[fmw]

Interesting conclusion. This is not like the Flash situation. Both JDK's are acceptable on a technical level. The Sun one is just a bit faster and more polished. In other words: this doesn't really affect the kind of end-users that would be affected by a missing installer for Flash. Oracle is just creating a nuisance for system administrators and developers in a market that Linux is already dominating: servers. These users know how to install the Oracle packages outside of the package system and understand the licensing issue.

The problem here is not GNU/Linux, but Oracle playing politics (again). The result is that they will continue to alienate developers, while their cash cow won't suffer in the short term (hackers aren't responsible for the majority of their business, business-type decision makers are). The decision to focus on an open alternative instead of working around Oracle's antics is what makes GNU/Linux what it is. GNU/Linux isn't just a practical piece of software, but also an idea. That being said, focussing developer time on the OpenJDK seems like a pragmatic move from a practical point of view as well, because licensing reasons are not something you can just ignore when convenient (without exposing your users to a possible lawsuit from Oracle).

[sigzero]

"The Sun one is just a bit faster and more polished."

And that is why it is the preferred one! For enterprise stuff you have to have the "more polished" one.

[fmw]

That is what I meant when I said that Oracle is mostly creating a nuisance for the server market. It forces sys admins and developers to jump through more hoops to get the software running on their servers (as well as to keep it updated in large deployments!). That is, those that really need it, because I'm sure some people will just switch to the OpenJDK instead, because it isn't unsuitable for production use either.

[sylvestre]

Please give me bug reports which shows that openjdk is not ready for production. I will be interested to report them upstream.

[Silhouette]

The trouble with this sort of argument is that it's not always clear what the bug is, only where it is.

For example, I work on browser-hosted user interfaces that sometimes rely on Java applets. I don't know why an applet frequently doesn't work with IcedTea. All I hear back via customers-of-clients is "Your interface doesn't work on Linux".

The advice to uninstall IcedTea and replace it with Sun's (OK, Oracle's) version is now as routine to our client's support people as telling someone with Windows troubles to reboot was a few years ago. That answer has a 100% success rate with these "bugs" so far, so I don't suppose those support staff are going to change their policy any time soon.

As a software developer, I appreciate that this is not at all helpful to those working on OpenJDK/IcedTea. However, as a guy whose rent is paid by what he earns from his clients, I can't recommend that anyone use IcedTea for anything until its well-deserved (in our experience) reputation for poor reliability is addressed.

[fmw]

I was using a double negative, so I never meant to or did say that OpenJDK isn't suitable for production. Apologies for the confusing phrasing if you misunderstood me, but I was stating the opposite of what you seem to have assumed.

[mattdeboard]

I know that it definitely does not play nice with ClojureScript. Not sure where the error is on that one, whether with CljS or OpenJDK.

[rbanffy]

> For enterprise stuff you have to have the "more polished" one.

Actually, you need the one built better, with better and longer term support. There is a lot of enterprisey stuff running on Java 1.2 out there.