Talk:OpenJDK

"The Java Trap"?

Someone either explain what "The Java Trap" is or delete that line. Fig (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It does have a reference where you can read all about the Java trap but I agree that it needed some explaining, so I added a few words there. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 23:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OpenJDK vs. JDK

Can someone point out the main differences between OpenJDK and the Java Development Kit? To me, both articles read as if JDK is superseded by OpenJDK, as most of JDK has been merged to OpenJDK. Or is Sun/Oracle maintaining both projects separately? --Abdull (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There are three primary differences between OpenJDK and OraJDK, which stem directly from Oracle's strategy of using OpenJDK as a public version where they can receive help from Red Hat / Canonical / Apple / IBM / Google / etc ... but keeping OraJDK in a private branch that they do not have to share in return. First, difference number one, availability of the source code: you can look at the OpenJDK, but not the OraJDK (unless you work for Oracle or similar). Second, performance at runtime of Java apps you run in their respective JVMs, especially on windows: Oracle adds some secret sauce in their private branch. (Whether the secret sauce is any good[1][2][3][4] is another question entirely.[5][6][7]) Third, official licensing and terms of use: GPLv2-with-linking-exception for OpenJDK, and proprietary for OraJVM binaries. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

For your other questions, as you point out, the articles read as if the JDK -- meaning the *Sun* JDK from before Oracle acquired that corporation -- has been superseded by OpenJDK, and furthermore, that most (but not all) of the Sun JDK has been merged into OpenJDK. However, the more correct way to look at it is that 99% of the Sun JDK has been replaced by OpenJDK, and the other 1% secret sauce was held back; the combination OpenJDK+secretSauce==OraJDK. Therefore, the answer to your final question is yes, Oracle is maintaining OpenJDK (along with Red Hat and Canonical and Apple and IBM and SAP and various others) in a public codebase, but simultaneously they maintain a private branch, which has copies of all the stuff in OpenJDK, but some additional tweaks (the secret sauce). Note that only Oracle can manage this trick: OpenJDK is GPL, so anybody else that wants to modify OpenJDK and then distribute the result *has* to publish the source-code of their modifications, for Oracle and everybody else to see. However, because Oracle (and Sun before them) require a contributor-license-agreement for all codebase commits to OpenJDK, they effectively also own the copyright to OpenJDK, on which the GPL license of OpenJDK depends... which means, as the copyright owner, Oracle is free to re-license[8] a modified copy of OpenJDK (their private branch with secret sauce), and then distribute that modified version as a closed-source binary (the OraJRE binaries for win/lin/osx/etc being the easiest example in which they are effectively re-licensing-to-themselves). It also means that Oracle -- and only Oracle -- can sell closed-source binaries for other platforms, such as Raspberry Pi.[9] It is unknown whether OpenJDK is patent-encumbered, and whether or not the GPLv2 license it is released under acts as an implicit patent grant; see [10]. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

when few years ago I was running some custom performance testing of jvms, I clearly saw Windows version was faster than both linux's and even their own opensolaris ones. The test program involved did not very complex line drawings and was ran on THE SAME machine for all 3 OSes. That guy from one of your link (that from moronix) just says the ubuntu's java is faster than windows vista's, but he even is not clear whether comparable hw was used. There are so much influence factors on the performance from a side, so without detailed description of test environment such claimings are not more than demonstrating his own willings.

77.52.154.62 (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)java-caca

Overlap with Java Class Library, IcedTea and Free Java implementations

Parts of this article overlap with Java Class Library, IcedTea and Free Java implementations. I'm not clear on what can be done about it though. I don't think the articles can be merged. Should a new article covering the overlapping parts be created? --Chealer (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Spelling issue

Perhaps I'm missing something...

This paragraph In June 2008, Red Hat announced that the packaged binaries for OpenJDK on Fedora 9, built using IcedTea 6, had passed the Technology Compatibility Kit tests and could claim to be a fully compatible Java 6 implementation.[51] In July 2009, an IcedTea 6 binary build for Ubuntu 9.04 passed all of the compatibility tests in the Java SE 6 JCK.[52]

Should the last word be TCK, and not JCK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.85.136.18 (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. If you see an obvious error like this, BE BOLD and fix it immediately; it is more fun that way. No need to ask on the talkpage, unless you think someone might find it controversial (e.g. if you find an 'obvious' error on a page about religion or politics or best-software-for-some-particular-task then make sure you have a Reliable Source to back you up). Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Why release an open source implemention?

Perhaps the article needs to state why OpenJDK was created or open sourced in the first place?
Was it simply due to pressure from the open source community? - wislam (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Azul Zulu

I removed the Azul Zulu part, I think it has nothing to do in the main OpenJDK article, and notability has to be checked. There were no links excepts from the company itself. Hervegirod (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm removing it again, there are still no sources except from the editor itself. Please add valid references, because for now notability is not checked. Hervegirod (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on OpenJDK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090527021318/http://en.opensuse.org:80/OpenJDK to http://en.opensuse.org/OpenJDK
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060717164412/http://blogs.sun.com:80/roller/page/jonathan/200605 to http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan/200605#busy_week1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081003094214/http://kennke.org:80/blog/2008/09/29/a-small-step-for-me/ to http://kennke.org/blog/2008/09/29/a-small-step-for-me/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on OpenJDK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090319020035/http://mediacast.sun.com/share/tmarble/Sun_Opens_Java.ogg to http://mediacast.sun.com/share/tmarble/Sun_Opens_Java.ogg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

AdoptOpenJDK/RedHat OpenJDK

Why does the RedHat OpenJDK entry in the table of builds link instead to the AdoptOpenJDK page? When I’d first looked at AdoptOpenJDK I was able to observe that they declared affiliation with RedHat and also declared non-affiliation with RedHat. In the same sentence.. Add that I was unable to find at the time any RedHat sourced mentions of AdoptOpenJDK, and it left me with the feeling that someone was possibly being dishonest. Also, there are places to download a RedHat build of OpenJDK, with their commitments to it, and places to download an AdoptOpenJDK build of OpenJDK. The builds are demonstrably different, and there are pages that question differences between them -> demonstrably they are not a single entity, and therefore are not the same thing. So why the errant link? Meanwhile, if you feel that the two parties are factually affiliated, I’d love to see the source from RedHat confirming this. 67.190.126.82 (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Pure

The article shows a table of implementations with a column "Pure" which is not explained. What does that mean ? -- Juergen 212.202.144.106 (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

+1. Please add an explanation. --2A02:16F0:0:0:0:0:0:A (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

On May 25th, an IP user modified "Pure" to "build of unmodified upstream" without adding a source. My guesswork of Pure meaning that the software ist distributed as a standalone package without bundling it with some other software seems wrong and this question seems resolved. -- Juergen 212.202.144.106 (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Links to specific OpenJDK builds

Is there a reason why all of the links to the OpenJDK builds in the table are presented as citations, and not as external links? I've been finding that to be a little strange.

CodingKoopa (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Removed OpenJ9 and GraalVM JVMs from the builds list

In the Eclipse Adoptium charter, "Licensing" section, point 1, Oracles says that the Java SE TCKs are only licensed to "Java SE implementations that in each case are based on OpenJDK code and include only HotSpot based Java Runtime Environments sourced from the OpenJDK project, or any natural successor thereof sourced from the OpenJDK project, and no other Java Virtual Machine". They specifically call out "the OpenJ9 Project, Oracle’s GraalVM project(s) or any successors of either of the foregoing" as not based on OpenJDK. That's why I removed OpenJ9, IBM Java (the last available version 8 is based on OpenJ9), and GraalVM from the list of OpenJDK versions.

Please also see this discussion thread in the "Friends of OpenJDK" Slack.

Hi - Sorry, I've reverted this without seeing this talk section. I will still elaborate here. I disagree with that interpretation of the licensing statement because the JDKs in question are still based on OpenJDK. For instance, the IBM Semeru Runtimes are very much based on OpenJDK, but they include the OpenJ9 JVM *on top* of it. The fact that it includes OpenJ9 doesn't negate its OpenJDK heritage. Indeed, IBM's website does brand them as OpenJDK builds here and there.

I hope this helps to clear things up. — CodingKoopa (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)