation, for example. It's the fastest zero-cost way to run Java on Linux.
Kaffe, despite being free, has really, really, *really* atrocious performance from both a memory and CPU standpoint.
Sun's Java implementation is okay, but not as peppy as IBM's implementation.
Re:You could use? (Score:1, Troll)
oh my gawwwwd! please say you're just trolling with this... pretty please
Java 1.4.1 Native on BSD (Score:1)
Apple just released Sun's Java 1.4.1 engine for MacOS. I figured since MacOS is a *BSD, then this doesn't really qualify as a separate OS. hehe.
Beware (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Beware (Score:1)
Things are changing... (Score:2)
points to:
JDK 1.4.1 patchset 3 on FreeBSD (at freebsdforums.org) [freebsdforums.org]
the patches:
http://www.eyesbeyond.com/freebsddom/java/jdk14.h
Note they are ALPHA! But this is good news for native jdk on freebsd.
Sun Java(TM)(R) (Score:2)
runs fairly well on my OpenBSD boxen.
I use it only for the freenet [sf.net]
project, though as a high-volume server.
It's quite CPU and disc intensive.
Depends on what you are trying to do.... (Score:2)
linux emulation under FreeBSD??? (Score:2)
Yes it is possible to run the Linux jvms under FreeBSD as well as NetBSD. Look at the ports, both OS's have ports of the JVM's.
Also the 1.4.1 JVM has been ported from linux blackdown project to FreeBSD.
Below is the story ...
http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/07/ 1458220
I like FreeBSD... (Score:1)
I think it's not a viable platform for Java. The threads issue is a huge hassle, and there's all sorts of problems that can arrise that are difficult to troubleshoot in Java even on a native platform.
I work at a site that used the 1.1.8 native release on FreeBSD for a while, and it went ok. Then we upgraded some Java code, and things went quickly downhill. We'd have hangups that we were never able to figure out, and each server would have one at least once a day, which was a nightmare for me. We u