[gentoo-user] java vs icedtea6

[gentoo-user] java vs icedtea6

[William Kenworthy]

Looking for comments:

A while back I removed java during an upgrade on my main desktop system
and left icedtea6-bin in place without any noticeable effect.


Presumably icedtea6 suffers the same java bug (cant find anything in
their bugzilla though?) thats got everybody riled at the moment, though
the last security bug on gentoo bugzilla is 2011.


I am happy not using a mainstream java and avoiding the fuss that goes
with dealing with oracles nonsense download restrictions but have two
questions:

1. are there any "real" problems with using icedtea6?

2. icedtea6 and icedtea6-bin ... any difference in features? - I have
had a much more stable experience with openoffice vs openoffice-bin so
presume build yourself would be the same here?


The questions may seem redundant seeing I am using both icedtea and java
on various systems, but others experience may not be the same, or have
more knowledge which would be useful before I move everything over.

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] java vs icedtea6

[Kevin Brandstatter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1543 bytes --]

I'm curious as well about the potential exploitability of icedtea. I
would think that since the icedtea vm is not the same as the sun/oracle
one and so I don't think the code base is the same, which would mean an
exploit in the sun/oracle jvm would not necessarily affect icedtea.
However, I know very little on this matter and seeing as i think both
are open sourced i have no idea how much or if there is any code overlap.

-Kevin

On 01/15/2013 06:32 PM, William Kenworthy wrote:
> Looking for comments:
>
> A while back I removed java during an upgrade on my main desktop system
> and left icedtea6-bin in place without any noticeable effect.
>
>
> Presumably icedtea6 suffers the same java bug (cant find anything in
> their bugzilla though?) thats got everybody riled at the moment, though
> the last security bug on gentoo bugzilla is 2011.
>
>
> I am happy not using a mainstream java and avoiding the fuss that goes
> with dealing with oracles nonsense download restrictions but have two
> questions:
>
> 1. are there any "real" problems with using icedtea6?
>
> 2. icedtea6 and icedtea6-bin ... any difference in features? - I have
> had a much more stable experience with openoffice vs openoffice-bin so
> presume build yourself would be the same here?
>
>
> The questions may seem redundant seeing I am using both icedtea and java
> on various systems, but others experience may not be the same, or have
> more knowledge which would be useful before I move everything over.
>
> BillK
>
>



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 555 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] java vs icedtea6

[Nilesh Govindrajan]

On Wednesday 16 January 2013 10:32:11 AM IST, Kevin Brandstatter wrote:
> I'm curious as well about the potential exploitability of icedtea. I
> would think that since the icedtea vm is not the same as the sun/oracle
> one and so I don't think the code base is the same, which would mean an
> exploit in the sun/oracle jvm would not necessarily affect icedtea.
> However, I know very little on this matter and seeing as i think both
> are open sourced i have no idea how much or if there is any code overlap.
>

Oracle Java is open source?

--
Nilesh Govindarajan
http://nileshgr.com

Re: [gentoo-user] java vs icedtea6

[Daniel Campbell]

On 01/15/2013 11:32 PM, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 January 2013 10:32:11 AM IST, Kevin Brandstatter wrote:
>> I'm curious as well about the potential exploitability of icedtea. I
>> would think that since the icedtea vm is not the same as the sun/oracle
>> one and so I don't think the code base is the same, which would mean an
>> exploit in the sun/oracle jvm would not necessarily affect icedtea.
>> However, I know very little on this matter and seeing as i think both
>> are open sourced i have no idea how much or if there is any code overlap.
>>
> 
> Oracle Java is open source?
> 
> --
> Nilesh Govindarajan
> http://nileshgr.com
> 

I was thinking the same thing. Last I knew, the VM is closed while the
language is pretty much open.

Re: [gentoo-user] java vs icedtea6

[Michael Mol]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Daniel Campbell <dlcampbell@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 01/15/2013 11:32 PM, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote:
>> On Wednesday 16 January 2013 10:32:11 AM IST, Kevin Brandstatter wrote:
>>> I'm curious as well about the potential exploitability of icedtea. I
>>> would think that since the icedtea vm is not the same as the sun/oracle
>>> one and so I don't think the code base is the same, which would mean an
>>> exploit in the sun/oracle jvm would not necessarily affect icedtea.
>>> However, I know very little on this matter and seeing as i think both
>>> are open sourced i have no idea how much or if there is any code overlap.
>>>
>>
>> Oracle Java is open source?
>>
>> --
>> Nilesh Govindarajan
>> http://nileshgr.com
>>
>
> I was thinking the same thing. Last I knew, the VM is closed while the
> language is pretty much open.

IIRC, the VM spec is open, the implementation isn't. Further, the
supporting libraries are open (as in you can see them). The biggest
'closed' aspect is the pricey (and terms-restricting) certification
process to get a different implementation certified.

But I might be woefully out of date.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] java vs icedtea6

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1336 bytes --]

Afair icedtea, openjdk, jdk share a Lot of Code.
Am 16.01.2013 15:18 schrieb "Michael Mol" <mikemol@gmail.com>:

> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Daniel Campbell <dlcampbell@gmx.com>
> wrote:
> > On 01/15/2013 11:32 PM, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 16 January 2013 10:32:11 AM IST, Kevin Brandstatter wrote:
> >>> I'm curious as well about the potential exploitability of icedtea. I
> >>> would think that since the icedtea vm is not the same as the sun/oracle
> >>> one and so I don't think the code base is the same, which would mean an
> >>> exploit in the sun/oracle jvm would not necessarily affect icedtea.
> >>> However, I know very little on this matter and seeing as i think both
> >>> are open sourced i have no idea how much or if there is any code
> overlap.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Oracle Java is open source?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Nilesh Govindarajan
> >> http://nileshgr.com
> >>
> >
> > I was thinking the same thing. Last I knew, the VM is closed while the
> > language is pretty much open.
>
> IIRC, the VM spec is open, the implementation isn't. Further, the
> supporting libraries are open (as in you can see them). The biggest
> 'closed' aspect is the pricey (and terms-restricting) certification
> process to get a different implementation certified.
>
> But I might be woefully out of date.
>
> --
> :wq
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1900 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: java vs icedtea6

[Nuno J. Silva]

On 2013-01-16, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> Afair icedtea, openjdk, jdk share a Lot of Code.

Isn't IcedTea OpenJDK, or at least the name of the bundle OpenJDK +
build system?

> Am 16.01.2013 15:18 schrieb "Michael Mol" <mikemol@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Daniel Campbell <dlcampbell@gmx.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On 01/15/2013 11:32 PM, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday 16 January 2013 10:32:11 AM IST, Kevin Brandstatter wrote:
>> >>> I'm curious as well about the potential exploitability of icedtea. I
>> >>> would think that since the icedtea vm is not the same as the sun/oracle
>> >>> one and so I don't think the code base is the same, which would mean an
>> >>> exploit in the sun/oracle jvm would not necessarily affect icedtea.
>> >>> However, I know very little on this matter and seeing as i think both
>> >>> are open sourced i have no idea how much or if there is any code> overlap.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Oracle Java is open source?
>> >>
>> >
>> > I was thinking the same thing. Last I knew, the VM is closed while the
>> > language is pretty much open.
>>
>> IIRC, the VM spec is open, the implementation isn't. Further, the
>> supporting libraries are open (as in you can see them). The biggest
>> 'closed' aspect is the pricey (and terms-restricting) certification
>> process to get a different implementation certified.
>>
>> But I might be woefully out of date.

-- 
Nuno Silva (aka njsg)
http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/