Oracle Wins Ruling Against Google Over Java APIs

quote:

---

So when something obvious to you isn't obvious to someone else, this is what you do.

---

No, it’s when they miss something that really is obvious - and start blaming other people and getting all snotty about it.According to you you didn’t miss the reference to OpenJDK 11 on the Azul page. You just say - paraphrased - “maybe it means someone else’s OpenJDK 11” as if that would mean it wasn’t OpenJDK11. Or, more recently “it’s in the context of OpenFX” as if that would mean it wasn’t a mention of OpenJDK 11.

quote:

---

You're already guilty of making up your own version of the conversation, don't compound it

---

That’s a lie.

quote:

---

That you're like this is your problem.

---

I’m sorry that you dislike honesty.

quote:

---

There really are no such links on that page:

---

Really ? You can’t see the row of boxes across the page titled “Zulu for Windows”, “Zulu for Linux” and “Zulu for macOS” ? Each with a button labelled “Get Started” ?Or the other links below, some of which are for OpenJDK builds for other platforms ?

quote:

---

Suddenly you've shifted from links to mentions, and you did this in earlier posts, too.

---

And there we have another lie. I was following your shift of subject. In the reality of the conversation I raised the issue of the mention first and never claimed it was a link Message 33

quote:

---

If there are links to builds for OpenJDK on that webpage, then where are they? They're not there. I keep telling you this, but you keep coming back and telling me they are there.

---

Instead of getting ridiculously pedantic and insisting that links to the actual download pages don’t count maybe you should just admit that you didn’t notice those links in the first place.

quote:

---

It most certainly is a mention, but not a link to a build of OpenJDK 11.

---

So, saying that the page contains a mention of OpenJDK 11 IS accurate, despite your assertion to the contrary: And let us not forget your initial reply:

quote:

---

I'm not entirely sure how to interpret this sentence, but you do make it sound like something weird. But I never thought the software didn't exist. I at first was only sure it existed at Oracle for post Java 8 versions (and clearly expressed my uncertainty about whether it also existed elsewhere), and then later could see it existed at Azul, too. I never implied software was being offered that didn't exist (which is my guess at what your sentence actually means). That's just you making things up again.

---

No, I am not making things up. To restore context, you said: And The fact that OpenJDK is up to Java 11 - the current version for Oracle - really does answer those points.

quote:

---

That's just a semantic distinction. "JDK's not broken, but the changes we made broke your program, so I guess you'll just have to fix it."

---

No it isn’t. Oracle broke backward compatibility because that was the price for revamping Java so that it could go on. That is different from introducing bugs that make the JDK unusable. The later JDKs are not broken, as you claimed.

quote:

---

If it's just compilation failures then that's not too bad. If it's crashing until fixed then I guess that's not too bad, either. I hope it can never happen that their behavior can change, because that could be extremely difficult to find.

---

It’s hard to say. Some of the changes were the removal of API calls which would just fail to compile. Whether there were more subtle changes as well I can’t say without researching it.

quote:

---

I predict Oracle will make it harder and harder to avoid using anything from them. It's already in their DNA, as their history demonstrates.

---

They may try. They will not necessarily succeed.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Ah, I see, if in your judgment somebody misses something really obvious then casting insults is fine and any attempts to set the record straight are met with more accusations. Good show. Perhaps you can tell us how being snotty is consistent with admissions of how confusing I was finding Java and how I didn't know what to think.

---

By which you mean if I dare to point out that you are missing completely obvious things you will feel insulted. And if you “try to set the record straight” by inventing silly excuses it won’t work. And if you resort to lies and false accusations that won’t work either.

quote:

---

Now you're just making stuff up again. You're correct that when first skimming the page I wasn't sure whose OpenJDK they were referring to in the context of OpenJFX, but of course the text said OpenJDK 8 and 11 (not just 11 as you said above) - it's right there in black and white. Why are you accusing me of making absurd misreadings I didn't make? And even if I did, so what? Can't you just say, "I think you missed where it said OpenJDK 8 and 11 - if you look at that part again it should make a lot more sense now."

---

So you admit the substantive part but try to cover it up with silly nitpicking. I will point out that since you had no doubt that OpenJDK 8 existed there wasn’t really much point in emphasising it.Now as to the substantive point someone else’s OpenJDK 11 (whatever you mean by that) would still be OpenJDK 11 so that isn’t even a relevant excuse. Not to mention the fact that you originally claimed that: And later you said Odd how “in the context of OpenJFX, and not as a link” somehow means it is inaccurate to say that the page “mentions OpenJDK 11”

quote:

---

I do have an aversion to people making stuff up while declaring how honest they are.

---

You also clearly have an aversion to people pointing out your obvious errors and silly excuses. Because that is what is happening here.

quote:

---

Of course I can see these links, but what's Zulu? Is it just Azul's name for OpenJDK? Obviously it's in some way related to OpenJDK, but is it actually just a synonym for OpenJDK? When you kept saying there are links to OpenJDK builds right on that page did you mean the links that say Zulu?

---

And there you go missing the obvious again. The title of the page is: So “Zulu” is their trademarked name for their builds of OpenJDK

quote:

---

And yet you can't quote me doing that

---

Which is a really odd thing to say when I did quote you doing that,Here it is again:

quote:

---

So there you are switching from "links" to "mentions." I seriously assumed you were always talking about links. And now we know you were telling me I was missing OpenJDK links right before my very eyes when the links actually said Zulu.

---

Let us note that your trouble with the mention started before I started talking about the links so that excuse doesn’t wash.And yes I did expect you to read the title and realise that Azul called their “tested, certified builds of OpenJDK” Zulu.

quote:

---

The context was links, so when you shifted to the word "mention" I assumed you were still talking about links, since who cares about a "mention" unless it's part of a paragraph that actually makes something clear. I think instead of all this abuse that a simple, "No, no, you've mistaken my meaning. I only meant plain text when I said mentions, not links," would have sufficed.

---

The first few lines of my message are: Now if you had actually followed the link I did give - to the OpenJDK’s project you would have found links to OpenJDK 11. But apparently you decided that a “mention” had to be a link instead.And I am sure that if I had pointed out that a “mention” would naturally be text you would be insulted.

quote:

---

Of course I didn't notice those links in the first place. My first link to that page was to quote their count-up clock. I already told you I picked that page at random because most of the Azul pages include that clock. I wasn't looking for links further down the page. Then you started telling me the page had links to OpenJDK builds, but again, there are no links to OpenJDK builds that actually say "OpenJDK".

---

Because obviously a page titled: Wouldn’t have links to download pages for OpenJDK builds ?

quote:

---

And I still don't know what OpenJFX is. I said what you quoted because OpenJFX is the only word in that sentence that's a link, and you were telling me to look for links, but to OpenJDK

---

In the post where I brought it up - quoted above - I didn’t tell you to look for links and you had already conceded there was a mention before I did.

quote:

---

And I still don't know what OpenJFX is.

---

And I don’t either. Feel free to research it yourself.

quote:

---

I said what you quoted because OpenJFX is the only word in that sentence that's a link, and you were telling me to look for links, but to OpenJDK. So I was looking for the word OpenJDK as a link, but there isn't one. However the word OpenJDK does appear in the same sentence as OpenJFX as a link, so that's why I brought it up. I thought perhaps you had skimmed quickly and thought you saw an OpenJDK link when it was actually that OpenJFX link.

---

Except, of course I didn’t tell you to look for links, and “it doesn’t actually say” hardly means “it doesn’t link to”.

quote:

---

You're taking the absurd position that I should know things before I know them. I was pretty clear in expressing my uncertainty while I tried to understand Java better, with phrases you just quoted like, "What I'm finding is pretty confusing," and "Again, I don't know what to think."

---

Except that I didn’t. I provided evidence that OpenJDK was up to Java 11 - and you managed to get into a mess over the idea that “OpenJDK 8 or 11” is a direct reference to OpenJDK 11. You never commented on the OpenJDK page at all.

quote:

---

No matter how you cut it or what words you want to employ, breaking backward compatibility is a serious breach. It explains why Azul tries to emphasize the seriousness by including that count up clock about days since the last free Oracle Java 8 updates is on their almost every page.

---

The question is not whether it is a serious breach. The question is whether the OpenJDK project had to do anything to “fix” the breaks. And - so far as OpenJDK itself is concerned - the answer is clearly no. That is why it matters that the JDK itself was not broken, as you claimed.

quote:

---

By which I mean that you've decided your words mean precisely what you say they mean and you deny any possible ambiguity or possibility they could be open to misinterpretation. It's almost like you're insisting that others make Talmudic analyses of what you say upon penalty of, well, this.

---

As can be seen in your example all I am asking for is simple English comprehension. The label”Talmudic” is better applied to your attempts to hide your mistakes.

quote:

---

That's not the substantive part.

---

The substantive part is that your assertion was false. It does say OpenJDK - and you claimed to know that it did say OpenJDK. The rest is just excuses which make no sense.

quote:

---

I will point out that when you said "OpenJDK 11" it caused me to search for a link on that page called "OpenJDK 11".

---

However I never mentioned a link, nor did I ask you to look for links earlier in that post - nor did you say that there was a mention but not a link. You outright claimed that it did not say OpenJDK.

quote:

---

How can you be critical of that whose meaning you say you do not understand. I think I explained this already, but in case not, I meant that I didn't know whether they meant their OpenJFX was built on their OpenJDK's or someone else's, like Oracle.

---

Let’s guess. You are confusing a specific JDK - OpenJDK - with JDKs in general. However OpenJDK is the JDK produced by the OpenJDK project. Indeed only a few posts earlier I introduced OpenJDK as a free alternative to Oracle’s software. The point at issue was that OpenJDK had got to Java 11 because you claimed to find conflicting information about it. So if you did make that confusion it could only be by ignoring the context of the conversation - but without that confusion it makes no sense.Because OpenJDK is an open source JDK owned by the OpenJDK project other people like Azul and Oracle can supply builds of it but they are all OpenJDK - and Azul meant all of them.

quote:

---

You're ignoring what I've already told you that you find inconvenient. I thought I was being directed to links and there were no such links.

---

However, as I have pointed out neither I nor you made any mention of links until later in the conversation. Even in your initial defence - that you quoted - you don’t make the claim that you are looking for links. And since your supposed reason - my mention of the links on the Azul page - had yet to be written I am left with no reason to think that you were actually looking for links then.

quote:

---

Odd how you can't understand that since you had claimed there were links to OpenJDK 11 and I had said I couldn't find them that I still thought you were talking about links to OpenJDK.

---

Aside from the fact that that can only possibly apply to the third quote the real oddity is that you didn’t notice that what you said contradicted itself.

quote:

---

You also clearly have an aversion to people pointing out your obvious lack of clarity. Because that is what's been happening.

---

Funny how you haven’t cited a single example then.

quote:

---

You're seeing what you want to see. What it actually says is that you can download builds of OpenJDK that were tested and certified by Zulu, and at the time I had no idea that Zulu was Azul's name for OpenJDK. Once you know that Zulu is a synonym for OpenJDK it's easy to see what they really meant.

---

And you can quite easily work out that “Zulu” is their name for their builds of OpenJDK.Right under the title it says: You wouldn’t download a certifying organisation.Even if you imagine that Zulu is a tool for certifying builds of OpenJDK you should quickly realise that all the downloads offered are Zulu or Zulu related. Since the page offers downloads of OpenJDK it doesn’t take much of a leap to realise that Zulu should be OpenJDK.And finally if you can’t find links that I say are prominent - and which should be there - would it not be a whole lot better to simply say so rather than declaring that there are no such links?

quote:

---

You are very confused.

---

Because I think that message 33 was posted before message 39 (where I first mentioned the links on the Azul page) ?

quote:

---

Except it doesn't say that, as I explained above.

---

I didn’t claim that it said that, but I do claim that it can be quite easily worked out and I explain just how to do that above.

quote:

---

Good grief, here we go again. There is no link to OpenJDK 11 on that page (just to be excruciating clear, the OpenJDK java.net webpage), at least not one using the text "OpenJDK 11". It does mention Oracle's stuff, but I already knew that existed.

---

It says: The first link is to builds of OpenJDK 11, just as I said. The fact that Oracle supplied the builds does not change the fact that they are builds of OpenJDK and not Oracle’s own JDK - as the text says, Oracle’s own JDK is at the second link.

quote:

---

You've been constantly wrong about where you claimed links were.

---

By which you mean that you are been constantly failing to find links which are there, exactly where I said.I guess that is what you mean by “being insulting”. But it is still just telling the truth.

quote:

---

Been over this already. There are no links to OpenJDK builds on that page that are labeled OpenJDK.

---

But you have yet to address the point that the title of the page says that the links are there, that providing those links is the purpose of the page. That should be enough to understand that the links are there, despite the labelling.

quote:

---

Except, of course, you told me there were links. You said there were links to OpenJDK 11 right on that page, except of course that there aren't, not by the name "OpenJDK 11".

---

By which you mean that there are obvious links but you weren’t able to identify them.

quote:

---

In the context of someone newly acquainting himself with Java, and with the confused information you were providing, how was I to know whether OpenJFX was important or not. I'm guessing not right now.

---

In the context of a discussion about OpenJDK I would think that OpenJDK would be more important than software offered for OpenJDK releases. And OpenJFX is clearly the latter.

quote:

---

What's important about the words you use is not the meaning they convey to your own mind, but the meaning they convey to others. If you're happy that your meaning is clear only to yourself then that isn't very helpful to anyone else.

---

I’m confident that it is clear to people that aren’t confusing themselves.

quote:

---

Again, there is no link to OpenJDK 11 (other than Oracle's) on that page. I never commented on the page because it wasn't helpful.

---

In other words there is a link to OpenJDK 11 but you dismissed it because you saw the word “Oracle” without bothering to understand that OpenJDK isn’t Oracle’s JDK despite the context of the conversation and despite the fact that the distinction is present in that very paragraph.Oracle’s build of OpenJDK 11 is still OpenJDK 11 and proof that OpenJDK 11 exists.

quote:

---

If the new release breaks your code, then does the fact that they did it on purpose mean their new release isn't broken? But they're Oracle and everyone else isn't, so of course they're right. Right?

---

The fact that Oracle own and define the Java language and the JDK definition does mean that they get to change them for new releases, and are allowed to break backward compatibility. Obviously.It also means that anyone implementing to the same specification doesn’t have to fix the breakages, which is the actual point under discussion.

quote:

---

And why, given my incipient level of understanding of things Java, would it be deserving of all this disapprobation you're pouring upon me to initially think that those releasing their own OpenJDK's wouldn't attempt remedies?

---

That would be their own JDKs. Their JDKs have to meet Oracle specifications and that is pretty much all they have to do. They don’t have to add “remedies” and they probably can’t if those remedies would come into conflict with Oracle’s changes to the spec.

quote:

---

You might find this hard to believe, but people could fail to follow your meaning without being grievously at fault.

---

I didn’t say that trying to win an argument by changing the subject -even inadvertently - was a grievous fault. But it is still a fault. “Azul have to do a lot of work” is different from “Oracle did a bad thing”.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Paraphrasing, "No, I'm not Talmudic, you are?" Really?

---

Simple English versus bizarre interpretations, sure. Although I guess it would be a bit unfair to Talmudic scholars.

quote:

---

Except that it was true.

---

So where it says “OpenJDK 8 or 11” it doesn’t say “OpenJDK” really ? Do you expect anyone to believe that ?

quote:

---

I thought that to you "mentions" and "links" were two different things, yet here you are "mentioning a link." Amazing. And it isn't true you never mentioned a link - of course you did. For example, this is an excerpt from my Message 37:

---

So because I referred to a link on a different page in message 36 I was actually asking for a link in message 33 ? Really ? Do you expect anyone to believe that ?

quote:

---

You're either very confused or purposefully misrepresenting.

---

We’ve already established that you stated: In Message 34 and you can read Message 33 and see that I did not ask for a link there. Thus I am simply telling the truth.

quote:

---

No, and especially not on that page. Of course you provide no link again, so we could easily be talking about different webpages, so I guess it's up to me to remove the ambiguity: Download Zulu^® tested, certified builds of OpenJDK

---

Then please explain what you meant by “somebody else’s OpenJDK” and why it would not be OpenJDK. Even though the text simply says “OpenJDK 8 or 11” (and is meant to mean any unmodified build of those versions)

quote:

---

If you're not going to link to the messages you're talking about, this is again indecipherable. I can only say it sounds wrong and that you may be mischaracterizing the conversation.

---

As I have said earlier I am talking about message 33 - linked above.

quote:

---

Which "third quote?" Of me? Of you? In this message? In some other message? You're being incredibly obscurantist without even trying.

---

I am trying to avoid massive quotes from the previous message. It does require you to go back and look at the context, but I am sure that is not beyond your capabilities.

quote:

---

And where does it say that Zulu is a "certifying organization"? Nowhere, and I didn't think that. I had no idea what Zulu was. I put it in the category, "This doesn't look important, file away to figure out later."

---

You are the one who thought that the title meant that the builds had been certified by Zulu. I am explaining why that reading is not viable by ruling out one such interpretation- the most plausible (I ruled out the other later).As for the meaning of “Zulu” that was not the question I had in mind. The question I had in mind is “where are the OpenJDK downloads the title promises?” It doesn’t take much thought to work out that the “Zulu” links are those. Not when Zulu or a variation is on all the prominent links.

quote:

---

Someone truly interested in helping someone else get a clear picture of things would have quickly recognized the Zulu/OpenJDK confusion.

---

Had you given more information than just asserting that the links weren’t there I might have. However I think that someone interested in understanding would not have had such confusion after I stated that the links I had in mind were prominent and pointed out the title of the page. Is it really so hard to notice the prominent links on a page ? (Hint: prominent)

quote:

---

You quote me saying, "Except it doesn't say that," but you don't quote what you said that I was responding to. How can I know what this is about unless you quote that? Again, complete lack of clarity. Faith was very similar in her freedom with pronouns. You have to substitute the actual nouns back in from time to time otherwise your meaning becomes completely lost.

---

If quoting everything is required then I suggest that you reenable the quote function. Personally I am happy to go back to the previous message to see the context.

quote:

---

Well now you're just being dunderheaded. Those are just links to Oracle's stuff. How did you miss where I said, " It does mention Oracle's stuff, but I already knew that existed." You quoted it just above. Look up about an inch, there it is.

---

But it is not “Oracle’s stuff”. It is Oracle’s build of the OpenJDK project’s stuff. Just as Zulu is Azul’s build of the same open-source software.

quote:

---

Also, your way of describing links would lead almost anyone astray. When you tell people a certain webpage contains a link to "X", they're not going to look for a link called "Y".

---

Which hardly applies to this case since it is called a link to OpenJDK.

quote:

---

You're fooling no one but yourself. The links as you described them don't exist.

---

That’s odd because they all do exist as I described them.

quote:

---

The web abounds with misleading webpages. I assumed you were giving me accurate information that the link was called "OpenJDK 11", but you weren't.

---

That’s again odd since I never gave such “information”

quote:

---

You're being purposefully obtuse. As I've already said, why, before all this discussion, would anyone think a link labeled "Zulu" was a link to "OpenJDK"?

---

I would think because a page offering OpenJDK downloads has “Zulu” or variations on all the prominent links. That is certainly what I thought. Context is important.

quote:

---

I thought you said you didn't know what OpenJFX is, but now you know that it's "software offered for OpenJDK releases." Interesting how the story changes.

---

And there is that desperate-to-score-a-point pedantry. Since you know exactly the same (you have certainly read the exact, short, text I got that from) and also claimed not to know what OpenJFX is I guess you were telling that same “lie”.

quote:

---

You sure don't read very carefully. As I've said multiple times across multiple messages now, I already knew Oracle had OpenJDK's beyond Java 8. You are very confused.

---

Actually you said: And And All from Message 32So at that point you certainly did not know that versions of OpenJDK beyond version 8 existed.And what is it with “Oracle has”? OpenJDK is a free open source JDK. If Oracle has it, so does anybody else who wants it and has a working internet connection.

quote:

---

Actually, it's not "the actual point under discussion." I already acknowledged that I now understand that it would mean violating the Oracle-defined standard.

---

The actual point under discussion was whether Azul had to do the “fixes”

quote:

---

Yes, I understand that now. The question is why you think I should have understood that from the beginning, and why you think explaining that I couldn't possibly know what I do not yet know is making excuses.

---

You should certainly have understood that it was not the JDK that was broken because the article you got the idea from said as much. So you certainly could and should have known that. Instead I had to produce long quotes from the article explaining it, in Message 45

quote:

---

I think you're very confused again. Repeating what I said another way, it takes two to communicate information, one to send and one to receive. When the message fails to be clearly communicated one cannot automatically assume the receiver is at fault, which is what you seem determined to prove. Why is it so important to you that whatever's gone wrong has been all my fault?

---

What has obviously gone wrong is that you are determined to maximise the problems created by Oracle and determined to deny the errors you have made as a consequence. And that really is your fault.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

quote:

---

Of course use of Java would be scrutinized along with everything else under an Oracle audit, and as time goes by use of OpenJDK will likely provide less and less safety. Many libraries were invalidated at Java 9, and they're only slowly attaining post Java 9 compatibility. Some are finding that compliance isn't possible while staying on the OpenJDK side of the fence.

---

More accurately some businesses are choosing the OpenJDK side of the fence because OpenJDK still provides free support for Java 8 - where Oracle has ended that support for commercial users.

quote:

---

I have no doubt that Oracle is working on non-OpenJDK features and capabilities (and licensing) that they hope will leave those not using them on the outside looking in. OpenJDK will still work fine, but since it can't use (for a made up example) the proprietary Oracle Super Cloud Analytics Library it will be much less desirable as part of someone's cloud-based solution.

---

I have serious doubts, given that OpenJDK has major supporters. And why should integration with Oracle’s unpopular cloud system be more important than the integration of OpenJDK with Microsoft’s more successful Azure ? Wikipedia