JavaFX Runs On Raspberry Pi 147
mikejuk writes "Oracle seem to be concerned that the Raspberry Pi manages to run Java properly and they are actively working on the problem. To prove that it more than just works, what better than to get a JavaFX app up and running — what could be more cutting edge? Unfortunately the trick was performed using a commercial version of the JDK with JIT support and some private code, but it is still early days yet. Java and JavaFX on Raspberry Pi takes us into a whole new ball game." Watch the video at the linked report to see it in action.
Misread (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I've been reading too much Oracle/Java hate on slashdot. I misread the first sentence to mean, "Raspberry Pi manages to run Java properly. Oracle seem to be concerned and are working on the problem."
Re:Misread (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Misread (Score:5, Insightful)
Which means the submitter is the writer of the article and this is just a slashvertisement to get some hits on his site.
And Timmothy is a fucking useless editor.
What part of the "editor" job was done by Timmothy here?
Clicking the "post this shit" button?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What part of the "editor" job was done by Timmothy here? Clicking the "post this shit" button?
Seriously? Yes, that's what they do. It's been that way forever.
Actually, no.
It used to be more than clicking a button.
Editor used to check the facts, look for reference, balance the pros-and-cons, correct grammar mistakes, typos, performing cosmetic changes to the submitted article, etc., before the article can be viewed by all on /.
When Cmdr Taco was around he did all that
As to other editor on /. ..... well .... you be the judge
Re: (Score:3)
I'd guess that the submitter, mikejuk, is British. "It is still early days yet" is a common expression in UK English.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's early days yet" is a common expression in English, as spoken here in the UK. The "still" is redundant, either side of the Atlantic.
Re: (Score:1)
American english is more conservative than the UK english with rules like this. Oddly, it is more conservative but with more improper slang.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I stand by my comment - "still" adds nothing to the sentence as used in the summary, which ends with "yet". There's no disagreement to state - it really is early days. "it's still early days, yet", "it's early days yet", "still, it's early days" and "it's still early days" all say the same thing, with varying economy. The third and fourth options say it most clearly, in my opinion, whereas the first seems clumsy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Misread (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been reading too much Oracle/Java hate on slashdot.
Nobody really admires Oracle except for corporate CEO types. The rest of us have what equates to the same admiration for a dentist's drill. The licensing model is basically un-consentual sex. Having Oracle gunning for more IP just makes everyone uncomfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this news? (Score:2)
Java has been running on ARM platform since Acorn RISCOS days. How is this news?
I'm guessing the RISCOS port for Raspberry Pi will run Java too?
Re: (Score:1)
There are a bunch of JVMs for ARM (OpenJDK, JAMVM, etc.), but no free/open JDKs that have JITs. The only open way I know of to get JIT performance is to run the Java classes through IKVMC and then use Mono with its ARM JIT.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki/ZeroSharkFaq [classpath.org]
"What architectures do Zero and Shark work on?
As of December 2008, Zero is known to work on Alpha, ARM, IA-64, MIPS, PowerPC, x86, x86-64 and zSeries.
Shark should be able to build on any Zero-supported system that LLVM has a JIT for. As of October 2009, this is ARM, PowerPC, x86 and x86-64. "
Re: (Score:2)
JavaFX != Java (Score:5, Interesting)
This is all pretty confusing.
We picked up JavaFX for a while because, amazingly, there was no practical way to replay video in Java. (Please don't tell me about that crufty, abandoned joke from 2001 called JMF). Then JavaFX keeled over and died when Oracle bought Sun. If JavaFX 2 provides a video player widget, maybe it is useful.
Re: (Score:1)
Not really that confusing. JavaFX 1 was a scripting language with a graphics library underneath. JavaFX 2 did away with the scripting language (thank god), and now you write standard Java and it uses the graphics library underneath. The whole kit and kaboodle is part of JDK 7, and works very well.
Re: (Score:1)
The tools suck ass too.
They are no tools. Sun's excuse was to use Adobe Flash Builder to create JavaFX??
Well if I paid all this money for it, why don't I use compile it to a flash? Idiots.
Oracle is even worse and more out too lunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Here are some other Java video options:
Cortardo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortado_(software) [wikipedia.org]
FMJ (a play on JMF)http://fmj-sf.net/
VLC Java Bindings - http://code.google.com/p/vlcj/ [google.com]
Although, even with those options we wanted to do single-frame stepping forward and backward, so we wrote a JNI interface (although these days you'd use JNA instead) to FFMpeg and used that. Worked a treat.
Re: (Score:1)
What the hell does the web have to do with anything what so ever in this discussion?
Don't you realize you are posting to a JAVA discussion??
Re: (Score:1)
Foot, meet bullet. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oracle isn't suing Google for *using* Java. They're suing for *forking* Java. I think most people (outside slashdot populists) can see the distinction.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The irony of this astroturfing/trolling comment
I think you misunderstand the definition of astroturfing. A single comment cannot be an astroturf unless that commenter works for the company attempting to astroturf. What company do you accuse him of working for?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Foot, meet bullet. (Score:5, Informative)
>Please, the vast majority Java was open sourced in 2006 under the GPL
The code was. But if you want to write any Java code you need to use Java APIs. Those are copyright and subject to Oracle's terms of use. Go to http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/index.html [oracle.com] - see that link to a copyright statement at the bottom: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/legal/cpyr.html [oracle.com]. That document says:
So what is the license agreement: Try to download the documentation (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/documentation/java-se-7-doc-download-435117.html [oracle.com]). That has a click though agreement to http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/licenses/java-se-7-spec-license.txt [oracle.com], which in turn says:
So - you can use the APIs for internal evaluation only. In other words - if you wish to use them for any other purpose you need another license from Oracle.
This is exactly the case Oracle has advanced against Google (who violated clause (i) above by implementing the specification).
But, they could advance a case against any Java developer, because no matter how they learned Java, these licenses do not extend third party rights, so each developer has to officially learn about Java through the Java specifications. And if you are using Java for any purpose other than evaluation, you are in violation.
If you use something other Java SE, then you are even worse off, because the APIs are not actually published. The licenses for various versions of Java have changed slightly over the years (the one for Java 5 - which Google is being sued under - says that the license overrides all other statements from Sun, although Oracle's lawyers didn't read that far into the license else they would have used that clause to nullify the damaging testimony about Sun's approvals of Google's actions.
Before you accuse people of astroturfing, learn the turf.
Regards,
-Jeremy
Re: (Score:1)
Where I live APIs and programming languages cannot be subject to copyright.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So - you can use the APIs for internal evaluation only. In other words - if you wish to use them for any other purpose you need another license from Oracle.
Did we red the same piece of text?
means exactly that you can develop all applications you want using the Java APIs, how do you interpret that as "they could advance a case against any Java developer"?
Re:Foot, meet bullet. (Score:4, Interesting)
In other words, Oracle claim that Google created a Java-based platform that is not compatible with Java, and called it Java.
Except for two things:
1. Google doesn't say their OS runs Java. It says you write apps for Android in the Java language, which Oracle is still insisting is "free for anyone to use" -- just apparently not for Google to use. Google has never said that Android is an implementation of the Java platform, however, which is what Google licenses.
2.A large part of Google's "Java-based platform" is derived from Apache Harmony. To be in compliance with the Java license terms you quote, an implementation must pass the TCK. As we all know, Oracle has refused to grant the Apache Foundation access to the TCK, except under terms that would violate the Apache open source license. So it's a little disingenuous to say Google violated the license, when Oracle specifically wouldn't allow Apache (or Google) to comply with the license.
So IMHO it's still largely Oracle's acting in bad faith that led to this pass.
Re: (Score:1)
A judge ruled against Microsoft back then, a judge will decide if Google did the same thing today.
2) You're talking about the Java SE license, which has nothing to do with the Google case.
Sun provided two licensing options for Java.
a) Java SE is a full version of Java that is free for e
Re: (Score:2)
2) You're talking about the Java SE license, which has nothing to do with the Google case.
I'm talking about the license text you quoted. If it has nothing to do with the Google case, why did you quote it? Go back and read the last line of the section you cut and pasted. It says TCK required. Oracle denied the Apache Foundation access to the TCK. Bad faith.
Re: (Score:2)
Google never implemented Java SE. They never claimed to implement Java SE, and therefore they never needed the TCK to prove that their implementation could be called Java SE. Had they tried to implement Java SE, then the TCK availability would have been a requirement for them in order to call their implementation "Java". This is the case for Apache Harmo
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry to reply twice, but ...
1) Just like Microsoft did back in the 90s (emphasis mine):
An important distinction here is that Microsoft did purchase a Java license from Sun. So Sun definitely had a case that Microsoft violated the explicit terms of the specific contract it had with Sun.
Google, on the other hand, did not have a license from Oracle because it could not obtain one. The only license that applies here is Oracle's stated public grant of a license to implement the JDK. It seems to me that whether that license was being fairly and faithfully applied is an
Re: (Score:2)
I do believe that Google's choice to go with Java as its main language may prove to be a mistake, though. I think it made that decision out of a desire to move quickly against Apple, but it did it in a kinda sneaky way and it ended up getting bitten. How badly remains to be seen.
I don't think it was a mistake, given the traction they've gained with it. They knew full well the whole thing could turn out ugly -- the released email from the lawsuit makes for interesting reading. They did try to play nice with Sun and get a proper license, but not too suprisingly Sun wasn't willing to relinquish control.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true. "Mistake" might be too strong a word. Look at what they got by going with Java: They got a language that a lot of people already knew, they got Eclipse, they got all the other Java tools (like Ant, or whatever)... it gave them an incredible head start. Even if it ends up costing them some money, in the long run it was probably the right choice.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody has to give a f*ck about that. That license is a license you need to agree to in order to copy Oracle's copyrighted material. If you don't copy their copyrighted material, that license doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
It demonstrates that Oracle thinks Java is. The court will ultimately decide if re-implementing the Java libraries does indeed constitute some violation of Oracle's IP.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the fact that people get sued over this stuff demonstrates that Java is a quagmire of IP claims. And this isn't the first time either. Sun may have been playing nice with Google since they had to, but they had screwed over lots of companies with Java-related IP claims before Google.
Re: (Score:1)
The copyrighted material is the specification document that the license is attached to.
It's as wrong as all absolute statem
Re: (Score:2)
All that guarantees is that you can use that GPL'ed implementation in perpetuity without fear of getting sued by Oracle; that doesn't make the language or platform free or open. A free or open platform must demonstrably allow conforming independent implementations, and nobody has ever been able to create one of those for Java.
Re: (Score:2)
and nobody has ever been able to create one of those for Java.
IBM's VM for Java? BEA's JRockit?
Re: (Score:2)
IBM's VM and BEA's JRockit are VM implementations. Furthermore, IBM was a Java licensee (and BEA probably was as well, founded as it was by former Sun employees). Hence, they are neither independent implementations, nor implementations of the Java platform.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that "probably" some employee of some company once worked at Sun proves nothing. By your reasoning, since Google is full of former Sun employees, Dalvik is not an ind
Re: (Score:2)
Stop bullshitting. If you want to claim that there is an independent Java implementation, i.e., an implementation that was produced from spec only, without licenses from Sun, the burden of proof is on you.
In fact, I think it's doubtful that any implementation can meet that standard in principle, since the Java specification itself comes under a license that restricts your ability to build independent implementations. http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/ [oracle.com] Sun and Oracle have consistently refused to even sub
Re: (Score:2)
No, the OpenJDK and binary licenses have never been part of the actual case. The Java SE 1.4 and Java SE 5 versions of the license I quoted are the only licenses Oracle has entered into evidence (although I've not read all 1000+ documents).
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:1)
Java is a classic example of a great shiny new technology where incompetent management ruins the product and technology.
Java was way ahead of its time and fucking awesome in the 1990s and Sun could have done so much back then. Sun refused to: .exe's so a user could just point and click to run a program
1. Let you compile for
2. Failed to integrate into the hosts native OS when no equilivent Java api would suffice
3. Didn't charge money for it. I know slashdotters hate this idea but more money generated could h
An analogy - Let me know if this works (Score:2)
In a fictional analogy, this sounds a bit like the Linux kernel and an accompanying distribution being open sourced and freely distributable/modifiable via the GPL, but somehow POSIX winds up as the copyright of an interested party, taking away the ability to write anything that uses the APIs for the next 95-120 years? Am I getting this right? They're coming after professional developers for reading and implementing the specification? And they want to draw license fees for that standard corporate copyright
Re: (Score:2)
If the API itself is copyrighted, then it could mean that any source code that links to a library that implements the copyrighted API is a derivative work. It could also mean that any non-Oracle JRE is illegitimate, yes. These are issues currently being hammered out in the courts.
It seems clear that Oracle is attempting an end-run around the whole concept of open source Java. It may succeed. If it doesn't, that also leaves a lot of open questions.
Re: (Score:2)
But as the API is distributed under GPL-with-classpath-exception (which essentially says "you can use this to link an application with however you want, but if you distribute it as a library it has to remain under GPL") it doesn't matter to a typical user whether the API is copyrighted or not: there is a publicly available licence that allows you to use it under almost any terms you might want.
This is the nice thing about free software -- its copyright holders can try as much as they want to screw you over,
Re: (Score:2)
Except, curiously these bits. Namely running on ARM (this is the closed source Java SE embedded) and JavaFX, which AFAIK hasn't yet been upstreamed to the OpenJDK.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's neat that we can sue someone over the way they (ab)use a language.
No to Java : not trustworthy: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oracle's ludicrous claims in the Oracle/Google Android trial have shown that they are not trustworthy. Do not base your work on a base where you can be ransomed. No more Java. :-( And when you read Java stories, wonder to yourself every time whether it's the Oracle PR department astroturfing Java stories in an attempt to make Java appear relevant or to attempt to repair the damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly it. If even one of the most prominent Java users Google is sued only for using the Java API (as basis for their own VM), then just imagine if someone else uses the API in combination with Oracle's own JVM, they'd have even less defense. And most people probably are not even able to pay for a Google-style lawyer army.
Except that Oracle has explicitly publicly licensed that API for use with their implementation (and any other implementation that passes the tests in a test suite that they'll offer to sell you).
Re:No to Java : not trustworthy: (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you actually followed Oracle v. Google?
The amount of "Chinese wall" breakage is minuscule -- the rangeCheck function and a bunch of *Impl files which were only ever used in the test suite and which never made it into any shipping phone. The jury is likely to decide that this copying is de minimis, and thus excusable, and even if they don't, good luck showing substantial damages from it.
The place where Oracle is placing their stand isn't on claims that Google got their clean-room development procedures wrong, but on a claim that the APIs themselves are copyrighted, and thereby that anything built to be compatible with them necessarily infringes. That's a very different ballgame, and a much more dangerous claim.
Re:No to Java : not trustworthy: (Score:4, Informative)
Oracle went total asshole, but I don't believe they can pull off that API copyrighting stuff. (In Europe it's already thorwn out.) Also, the whole debacle is unlikely to affect J2EE and J2SE developers.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a good chance they can -- the jury's instructions were to assume that structure and organization are copyrightable elements, with the judge to decide later whether this is actually true. So -- it'll be down to Judge Willium Alsup to make this determination (and then, of course, the various appeals courts to decide if they agree).
Indeed, Europe doesn't allow this... and good for them. Sadly, I'm on the side o
Re: (Score:1)
No, not closely, but really, if you're not trying to hack around the licensing agreement, it's not that big a deal to use Java.
Re: (Score:2)
Google never agreed to any licensing agreement.
And, of course it's not "that big of a deal to use Java". But neither is using Windows or C#. It's just that they are all proprietary platforms effectively controlled by a single company.
Still waiting on my Pi... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, this story is "Thursday". Tomorrow's R-Pi story will be totally different, about a completely different computer program running on a computer.
Re:Still waiting on my Pi... (Score:5, Funny)
Their production line is written in Java.
Re: (Score:2)
Their production line is written in Java.
The problem is that they tried to produce it in an abstract factory, based on an interface specification.
Don't worry... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But it wasn't reverse engineered, it was re-implemented. The issue is weather or not you can copyright a language and an API and what terms the Java language and standard API were licensed under - things that were never really defined in a non-ambiguous way.
I also think you read the parents post differently than I did. I consider "re-implementing and deploying" to be synonimous with "using" and in that case Oracle has totally alienated anyone who would try to implement and deploy their own native Java on th
Re: (Score:2)
WTF is wrong with you Google!? JAVA IS AN AWFUL LANGAUGE! Why the hell didn't you just use C++?
Because in order to support the fine-grained permissions system Android has, they needed a language that supports full type safety, i.e. that disallows casting a pointer to an object to a pointer to a different kind of object. C++ can't do that, and while Objective C is closer it's still a "no cigar" situation. It's impossible in C++ to write a library that reliably acts differently depending on whether its client is trusted or not, and while I think it's theoretically possible in Objective C the fact tha
Re: (Score:2)
I tottally forgot about that, and that does make a lot of sense. Still, Java as a language I dislike. Of course there are other JVM langauges like Scala, which I do like, which you can already "kinda" use to write Android apps.
Also take my anger with a grain of salt - I'm in a two week Android/Java dev crunch time and the long winded code style and over-simplicty which makes you break everyting down into little adapter objects is getting to me.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Without getting deep into subtleties of their lawsuit against Google which I don't understand, what Oracle has effectively done is scare the pants off anyone who was contemplating using Java for any purpose ever again.
Perhaps that was their purpose .... maybe they just want to be rid of the burden of maintaining something they have to give away for the public good, without prospect of making megabucks from it. If that's the case, I just don't understand why they can't just hand the source to the community,
Yeah right... (Score:4, Insightful)
You would have to be a fool to write *anything* new with Java. There is nothing in Java that is worth the risk of Oracle ramming a lawsuit up your posterior as soon as they think you have money they can bleed from you.
Re: (Score:2)
FUD
Whole New Ballgame (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And who looks stupid in reality? Dalvik is not a java vm, it does not execute java byte code and use a different instruction set. Also relevant; Google never claimed it to be Java. IOW, STFU astroturfer.
I fail to see (Score:2, Insightful)
Why developers who want to control their cpu keep putting someone else between themselves and their hardware. C/C++ and many other higher level languages are functional and productive in the right hands and don't have these copyright/patent/etc issues that Java/Oracle (insert third party here) have. In other words, you can either control the computer or let them tell you what you can do with your computer. Take your pick.
Java community you perplex me to no end.
Re: (Score:1)
The only patent and copyright issues are from other implementations of the language. Not from programming in the language. Absolutely no has or will be sued for using OpenJDK. Also, no one writing Dalvik apps is being sied. Only Google is being sued over their own reimplementation of the JVM and associated libraries which Oracle is claiming copyright and patents on.
Re: (Score:2)
Why developers who want to control their cpu keep putting someone else between themselves and their hardware. C/C++ and many other higher level languages are functional and productive in the right hands and don't have these copyright/patent/etc issues that Java/Oracle (insert third party here) have. In other words, you can either control the computer or let them tell you what you can do with your computer. Take your pick.
Java community you perplex me to no end.
Things were damn near utopian with java before oracle bought sun. Java devs don't instantly hate something they've come to be rather fond of instantly when some shitball company buys it? Surprise, surprise..
Re: (Score:3)
not nearly really utopian. the way they ran relations to mobile sucked bigtime always, they could have handled j2me jsr's etc really much, much better. that side which was extremely relevant for the last decade seemed like it had nobody at the helm - so they had total licensing control which was very strict but then they enforced all the wrong things for the api implementors.
I'm rather surprised at this javafx announcement(seems some guy working at O doing it too?) really. if they hadn't fucked up with java
Re: (Score:1)
Both Oracle and mostly Sun killed Java. It was a great technology actually in the 1990s. It was neglected and crippled ... for portability according to Sun because Sun wanted to sell more Solaris workstations which also were ugly and very outdated compared to Linux. No point and clicks allowed to run the .class files!
Anyway JavaFX sucked because there was no tool to create them in. Sorry but a text editor does not give me visual layout, colar callibration, and other things that Adobe Flash Builder has. It i
Re: (Score:2)
Well the only "great" thing about Java is the JVM - which in and of itself isn't that great. Google easily could have implemented a full NDK and provided template makefiles to produce ARM and x86 binaries and just made a system to sort them out and choose the right one for download/install.
As for higher level languages some do have big benefits. Ruby and Python can do some amazing things in very little code and with very little coding time - and the reality is most machines perform well enough now that you
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for me:
*tooling: I use vim, and eclim is around so it's not an issue. Code processors I'll give you, that is well done. I don't like ant or maven (simply a preference).
*I have found the Java community to be absolutely awful - information is scattered and when you go for help you'll run into people with the same eletist traits as Gossling. Of course this is all probably because I'm involved in the Ruby community, so my standards are a little biased. The Android dev community isn't so bad but it's also
Bitter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Did you register interest at either RS/Allied or Element 14/Farnell? If yes then congratulations, you've indicated that you want Raspberry Pi production to increase. If no then why not? That's how RS and Farnell know that they should be baking more Raspberry Pis!
The Raspberry Pi Foundation is no longer manufacturing the boards -- at the moment production is totally in the hands of RS and Farnell!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The first run of 10k was commissioned by the Foundation to be produced by a Chinese factory. Those 10k boards were then shipped to Farnell and Allied to be resold. At the same time, Farnell and Allied were both given non-exclusive licenses to produce the Raspberry Pi on their own. At the current time all Pis to be built after the first 10k production run will be made by Farnell and Allied however they desire (most likely direct shipped from factories in China.) If we're lucky more manufacturers will lic
How is this techy news worthy? (Score:5, Insightful)
What they're saying is that a small form factor device that is supposed to run Linux runs software that Linux can run now.
Wow, that's news? I'd say it's a test case. yes there may be hardware differences but those should be minimal and this would be a porting effort.
The topic should be "Raspberry Pi runs software it's supposed to."
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the telling part is that Java is supposed to be a language that's "write once, run anywhere," but in reality Java developers can't be certain that a substantial Java library from Oracle itself will even compile or run on any particular platform. Turns out it did this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Running on the Pi shouldn't be an issue - Sun have had a proprietary 'embedded' JVM for years. Whether it runs *well* is the issue.
I'm not sure why the presenter was using VNC, which might add to the CPU usage. No remote display forwarding - it's X11 after all!
Re: (Score:2)
Moron. What's interesting is that this is a full JIT JVM, not just a bytecode engine like Dalvik. There have been JVMs in the ARM space for ages, but not JIT JVMs and not the the standard JVM either.
But whatever, just spread FUD and ignorance if that's easier for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Moron. What's interesting is that this is a full JIT JVM, not just a bytecode engine like Dalvik.
Dalvik has been doing JIT since Android 2.2 was released nearly 2 years ago. Please try to keep your facts up-to-date if you're going to claim other people are spreading FUD.
Not exactly Quake3 (Score:2)
At least they manage to use up the whole CPU for drawing some arcs, that must be a incredible accomplishment.
Reminds me of the 8bit computer days when some were using fast asm routines to draw circles, some were doing it painfully slow with BASIC.
Funny (Score:2)
Just what I always wanted (Score:1)
Well duh (Score:2)
Haiku OS? (Score:2)
Would the Pi be a good match for the Haiku OS ... or vice versa?