Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #13970

Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32

From	Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer, comp.lang.java.softwaretools
Subject	Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32
References	<l1cjp7ldfac3okb9go55a3vrn6rau6jkhi@4ax.com> <4f9a1ab4$0$27355$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com> <jnh7mj$t3p$3@speranza.aioe.org>
Message-ID	<dlWmr.61342$T5.46240@newsfe13.iad> (permalink)
Organization	Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Date	2012-04-28 15:07 -0300

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 12-04-28 02:00 PM, javax.swing.JSnarker wrote:
> On 27/04/2012 12:04 AM, Wayne wrote:
>> On 4/26/2012 4:29 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
>>> New versions of the JDK are out JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32
>>
>>  From the release notes:
>>
>>    ...
>>    New flag to unlock Commercial Features
>>    ...
> 
> This is a disturbing direction that Java should not have taken. The base
> platform has always been free to use.
> 
It's certainly worth keeping an eye on what Oracle is doing. I for
example don't much like the way that tutorials and examples for Oracle
SOA products are showing up on java.net: I have a feeling that not so
far down the road Oracle is going to use that exposure (and an audience
tat in many cases is naive) to start pushing some of their non-standard
SOA stuff as reference implementations [1].

However in this case your concern is misplaced. A year ago Oracle made
JRockit free. They have been working on converging their JVMs.  We can
use the JRockit JVM under essentially the same conditions as the Oracle
(Sun) JVM. All that Oracle kept commercial is JRockit advanced features;
that's what the flag is for.

In essence the base platform (and there is more base platform to wit) is
_still_ free to use. These commercial features are legit.

AHS

1. Note that ESBs, for example, are not overall governed by
specifications. Much of what they do is detailed by industry-standard
specs, but ESBs themselves aren't.

-- 
A fly was very close to being called a "land," cause that's what they do
half the time.
-- Mitch Hedberg

Thread

new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-04-26 13:29 -0700
  Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-26 21:30 +0000
    Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-04-26 14:52 -0700
      Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2012-04-27 08:20 -0400
        Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-28 09:19 -0700
          Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-04-28 12:30 -0700
            Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-28 14:24 -0700
              Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-04-28 21:04 -0700
              Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2012-04-29 08:39 +0000
                Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-29 08:12 -0700
      Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-04-27 10:56 -0700
    Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-27 08:25 -0700
  Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Wayne <nospam@all.invalid> - 2012-04-27 00:04 -0400
    Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-27 18:10 -0400
    Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> - 2012-04-28 13:00 -0400
      Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-28 15:07 -0300
      Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 14:09 -0400
  Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Wayne <nospam@all.invalid> - 2012-04-27 00:10 -0400
    Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 14:13 -0400
      Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Wayne <nospam@all.invalid> - 2012-04-28 18:08 -0400
      Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) - 2012-04-30 07:30 +0000
        Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-30 18:52 -0400
        Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-01 19:49 -0400
          Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) - 2012-05-03 21:00 +0000
    Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Leteeloheror <Leteeloheror.5i1lm0@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> - 2012-08-29 00:15 -0400
    Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Leteeloheror <Leteeloheror.5i1t0n@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> - 2012-08-29 03:11 -0400
    Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Leteeloheror <Leteeloheror.5i26fz@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> - 2012-08-29 08:02 -0400
    Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Leteeloheror <Leteeloheror.5i2erz@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> - 2012-08-29 10:53 -0400
    Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Leteeloheror <Leteeloheror.5i2n3z@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> - 2012-08-29 13:41 -0400
  Re: new JDK 1.7.0_04 and 1.6.0_32 Gunter Herrmann <notformail0106@earthlink.net> - 2012-05-01 12:33 -0400

csiph-web