[pron]

Whether you use LTS versions or not, you must update your JDK every 3 months or so to stay secure, and must perform full regression tests. That we've recently changed the version naming scheme and started giving the 6-monthly updates new integer numbers does not make them major releases. I understand that people are confused because LTS and feature releases perhaps mean something different for Java than for other products, but the probability of an update breaking your app to the point you need to change code isn't much higher for a feature release than for an LTS patch. Updating to feature releases is overall cheaper and easier, it just requires companies to adapt. We realize change is hard and it will take time, but we believe this is the right approach. Those who have made the transition seem to agree.

[gol706]

That's all well and good for software developed in house by a full time development team that gets deployed to a single known environment, but that's only one way that the JDK gets used. If you provide software to customers to deploy in their own environments without direct control over updates, or if you have maintenance mode line of business software that you just want to keep patched this becomes a much bigger burden. Oracle also hasn't really been giving the time for these changes to be adopted either when the support for even LTS JDK builds is dropped at the same time the next stable major version is released. I realize that Oracle's answer is "and that's when you should pay us for support", but for anyone who wants to continue to use Java (or the JDK) in the "free" way its been historically, it's so much safer form a business perspective to use a JDK provider that has better support commitments to their free versions. Other than the fact that it's the default served by *.jdk.net that people are used to, I don't see why you would choose the Oracle OpenJDK over another provider.

[pron]

Free support for JDK 8 ended after an average of 5 years and a notice of one year. Moreover, early access and then public availability JDK 9 builds were avaialble for a year and a half before end of public support. This is at least as much time as any previous version. Add to that the fact that the current free perpetual support is cheaper and easier than ever (although it does require a bit of getting used to), and the claim that people did not have enough time to adjust sounds tenuous.

In addition, Oracle has completely open-sourced the JDK, for the first time ever, and as we had done several times before, we transferred ownership of old JDK versions to Red Hat. Feel free to use whatever OpenJDK distribution you find suitable to your needs, but keep in mind that 90% of the work on OpenJDK is done by Oracle.

Finally, it is incorrect to say that support is dropped the next time the major version is shipped as Java 9 was the last major release ever. "Dropping support" for the semi-annual release as soon as the next one is released has been the practice for at least the past 7 years (e.g. there were no further updates to 8 once 8u20 was released). What has changed is that the semi-annual releases get an integer number. This certainly confuses people who don't realize that what would have been called 9u20 was renamed 10 and so on, and that cheaper upgrades are now easier and cheaper than ever before. So I agree communication could have been better (we're working on that), but I disagree with your characterization.

To summarize, free perpetual support is easier than ever, there was plenty of time for people to adjust, and open sourcing of the JDK has opened up the field for other distributions for different support options. All in all, things are cheaper, freer, and you have more options than ever. Yes, it seems that people have not yet internalized the meaning of the new feature releases (they are not major releases, but much closer to the old "limited update" releases), as well as the meaning of LTS (which is only recommended if you have a good reason not to use the current JDK).