Re: [javaCompiler-users] [Fwd: Release of NativeJ (formerly known as javaCompiler) version 0.9]

SourceForge Headquarters 225 Broadway Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

Sean McNamara wrote:
> vitallis <http://forum.java.sun.com/profile.jspa?userID=285720>
> Posts:720
> Registered: 8/1/00
> 	
> *Re: Help me on njawin   
> Dec 8, 2005 12:35 AM (reply 7 of 7) *
> 	
>  
> 	
> Hi,
> trying to run jawin you waste your time! This project is developing for 
> a number of years and still have many of bugs. In 2002 I rewrote this 
> project and called if NJAWIN (the commercial version is OLEJA). NJAWIN 
> is free and available at
> http://simtel.net/product.php[id]60701[sekid]0[SiteID]simtel.net
> NJAWIN supports only OLE Automation, WIN32 function call support was 
> removed. COM specifics are hidden.
> NJAWIN looks for its native DLL in the DIR where its JAR is stored. So 
> keep NJAWIN's DLL and JAR in the same DIR.
> 
> 
> That post is from the Sun Java forums. I'm not comparing the 
> functionality of Jawin/NJawin/OLEJA to NativeJ/javaCompiler in any way; 
> I'm stating simply that the project started open source and it's now 
> commercial (OLEJA). Also, quite revealingly, I have been completely 
> unable to find NJawin available anywhere on the Internet. I think the 
> author had it taken down! He certainly doesn't support it anymore.
> 
> Furthermore, I tried a recent version of OLEJA and I much prefer the 
> functionality and improvements of Jawin. I'm not saying your project 
> must necessarily be inferior to an open source alternative, but it seems 
> to be a trend in my experience; NJawin is merely one example.

Sorry, I really don't understand what you try to say. Is NJawin/OLEJA 
now a ahead-of-time Java compiler?
Why do you say you wrote NJAWIN and then say that the author has 
probably taken it down? Wouldn't you know if you had?
Another thing, why do you say "imho Jawin is way better anyway" and then 
say it's a waste of my time and doesn't exist any more?

I will just close this NJAWIN/OLEJA discussion with the resume that it 
is one of a lot Java native compiler projects that have been killed.
Please tell me if I'm completely wrong and skip that part otherwise.

> I think you're missing some of the point of the commercialization of 
> F/OSS software. The point is not to destroy your F/OSS offering and stop 
> maintaining it, after "using" the help of the community to get you 
> started. The point is to offer a commercial version with value-added 
> features that go beyond the core offering, such as priority tech 
> support, fancy or thorough documentation, and a license that allows it 
> to be used royalty-free in other commercial, closed-source projects (if 
> the OSS license used for the base project doesn't already allow this.)

What? Did you even read my FAQ and the "Selling Free Software" paper 
from GNU? There's absolutely no point like you describe it.
As i said before, you don't understand the concept of free software. 
Please either read the paper or stop sending eMails.
What you describe is just a way how it could be done (probably how you 
would like it to be). There's absolutely no demand to do it that way.

As long as the compilers from NativeJ are just compilations of GCJ, 
everyone is free to compile them themself. Please - really please - read 
the FAQ. I have other things to do than answer 2 pages long emails about 
a pointless discussion.

> Need a case study? Take your pick: openSUSE/SLED; Fedora Core/RHEL; 
> FreeSpire/Linspire; QT; the list goes on. These projects represent what 
> I view as the "real" point of F/OSS

You say it: "what I view as ...". You know, your opinion might be 
different from the public one. If it's even different from a GNU paper 
about the specific topic, you really shouldn't discuss with me...

> From what 
> I understand of your announcement, javaCompiler will die at 0.8, and any 
> improvements you make to the core functionality of this product will go 
> into, and only into, the commercial product.

JavaCompiler and NativeJ are exactly the same thing. I mainly changed 
the name because "JavaCompiler" is very unspecific. It sounds more like 
a bytecode compiler.

> The project thus ceases to 
> be of use to the open source community as soon as an incompatible or 
> newer version of SWT, AWT, or the Java Specification becomes needed.

What are you talking about?
I think you have no idea what GCJ or GNU classpath is. Please inform you 
before starting a discussion... And really, really really read the FAQ.
You only pay me for compiling and distributing GCJ. You're free to do 
that yourself.

> If the majority of F/OSS projects take the route of 
> javaCompiler, well, there wouldn't be very much of an Open Source 
> movement at all, would there? In fact, you'd have to license GCJ if you 
> wanted to take advantage of any new features they happen to develop for 
> you over the course of the next n years. You wouldn't like that very 
> much, would you???

Oh boy... You don't even understand what "open source" means. Open 
source doesn't mean at all that it's free of cost. You're probably 
mixing up "free software" with "open source". And you proved already 
that you don't understand the concept of "free software".

> I'm not trying to give you a hard time.

Believe me, you really do. This discussion is absolutely pointless. I'm 
doing nothing else than explaining you the concepts of open source and 
free software (although it would be explained in my FAQ and the GNU 
paper I told you to read in the last eMail).

> I actually used javaCompiler on 
> a small non-commercial project for my mom and she really liked it (MY 
> code, bundled nicely with YOUR program into an EXE rather than a messy 
> JAR). I appreciate your work and the amount of effort you have invested 
> into this project. I just wish it didn't have to end this way.

It doesn't end! Why do you say so?

> I have been considering using the Java 1.5 & JFace platform for a new 
> desktop application requested at work. The standard Windows tools used 
> by our in-house developers are dated and cumbersome, and are not 
> resilient to changes in the upcoming Vista. So Java will go a long way 
> to making the platform leap safely. Due to licensing issues (and product 
> support concerns, for that matter) I will probably go with Excelsior JET 
> rather than javaCompiler.

Wow, cool. Finally something I can learn out of this discussion!
Ok, you'll use Excelsior JET? Do you really want to pay 1000$ to 5000$ 
and add a runtime from 50mb to 80mb?
Why would anyone do that? Now that Java is under GPL with the GPL 
exception, I would assume that everybody would just package their app 
with a JRE (13mb) and create a nice executable to start the app. It's 
free of cost and a lot smaller...

Compared to NativeJ: You really prefer paying >= 1000$ and adding a huge 
runtime library instead of paying 39$ and having a small self containing 
executable?
But of course, feel free to go for Excelsior Jet, I won't even try to 
stop you. I would just be interested why anyone would use Excelsior JET.

> If javaCompiler were continued, and NativeJ 
> were a commercial version with added benefits, I would more seriously 
> consider buying NativeJ.

NativeJ and JavaCompiler are the same. You could look at it this way:
The commercial edition doesn't have any restrictions and the free 
edition comes with a popup (you read the FAQ and know how it's handled, 
right?).

BTW, I didn't really try to express things nice because that would have 
needed even much more time. Since you're such interested in papers, you 
should read this one as well (in case you feel offended by my anwser):
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Marco