Sun Says Java Source Already Available 304
mjdroner writes "In an InfoWorld article, Java CTO James Gosling says that source code for Java has been available for 10 years. Gosling claims Java is close to an open source model, though discounts Sun joining the Eclipse Foundation. He goes on to say that Eclipse's endorsement of the standard widget toolkit destroyed interoperability, saying it's based on the windows API, making it problematic to run on other platforms."
Oh yeah? (Score:5, Funny)
Destroyed Interoperabilty? (Score:4, Interesting)
Eclipse has shown that the market can indeed rally around Java optimized for Windows. Prior to SWT, remember running Together on cutting edge hardware, and the windows would still take 30 seconds to refresh? No one would tolerate the idea of running Java on Windows for Java's sake, when native apps absolutely destroyed Java apps in UI speed comparisons.
It's time for the theoretical niceties of interoperability to meet the practical demands of customer acceptance within the Windows market.
Re:Destroyed Interoperabilty? (Score:2)
Although it's possible you have a point, I cannot believe you cite Eclipse as an example - that pos halts and leaves you looking at a blank menu bar more times than I care to count. It's mere existence all but trashed what was a great user experience in Netbeans by causing them to chase the competition with the project-centric crap. Project-centric with no subprojects - utter shortsightedness.
I don't care what anyone says - your IDE isn't supposed to limit your options for setting up a project.
And performan
Re:Destroyed Interoperabilty? (Score:3, Interesting)
Never had that problem with Eclipse, though Netbeans leaves me staring at my monitor waiting for something to happen often enough.
See, this is the problem with Java's "cross-platform compatibility" spiel.
Even on the same platform, an application may or may not work properly.
And speaking of Sun's dedication to client side apps, le
Re:Destroyed Interoperabilty? (Score:2)
Regarding eclipse being the first for refactoring support, sorry, no. They just didn't call it that before. Netbeans supported changing a file name in the same manner as the windows explorer - just select the name. Eclipse, you actually have to click the buzzword first: Refactor - rename.
Netbeans was scuttled in release 4 - it may as well be eclipse at this point - they destroyed everything that was unique and useful about it to drop into project -centric purgatory. Their problem - th
Re:Destroyed Interoperabilty? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Destroyed Interoperabilty? (Score:2)
Re:Destroyed Interoperabilty? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, and the only people that are even slightly interested in using Java to create desktop applications are A) those people that are creating Java-related development tools, and B) those folks working on alternative (ie. Linux) desktop applications. However, thanks to Sun's ridiculous Java licensing Mono gets more actual use in the creation of desktop applications than Java does. SWT helps, to some extent, as it is possible today to create SWT applications that run on gcj.
Sun is eventually going to come
Re:Destroyed Interoperabilty? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not true. I do all my applications in Java, regardless wether it is Desktop or Server, and all people I know, do the same.
are A) those people that are creating Java-related development tools, and B) those folks working on alternative (ie. Linux) desktop applications.
I work on Mac OS X, btw
However, thanks to Sun's ridiculous Java licensing this is a
WTF? (Score:2, Troll)
It doesn't really seem to explain WTF they think they mean, or what they've been taking. Is there somewhere where I can just download the Java source code, modify it, and distribute it, or do I need special permission and a weird license? That's not open source. If that's what they meant by their promise to open source everything, they lied.
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Informative)
From your link: "The current model for Java is close to an open source model, Gosling said." So, he's not saying it is.
And the way that the "Open Source Community" uses the term "open source" is really beyond the plain meaning and historical usage of the term; and only makes sense if you've had your ideological briefing. Java is open source in the sense that the source code is open and accessible. It just doesn't meet the "Open Source Definition".
Open source is more than that (Score:5, Informative)
While I can understand Sun want to maintain control of the standard, they've got to open up the source. It sounds a little harsh considering .NET is not open at all (although MS do provide a reference version of their CLR), but it has to be done.
Sun needs every friend they can get and putting Java into every distribution of Linux is one very good way to make a lot of friends. That means opening it up. Naturally they'd be frightened of some bastardized FrankenJava appearing, but they would still maintain the standards and the trademarks and they could enforce them. Who knows, perhaps opening the source will stimulate the platform once more.
Another way of stimulating the platform is to embrace Eclipse & SWT. Sun may hate to admit it, but Swing sucks. It's a very nice and flexible API but in practice it sucks. Swing apps run with the grace and speed of a slug. Swing apps look weird even when attempting to look native. At least bundle SWT with the JRE and let people decide which to use. SWT has it's faults too, but it sure as hell transforms the UI experience of Java apps. Aside from SWT I cannot fathom why they won't embrace Eclipse. Eclipse makes Java development easy. The platform has been cursed with crappy tools (especially GUI editors) for too long and it will have to pull its socks up if it wants to compete with Visual Studio.
Re:Open source is more than that (Score:2)
I'm guessing you haven't been programming Java for long. Netbeans was a great IDE until Eclipse came and muddied up the water. The process of mounting source trees and libraries was intuitive and didn't interfere with actual development.
Eclipse blows chunks compared to the 3.5.1 netbeans. Since then though netbeans ~= Eclipse. Damn shame
Also, have you tried running SWT on platforms other than Windows?
And why do you say open sourcing Java is required for distribution with Linux? The only problem with Sun's l
Re:Open source is more than that (Score:2)
I tried Netbeans and I hated it. What did I hate about it? I can't say with specificity except it tried to be different from any other IDE I've ever used and I want a comfort zone. Judging from the popularity of Eclipse, I reckon a lot of people prefer it too. I also appre
Re:Open source is more than that (Score:2)
Re:Open source is more than that (Score:2)
Netbeans autocomplete end-tags by default. In eclipse, it's a plugin. Eclipse used to "forget" that a project was scm's in cvs and I had to rebuild the project more than once. Neither support subproject any more, where netbeans used to be more forgiving about directory structures. You could mount anything.
And don't get me started about UI development in eclipse and the "overhauled" netbeans. It used
Re:Open source is more than that (Score:2)
Swing doesn't suck anymore (Score:2)
In fact, with Java 6 it is hard to find any compelling reason at all to build SWT apps instead of just u
Re:Swing doesn't suck anymore (Score:2)
Even a couple of years ago, Apple's customizations to Swing illustrate that Swing was capable of being a first-class GUI citizen. Apple bundles a number of Java apps that are wrapped in a nice app bundle and no one would ever know there were Java rather than some native binary.
Except they don't have standard menus, are slow to start, scroll arrows don't work normally and tabbing doesn't behave as set in system preferences. Other than that they look pretty much native!
Under Java 6 on Windows things
No, Swing doesn't suck anymore (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Swing doesn't suck anymore (Score:3, Insightful)
Swing in Java 5 uses uxtheme on XP and it looks far better than other versions, but it is still superficial compared to a native app. Elements such as the file chooser mimic the common file dialog but behave nothing like the real thing at all. A simple demonstration w
Re:Swing doesn't suck anymore (Score:2)
MOD PARENT DOWN! (Score:2, Insightful)
Sun paid tons of money and spent years writing the class libraries. Why should they give their work away for free? They license this code to IBM, Oracle and BAE for a significant sum. Why should they give up this revenue?
Sun has changed the licensing for the JRE to allow it to more easily be integrated into Linux distros. The parent is either ignorant of that fact or deliberately omitting it.
Sun is less likely to maintain to maintain the standard if they ope
Re:Open source is more than that (Score:2)
I find what you say there interesting. I've used vi then Netbeans in the early days, and Eclipse exclusively for the past two. Recently I had to pick up Visual Studio 2005 to do some .dot and VB hacking of some existing code we had in the office.
I was not impressed. It completely lacks features that I use almost every five minutes in Eclipse
Re:Open source is more than that (Score:4, Insightful)
One thing that too many people here don't appreciate is that what Sun set out to do is almost impossible to get right the first time. Think about it, a cross platform, highly customizable GUI toolkit that mimics the look and feel of every platform it runs on. With one very major player (MS) set to break it.
Look at what Apple did with Swing. A Swing app running on OS X can look almost like a native app, without breaking cross platform compatibility, because Apple EMBRACED Java and Swing. What would have happened if Microsoft did the same thing?
BUT!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Occasionally, it's actually useful to see how someone implemented something, for educational purposes.
But can I modify it, make it work on my new OS and processor and sell it without paying royalties? Maybe, distribute it under the GPL so it can come with FOS OS' in a truly free sense?
Having source code isn't everything. Back in the old days, there was always source code for everything; UNIX on any of twelve or so different platforms wasn't binary compatible, but source compatible. So if you wanted to make a program and sell it, like PeachTree (yeah it's that old), you HAD to distribute the source code. Otherwise, you'd either have to distribute dozens of different binaries or stick with a single platform, which wasn't profitable.
It was copyright infringement to make money by changing the code and selling it... and you couldn't give any of it away to someone who didn't have a license to it. And even if you did make modifications, you couldn't use them when the next release came out unless you ported them over each time.
There's a difference between something being OpenSource and just having the source. Even if it's a free product like Java.
What can you legally do with it? What separates it from being truly open source? I'd read the article, but it seems
Re:BUT!!! (Score:2)
You are not allowed to create your own Java and your own Java distributable unless it's Java certified. This prevents malicious entities from destroying the Java platform by fragmenting it. It's worked on Microsoft.
Re:BUT!!! (Score:2)
No it didn't.. MS took their J++ toolkit and java runtime/ JIT (which historically was the best out there) and refactored it as
Now the industry is HUGELY fragmented. Previously there were MS VB,C++ programmers, UNIX C,C++ programmers, web finatics including perl, python, lisp, php and various ASP. And finally you had EJB programmers (which could have been a combination of any of the above).
Now we are back to solid windows-only solutions (.NET) and UNIX only solutions (java).
Re:BUT!!! (Score:2)
Re:BUT!!! (Score:2)
But if what you say is politically/semantically corr
Gimme the source (Score:2, Funny)
From the Article (Score:2, Funny)
Let's Define Our Terms (Score:5, Insightful)
Java is not the Java Development Kit, or any other specific peice of software. To Sun, "Java" is a trademark, so they can't even use it as a noun. But the rest of us can get by with thinking of Java as a collection of specifications: the Java language, the Java class libraries, and the Java VM spec. None of these is software — software can only be a implementation of Java.
That might seem like a silly distinction, until you remember that Sun is not the only vendor for Java implementations. Not only are there commercial implementations, but there are open source implementations of all [gnu.org] three [sourceforge.net], specs [kaffe.org]. Of course, these all lag way behind commercial implementations, as open source clones are wont to do.
Anyway, when people say "Sun should open-source Java" what they really mean is "Sun should open-source their implementation of Java."
Which brings us to:
"Open source" is not software where the source code is freely available. It software where you can obtain the source code provided you agree to a license. That license specifies that you must make any changes to that source code available to anybody else who agrees to the same license.
And here's a non-legal issue: if you're serious about making your product open-source, you don't just throw the source code over the wall and say "go crazy!" You make a serious attempt to fold contributed code back into your main source tree. That's a serious administrative cost, and a big reason so many companies are unwilling to OS their products.
Re:Let's Define Our Terms (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Let's Define Our Terms (Score:2)
If the source code is freely available to use as you want, then the software is Open Source. Java is not Open Source because you can
Re:Let's Define Our Terms (Score:2)
If you DISTRIBUTE your changes, you must also supply your source changes.
You're perfectly free to keep your changes private.
Re:Let's Define Our Terms (Score:2)
If you DISTRIBUTE your changes, you must also make your source changes available.
It's a subtle distinction, but you don't have to supply the source; you have to supply the source on request. That request could well be an FTP, HTTP or CVS connection, for example, but the implication of what you said is that you have to ship source with binaries, which is not the case. (Of course it's often easier to do so, but it's your choice).
Let's Define Our Terms Correctly! (Score:2)
The GPL goes so far as to explicitly state as much.
Anyhow, on to your main point, I think most people around here believe that having a complete, open source implementation of the latest version of the Java specs would be extremely beneficial to Java and the Java community as a whole. So, we can't q
5.0: Java's Death Knell (Score:2, Insightful)
Open Source does not mean Free Software ! (Score:2, Informative)
In fact you can get the source code, if you accept to sign a licence restricting you to distribute a modified version or reuse the code elsewhere.
So basicaly: the source is availabile (it's opensource) but not reusable freely (it's not free software).
Sun executives often do this confusion when interpreting the F/OSS calls for a free java.
Meanwhile, linux distributors don't make the same mistake: that's why (java being considered non-free) you won't find the Sun jdk/jre in the redistr
SWT is tied to the Windows API? (Score:2, Informative)
I have a slow connection (Score:2)
Java being open sourced... (Score:5, Insightful)
Java developers, meanwhile, want to preserve interoperability and reliability, which is maintained by the current rules governing Java, Gosling said. To be certified as Java-compliant, software most undergo a test suite.
"They really like the fact that we're very compulsive about the whole testing thing," Gosling said.
Exactly. I think that the people calling for Java to be open sourced don't get the concept. Honestly, I think they must all be either people who are against java just because they have a platform they prefer (A very common occurrence among engineers) or they are trying to destroy the advantages of Java (Simplicity, slow and deeply considered addition of new features, compatibility) in order to make it easier to sell a competing product.
The fact is, nothing will be gained from open-sourcing Java that you can't get by evolving the existing license (for instance, sun is modifying it to be able to ship the JDK with other products). On the other hand, much will be lost. Sun has been a creator and beneficial guardian of this language, and has crafted it into something that many users just love.
Now, many people don't need Java. For instance, if you are making a smallish website, you are just stupid if you try to use java--use ROR or
However, if you have a project with an architect, a handful of software engineers and dozens of programmers working on a huge code base at the same time I don't think you can pick a better platform.
If you are not in java's target audience, please SHUT THE HELL UP about it having to be open source. You don't have to feel bad about java not being appropriate for you! I give you permission to go use a scripting type of tool and solve your problem much quicker, but don't try to mold my favorite tool into something that fits your job just because it has a cool name and you think you should be using it because everyone else is.
Those of us who really need java like it pretty much as it is--slow intelligent improvements, fewer terse, confusing or overloaded language features and a large number of users more interested in making readable/reusable code (as opposed to the users who just want to get the job done with write-once code). Overall it's just a good, solid, readable language, leave it at that.
Re:Java being open sourced... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is everybody say "it works on my version of Linux"? What about the BSDs? Smart phones? Embedded devices? My own crackpot system using vacuum tubes? We don't want it all open source, all we want is the C code opened, changable, and distributable. The stuff that's platform dependant. Give me this, and I'll know that your JSP web page will work on my server (which it doesn't).
Sun: You said you had a write-once-run-everywhere platform. Well? Where the hell is it? Do you really think we want the source so we can screw it up? We want what you promised, write once, run on my platform. And as long as I cannot build it for my platform, then it's of no friggen use. And no, you can't make OSS and third parties fill in the gaps, that's when you get the write-once-test-everywhere/lowest common demoninator fiasco that we have now.
Oz
Re:It's available? (Score:5, Informative)
http://wwws.sun.com/software/communitysource/j2se/ java2/download.html [sun.com]
All clear?
Re:It's available? (Score:2)
Yes, it is available... (Score:4, Informative)
You do need to "register" with Sun to get the source, but same goes even for New York Times... The registration is free.
Re:Yes, it is available... (Score:2)
It's about time someone invents a device to punch people in the face via TCP/IP and this device is made obligatory by law.
Let me be the first to say.... ouch!
Re:Yes, it is available... (Score:2)
And I by now wonder about what you have in your head, theres supposed to be brains in there, but I somehow suggest the shitfest you talk about is in your head instead.
The problem with JAVA is not avaibility of source (or lack thereof), and that has been true for the last 10 or so years. The problem is that that source is effectively useless. because you cannot distribute the resulting binaries AT
Re:Yes, it is available... (Score:2)
You can. You just have to pass a very vigorous compliance test. FreeBSD -- a volunteer organization -- did it [freebsdfoundation.org], so it can not be unbearably hard.
Since when is "building from source" a bad thing?..
But, anyway, you should stop the FUD-spreading -- not "each user of such a system". An organi
Re:Yes, it is available... (Score:2)
I am pretty well aware of that they did that, and I also know that the previous time they managed that was for 1.3, running on FreeBSD 4.x
The point of that is that when you needed 1.4.x, or untill recently, 1.5.x, you were out of luck or had to build it from source, which I have done for years btw, so I quite know that it is possible also.
Since when is "building fro
Uhmm... (Score:2)
It's under a license that's not really an Open Source or Free license. The same goes for things like the Java Media Framework- something that could be useful and allow some rather nifty VoIP applications, etc. but is languishing because Sun's the only one that can legally extend it.
Yes, the source is available, but few, if any can really honestly USE it like one can with Linux, GCC, etc.
Re:It's available? (Score:2)
Re:It's available? (Score:2)
To repeat, THE SOURCE IS AVAILABLE!
Re:It's available? (Score:2)
By that measure, articles from the NYT are not available enough either, you need to register with them as well.. same for many others. Let me just point out that you have a very weird idea of what 'available' means.
The consequence of the way in which the source is available (specifically the licence) is that you cannot share it with friends, mirror it, or otherwise distribute it without SUN's prior
Re:It's available? (Score:3, Informative)
The situation is pretty good now, but it certainly hasn't always been like that.
Re:It's available? (Score:3, Informative)
http://wwws.sun.com/software/communitysource/j2se
That said, the license is somewhat less than free
Re:It's available? (Score:2, Informative)
C:\Program Files\Java\jdk1.5.0_06\src.zip
Re:It's available? (Score:2, Informative)
What about the native libs? (Score:2)
Re:It's available? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's available? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's available? (Score:4, Informative)
Of course the source code is available, but you have to personnally agree to a restrictive license. This is why Sun Java is not easily available as the OpenBSD Makefile for 1.5 port shows:
Re:It's available? (Score:2, Insightful)
The "restrictive license" you refer to allows you to make any changes you want to the source, but to call your code "Java" it has to pass Java certification. This is to enable the "write once, run anywhere" capabilities of Java.
Re:It's available? (Score:2)
Ummm...that error message just says you need to download the source code in order to build it.
It says that because you have to do that because they can't download java automatically for you or bundle it because you have to agree to a restrictive license.
The "restrictive license" you refer to allows you to make any changes you want to the source
And to not distribute it. In fact, you can only use the source code for "research and development". Even internal use isn't allowed. Let alone distribution. And you c
Re:It's available? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Concerning Java. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Concerning Java. (Score:2)
Re:Concerning Java. (Score:2)
Re:Concerning Java. (Score:2)
of JDK 1.6 (mustang) running on Linux under GTK. Notice how Swing
adapts to the user's desktop theme.
Re:Concerning Java. (Score:2)
Re:Swing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Swing (Score:4, Informative)
SWT-FOX (http://swtfox.sourceforge.net/) looks like a good idea and is supposed to be faster, but I have never been able to get it to work satisfactory (font problems, crashes). AFAIK, it is being maintained by a single person in his free time. Perhaps RedHat or Novel should support the project.
Don't get me started on SWT anyway - I think the design is terrible; it looks like a somewhat cleaner port of MFC.
Re:Swing (Score:4, Insightful)
IDEA is also a lot better than Eclipse functionality-wise but that's not really releveant for this comparison.
Re:Swing (Score:2, Offtopic)
I do agree that the Motif version looks like ass (and is a pain to use), but then, that's Motif's fault, not SWT.
Re:Swing (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Swing (Score:2)
Anyhow, all you have to do is to set the system propery swing.defaultlaf to the L&F manager that you want to use. If you want to force the Windows L&F for example, use the following:
(ignore the stupid space that is added to the above line)
You can read all the details, along with the class names to use for other look and fee
The best Java windowing toolkit isn't Swing or SWT (Score:4, Insightful)
(burn, karma, burn!)
Re:Swing (Score:5, Funny)
1995 called. They want your complaints back.
You know, back when Java first debuted, its critics complained that it ran too slow. This was back when everyone was running 486 DX/100's, and Pentium 75's were just coming onto the market. Advocates of Java countered that hardware would soon be fast enough to render Java's slight speed disadvantage (due to being interpreted code) irrelevant. Plus, a JIT compiler was in the works to make Java run just as fast as native code.
Guess what? They were right. We're not running 100 MHz machines anymore. We're running 2.4 GHz machines, and Java is just as quick and responsive as any other app. Today's machines have way more than enough CPU power and memory capacity to run even the largest Java apps with no delays at all.
Time for you to come up with some new, fresh complaints.
Re:Swing (Score:2)
That doesn't mean that SWING is not slow and bloated.
Ive used Java apps with SWT and OpenGL that work great.
I have yet to see or use a SWING app that behaves decently.
Re:Swing (Score:2)
Just to clarify, Sun originally released Java 1.0 as a "reference" copy for other JVM vendors to test against when developing their own JVMs. As a result, it was lacking a JIT and thus was incredibly slow. That slowness disappeared in Sun Java 1.1 when Sun realized their mi
Re:Swing (Score:2)
>as any other app.
Do you ever regularly use Java applications? I have the impression you don't, or you wouldn't state such a plainly wrong fact.
At least on Windows (argubly by far the most important platform), as soon as there is some load, Java applications' GUI reponds MUCH slower than any native application.
I don't even think this is Java itself being slow, but the Windows kernel giving higher priority to threads that deal wit
Re:Swing (Score:2)
Re:Swing (Score:5, Insightful)
Using themes doesn't work that great with Swing either (Not Swing themes but Gnome, KDE, Windows global themes). Swing apps will stick out like a sore thumb.
Re:Swing (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Swing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Swing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Swing (Score:2)
Sorry, but this appears to be FUD. If you want a native look and feel you need to put in one line of code to tell the UIManager to use it. A few more lines can give the user control of the L&F.
Once a Swing application is up and running it's not noticeably slower or less responsive than any other GUI application, assuming its been correctly written, and it will work cross-platform with no changes. I've taken desktop applications from Windows -> Linux -> Solaris -> HPUX with no porting effor
Re:Download Link (Score:2)
Also, it seems to have an interesting license.
Re:Download Link (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Download Link (Score:3, Insightful)
<tweety-bird>He don't know Java wery well, do he?</tweety-bird>
As another poster pointed out, the JDK contains the JRE. In fact, the JDK is nothing more than the JRE + Compiler Tools. It's fairly easy to mod a JRE to become a JDK just by moving a few JAR files. (And the 'javac' executable if you want an easy way to launch the compiler.)
As a result, it almost always makes more sense to install the JDK rather than the JRE. The only purpose of t
Re:Shills polluting the conversation? (Score:2)
Don't, you will like it even less. It's said to be somewhat faster, but that comes at a horrible cost. Maybe you should try the fox-port of SWT instead.
http://swtfox.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
Re:Shills polluting the conversation? (Score:5, Interesting)
You might think that a pluggable look and feel (PLAF) is more general - true. But in reality, in real-life apps, you don't want to shock users with your "different but good-looking" GUI. Instead, you want to look exactly the same as all other apps on that OS. In the real world, the PLAF makes the Swing code so complex as to be almost unusable / unfixable, costs an insane amount of engineering resources which explains why it performs well only on Windows, and remains largely unused. The thing which it is used for most often, namely to look like a native GUI, it does a pretty bad job at. Each new version of the Windows GUI demands a new Java GUI to keep pace.
Had Sun spent all half the engineering time it spent on Swing on SWT instead, it would be perfect now. I just hope they include it as an official GUI framework in one of the next releases.
Re:Shills polluting the conversation? (Score:3, Interesting)
So is Skerrett being disengenous when he says that and, if he is, is he just getting back at Gosling for over simplifying?
Actually, I think he was just being polite. "I don't believe James really understands how Eclipse works" is a whole lot nicer than "James is lying through his teeth," which is what I would say.
Re:Shills polluting the conversation? (Score:2, Informative)
Here's a good overview that I should have put in my original post:
SWT on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Re:Shills polluting the conversation? (Score:4, Informative)
IBM put a whole lot of time and energy into optimizing for Windows because it allows them to sell WebSphere studio for Windows. Optimizing for other platforms isn't cost effective, so they didn't do it. But what they did do is release the source, so someone with expertise on other platforms can pick up the ball and run with it and, when it passes all the tests, be merged back into the main eclipse source tree. The extensive tests are key in facilitating this process.
If SWT were to be included in the JRE, I think you'd see at least Apple (who distribute their own JRE anyways) spend sigificant effort in making SWT performant on OS X. I don't think its unreasonable to think that such an effort wouldn't be organized for Linux as well. But as long as SWT is just "that Eclipse thing", these efforts won't happen.
My one quibble with what the GP said is the "SWT is what Swing should have been" comment. SWT wasn't designed to be what Swing tries to be. It was designed to be much less OS abstracted. Much of the ugliness of the underlying OS filters through into SWT (widgets requiring parent composites, requiring developers to call dispose, requiring developers to update widgets via syncExec and asyncExec). JFace, on the other hand, is much more comparable to Swing. It burries much of the ugliness of SWT and presents a much cleaner interface to the developer. It's a shame that the people at Eclipse chose to create only an SWT download and an RCP download and not a JFace + SWT download.
How open does it need to be? (Score:5, Insightful)
Answer: Open enough that the most important Linux distributions will include Java.
It is correct that Java is close to being FOSS, but that makes it even more the pity that Sun could not make the few adjustments needed to attain this goal.
Sun should by now be over the trauma of Microsoft attempting to hijack Java and accept things like SWT as the kind of sideshow that the Ubuntu/Kubuntu thing is.
Re:WAKE UP! ...Smell the Coffee! (Score:3, Informative)
There are no comp
Re:Check out the java source code! (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, Well (Score:2)
Yes, because we all know that free software is software that is a free download, like Internet Explorer, Flash player, and Java. It doesn't even matter if you quibble over "libre" or "gratis" definitions, because those programs are still "libre" to use.
That's why the term "Open Source Software" was invented. It's not a perfect term, but it's a hell of a lot clearer than "Free Software".
p.s. If it weren't for the restrictive terms