Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
BSD Operating Systems

Linux JVMs Running Under BSD? 41

Posted by Cliff from the can-you-do-that dept.
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)?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux JVMs Running Under BSD? More

Linux JVMs Running Under BSD?

Comments Filter:

  • Whaaaaaat? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Breakerofthings ( 321914 ) on Wednesday March 12, 2003 @02:19AM (#5491635)
    Like this? [slashdot.org]

  • It's called the ports tree. (Score:5, Informative)

    by JumpSuit Boy ( 29166 ) on Wednesday March 12, 2003 @02:22AM (#5491646) Homepage
    http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-blackdown-jdk 12/
    http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-blackdow n-jdk 13/
    http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-blackdow n-jdk 14/
    http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-ibm-jdk1 3/
    http://www.freshports.org/java/linux-ibm-jdk14 /
    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: //www.freshports.org/java/jdk13/
    http://www.fresh ports.org/java/jdk14/

    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.

  • You could use? (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by bumblebury ( 530638 )
    An open source programming language, like Python, Perl or PHP. That and you can also use rotor, microsoft's .NET environment which works natively on FreeBSD.

    • Re:You could use? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aminorex ( 141494 ) on Wednesday March 12, 2003 @03:12AM (#5491856) Homepage Journal
      Java is open source too. Kaffe is Open Source (tm),
      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.
      • "Java" is a trademark of Sun Microsystems. It's a platform, the total of the Java language and the Java libraries, as defined by Sun. Most of the Java platform exists only in a Sun proprietary implementation, which you can obtain under roughly the same conditions as Microsoft's "shared source" implementation.

        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).

        • The source of the Java Libraries are released. The Java Language specification is open.. ie. it can be viewed and implemented by anyone.

          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)
          • The source of the Java Libraries are released.

            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.

            • as far as I can tell, Sun has made no legally binding commitment to allow "anyone" to implement Java.

              Does this count?

              Sun Microsystems, Inc. (SUN) hereby grants to you a fully paid, nonexclusive, nontransferable, perpetual, worldwide limited license (without the right to sublicense) under SUN's intellectual property rights that are essential to practice this specification. This license allows and is limited to the creation and distribution of clean room implementations of this specification that: (i) include a complete implementation of the current version of this specification without subsetting or supersetting; (ii) implement all the interfaces and functionality of the required packages of the Java 2 Platform, Standard Edition, as defined by SUN, without subsetting or supersetting; (iii) do not add any additional packages, classes, or interfaces to the java.* or javax.* packages or their subpackages; (iv) pass all test suites relating to the most recent published version of the specification of the Java 2 Platform, Standard Edition, that are available from SUN six (6) months prior to any beta release of the clean room implementation or upgrade thereto; (v) do not derive from SUN source code or binary materials; and (vi) do not include any SUN source code or binary materials without an appropriate and separate license from SUN.

              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].

              • I wish it did, but it doesn't really help. To name just some of the problems with that "license", it's non-transferable, Sun has a case-by-case final say in whether you are compliant, and the conditions for compliance are essentially impossible to meet. Not even the licensed ports from Apple, IBM, or Sun itself satisfy the conditions of that license.
        • Nothing misleading about using language according
          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.

          • Nothing misleading about using language according to the norms of ordinary and dictionary usage.

            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.

            • The term "open source" has been used for decades to
              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
        • It's a platform, the total of the Java language and the Java libraries, as defined by Sun.

          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)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Once again, someone getting doubley confused about open source.

          "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 ... License, Source... License...

          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 to RMS. Reminds me when a Crystal Space developer asked him a straightforward question. He was trying to strictly comply with the GPL, and instead Stallman sent back a string of about ten letters bitching about how the CS guy was misusing "Open Source" and "Free" and kept ignoring the question.'

          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.
    • you can also use rotor, microsoft's .NET environment which works natively on FreeBSD.

      oh my gawwwwd! please say you're just trolling with this... pretty please ;)

  • 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)

    by cattlepr0d ( 195325 )
    We ran a Tomcat based website using the linux JVM on FreeBSD. It rarely stayed up for more than a day at a time (someone told me it's a good way to expose bugs in the emulation layer ;). However, with the native FreeBSD JVM (and the Shujit JIT compiler) it's rock solid.
    • Little nit to pick, it's compatibility layer and not an emulation layer (since the instructions are still x86, just in a different binary format and using libraries compiled in a different operating system; think of it as running DOS apps under NT 4.0).
  • JDK 1.4.1 patchset 3 on FreeBSD (daemonnews.org) [daemonnews.org]

    points to:

    JDK 1.4.1 patchset 3 on FreeBSD (at freebsdforums.org) [freebsdforums.org]

    the patches:

    http://www.eyesbeyond.com/freebsddom/java/jdk14.ht ml [eyesbeyond.com]

    Note they are ALPHA! But this is good news for native jdk on freebsd.
  • The Sun JDK 1.3.1_07 for GNU/Linux/x86
    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.
  • Yahoo decided to go with PHP for their web development because of the poor support of Java in BSD. Their particular problem was that J2EE is thread intensive, and FreeBSD supports threads poorly.

  • who ever heard of such a thing?

    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

  • BUT

    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

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close