[pron]

Almost, although I have to say you know much more than most. Because OpenJDK itself is open-source, all versions are open, except for Oracle's for its paying customers, because Oracle, as the main developer of OpenJDK, owns the source code.

There are other differences, too. Adopt, made by a particularly amateurish team at IBM that is barely involved with the OpenJDK project and quite unfamiliar with its workings, isn't a member of the vulnerabilities team and so gets access to security fixes later than all other vendors (and that's not the only thing that makes their build more problematic than all others). Among those that do participate in OpenJDK to varying degrees, including Amazon, there are differences in how much of the changes to their branded forks they upstream to OpenJDK Updates (RH upstreams more; Azul less).

Anyway, the important thing to know is that there is only one version that is fully supported for free -- the current one, and so the safe choices are either some paid LTS or the current version.

[fomine3]

Maybe you should call not LTS but "Oracle's LTS" ? OpenJDK is open so any company should be able to provide own "LTS" but it's differ from Oracle's LTS and you argue that Oracle's LTS is superior than others. (I agree Oracle has great resource to maintain LTS and still manages CVEs)

> Anyway, the important thing to know is that there is only one version that is fully supported for free -- the current one, and so the safe choices are either some paid LTS or the current version.

It looks like overstatement for me but reasonable perspective for Oracle employee.

[pron]

What I'm saying is that you can buy LTS from Oracle, Red Hat, Bellsoft, or Azul -- that's how all of them make their money off of OpenJDK -- but not a single one of them offers it for free (and neither does Amazon, whose JDK staff is smaller than or similar to Bellsoft's).