I should probably add that what I describe in the video is exactly the same for 11 and 17 (they weren't "LTS versions" either). The same mechanisms but with a different release cycle also apply to versions
What I explain in the video is, in my opinion, an important distinction but it's not like the community (and Oracle) don't know what version people are focusing on and why. Oracle University knows that 11, 17, and 21 are more relevant to the user base and will probably focus certification on that. (I can't say anything more definitive because I don't know their offerings very well.)
Absolutely! There's a freeze frame comment in the video that says: "I immediately regretted throwing it away like that and of course picked it up later." Thanks for calling it out, I appreciate it. 👍🏾
@@31redorange08 Some things are just not important enough to distract you from the main story line with a side comment. Also, I personally like them a lot and there's even a freeze frame joke in the outro. :)
@@danthe1st If the incentivized support is provided from vendors to the OpenJDK community and that's what make it LTS then how was it before? What's different with previous LTS to this?
@@danthe1st I think the question is JDK 21 different from JDK 17 other than in the fact that it is a newer version? Will it have a different maintenance/support/whatever cycle? Is a person who wrongly believes Java 17 was LTS going to be wrong about Java 21 being LTS for exactly the same reasons, or is something else different about Java 21?
@@buximam As far as I understood it LTS just means Oracle (as a Vendor) calls it LTS and provides support for it in OracleJDK. Then, other vendors do the same because people are using the versions Oracle supports because that are the versions people use.
I'm living in Karlsruhe (Germany) and recorded it there. Intro and outro are my kitchen, the stream is the Alb and the restaurant @BenjaminWagener spotted is Kühler Krug, which is on its shores.
I guess for Oracle JDK there were definitely LTS releases after 8 Java. I guess 11 and 17 were Orcale JDK LTS releases. Will be Java 21 for Oracle JDK LTS release or not? If not - which release is supposed to be considered as a LTS release? Java 22? Whole news seems to try to explain why for Java 21 OpenJDK edition there will be no LTS releases, since LTS is guaranteed only by the vendor (e.g. Java 21 Amazon corretto)
You got it absolutely right, it's, e.g., "Oracle JDK 21" or "Amazon Corretto 21" that may or may not get LTS. I can't speak for Amazon and their specific offering, but Oracle JDK 21 will be an LTS version.
I think all vendors (except Oracle) must publish sources if code base of their implementations is from OpenJDK sources (because GPLv2 license). Is it correct?
Not sure about the specifics involving OpenJDK, but in general the GPL doesn't require that source code is published publicly. The GPL only requires that anyone who *receives* the software is also entitled to the source code from whoever provided them with the software. You can take GPL-licensed software, modify it, and sell it. The only people you're obligated to give the code to are the people/entities you gave/sold the software to. However, the license doesn't prohibit your customers from redistributing the code as they like. They can even publish it publicly. But there is a bit of a loophole in this regard, the GPL doesn't prohibit you (as the vendor) from having other agreements that effectively impose limitations on the rights afforded by the GPL. So while, yes, redistribution is allowed per the GPL, exercising that right could breach another agreement such as a support contract. In this case, while it wouldn't expose someone who redistributes the software to legal action, they could lose their support contract and access to future releases. This "loophole" is what many claim grsecurity (maker of many Linux kernel security patches) does to ensure their patches cannot be easily obtained without a support contract.
Dude when people search for Java 21 LTS this video pops up and the title is totally misleading. 21 is defined as LTS, so was Java 17 and so was Java 11. Don't be a jerk by posting sensational titles and making people more confused,.
What I describe here is no different from 11 or 17. I'm not sure whether some aspects changed since 8 and earlier, but the big picture was true there as well: LTS does not exist inside the Java Community Process (which governs the Java specifications) nor OpenJDK (which develops JDK). Basically, it has always (or at least for a decade) been like this but we've been using imprecise language to describe what's going on, which muddies the water when it comes to who (community or vendors?) does what (maintenance or support?) and with which guarantees.
Absolutely and it often does (although there are counter examples) but rarely on the scale and with the stability of the Java community. One problem that often plagues open source communities that is much less prominent in Java is financial viability and diversity of investment (i.e. not just one company earning/investing money).
Virtual threads? 😉 Java SE 21 is a specification defined by the Java Community Process (JCP) and, technical prowess aside, it's no different from 18-20. What makes it special is that many vendors will have (commercial) offerings for their implementations of Java 21, e.g. Oracle JDK 21.
If the incentivized support is provided by vendors to the OpenJDK community and that's what makes it LTS then how was it before? What's different from previous LTS to this?
@@buximam The OpenJDK community never offered any services or even regular builds - that was always the vendors surrounding it. So LTS was always a (commercial) offering outside of OpenJDK and since OpenJDK defines JDK versions, there were never any "JDK LTS versions". So what I'm describing in the video isn't new.
@@nipafx I love 43, but honestly never tried it with milk! Will try ASAP, because with the heat here (at about 1.5h drive from where they make 43) I crave cold drinks!
@@nipafx Well I tried it and now my wife is asking me when I'm going to make one again... so it was a total (and unexpected) success! I always knew your videos were instructive, but I never would have imagined in this particular way 😂
"I don't understand the information that is given to me for free, so something nefarious must be going on." Better not read Wikipedia with that perspective. 😉 Jokes aside, if you have specific questions, I'm happy to answer them. (I'm the nice guy in the video.)
What it meant is that OpenJDK has no long term support. You if need that you must use a JDK created by a vendor, typically Oracle JDK, and pay license.
considering that in 2022 , java 11 that came out in 2018 , was only used in 3rd of the market by some surevy , i think worrying about java 21 is something that be postponed for a couple of years.
There is a long list of improvements including performance, and the upgrade is easier compared to 11. It seems likely for 21 to be more quickly adopted than either 11 or 17 have been.
I should've made that way clearer in the video but everything I describe applies 100% to 11 and 17 as well. And I think it's even mostly true for 8 and before as well: JDK is made by OpenJDK and OpenJDK doesn't offer support. Support is a paid-for offering by vendors.
No matter how many videos I'll share with my company devops guys, they are firmly convinced that non LTS version aren't "production ready enough". I can't with these people...
So a click-baity title and confusing message to those using Oracle Java/JDK (not the insignificant community which some openjdk folks might think). Bottom line: Oracle DOES identify the upcoming 21 to be the next LTS, along with (for now) 17, 11, and 8. It's well-documented in many places. This video is NOT countering that. Instead, it's speaking to those NOT using Oracle Java/JDK. Nothing wrong with that, but it SURE would have helped to somehow clarify this, in the title, the opening of the video, or the description (less valuable, as fewer read that first). Hope some will see this comment. If I have something wrong, I'm open to feedback, and even to editing my comment.
I should probably add that what I describe in the video is exactly the same for 11 and 17 (they weren't "LTS versions" either). The same mechanisms but with a different release cycle also apply to versions
Hello
Thanks for this clarification. It was also nice to see parts of my old hometown Karlsruhe 🙂.
By not having LTS explicitly marking, for lack of a better word, stable milestone. How Oracle will handle Java Certification to a specific version?
What I explain in the video is, in my opinion, an important distinction but it's not like the community (and Oracle) don't know what version people are focusing on and why. Oracle University knows that 11, 17, and 21 are more relevant to the user base and will probably focus certification on that. (I can't say anything more definitive because I don't know their offerings very well.)
Please tell me you cleaned up that milk carton you threw away in the bushes
He picked it up later :) 6:24
Absolutely! There's a freeze frame comment in the video that says: "I immediately regretted throwing it away like that and of course picked it up later." Thanks for calling it out, I appreciate it. 👍🏾
@@nipafx Freeze frame comments considered harmful.
@@31redorange08 Some things are just not important enough to distract you from the main story line with a side comment. Also, I personally like them a lot and there's even a freeze frame joke in the outro. :)
@@nipafx Is it less distracting though?
I enjoy your videos :) Thank you for doing/making them!
Hello
Do the vendors all agree that 11,17,21 are LTS?
Hard to say whether "all" but definitely "a lot".
So is this any different from Java 17 and Java 11 LTS?
There is no Java 11 LTS - That's the point.
The difference is that JDK 21 is newer.
@@danthe1st If the incentivized support is provided from vendors to the OpenJDK community and that's what make it LTS then how was it before? What's different with previous LTS to this?
@@danthe1st I think the question is JDK 21 different from JDK 17 other than in the fact that it is a newer version? Will it have a different maintenance/support/whatever cycle? Is a person who wrongly believes Java 17 was LTS going to be wrong about Java 21 being LTS for exactly the same reasons, or is something else different about Java 21?
@@buximam As far as I understood it LTS just means Oracle (as a Vendor) calls it LTS and provides support for it in OracleJDK. Then, other vendors do the same because people are using the versions Oracle supports because that are the versions people use.
@@sen7826 I think he said Java 21 is no LTS just like 17 or 11 - so I assume there is no difference except JDK 21 being the shiny new version.
Where is the place you were recording this?
He walked past a restaurant that is located in Karlsruhe...
I'm living in Karlsruhe (Germany) and recorded it there. Intro and outro are my kitchen, the stream is the Alb and the restaurant @BenjaminWagener spotted is Kühler Krug, which is on its shores.
Love your T-shirt!
Thank you! 🤘🏾
I guess for Oracle JDK there were definitely LTS releases after 8 Java. I guess 11 and 17 were Orcale JDK LTS releases. Will be Java 21 for Oracle JDK LTS release or not? If not - which release is supposed to be considered as a LTS release? Java 22? Whole news seems to try to explain why for Java 21 OpenJDK edition there will be no LTS releases, since LTS is guaranteed only by the vendor (e.g. Java 21 Amazon corretto)
You got it absolutely right, it's, e.g., "Oracle JDK 21" or "Amazon Corretto 21" that may or may not get LTS. I can't speak for Amazon and their specific offering, but Oracle JDK 21 will be an LTS version.
@@nipafx Now everything makes sense :) thank you! :)
Hello
I think all vendors (except Oracle) must publish sources if code base of their implementations is from OpenJDK sources (because GPLv2 license). Is it correct?
Not sure about the specifics involving OpenJDK, but in general the GPL doesn't require that source code is published publicly. The GPL only requires that anyone who *receives* the software is also entitled to the source code from whoever provided them with the software.
You can take GPL-licensed software, modify it, and sell it. The only people you're obligated to give the code to are the people/entities you gave/sold the software to. However, the license doesn't prohibit your customers from redistributing the code as they like. They can even publish it publicly.
But there is a bit of a loophole in this regard, the GPL doesn't prohibit you (as the vendor) from having other agreements that effectively impose limitations on the rights afforded by the GPL. So while, yes, redistribution is allowed per the GPL, exercising that right could breach another agreement such as a support contract. In this case, while it wouldn't expose someone who redistributes the software to legal action, they could lose their support contract and access to future releases.
This "loophole" is what many claim grsecurity (maker of many Linux kernel security patches) does to ensure their patches cannot be easily obtained without a support contract.
Dude when people search for Java 21 LTS this video pops up and the title is totally misleading. 21 is defined as LTS, so was Java 17 and so was Java 11. Don't be a jerk by posting sensational titles and making people more confused,.
So, does this mean that no Java version will be LTS anymore?
What I describe here is no different from 11 or 17. I'm not sure whether some aspects changed since 8 and earlier, but the big picture was true there as well: LTS does not exist inside the Java Community Process (which governs the Java specifications) nor OpenJDK (which develops JDK). Basically, it has always (or at least for a decade) been like this but we've been using imprecise language to describe what's going on, which muddies the water when it comes to who (community or vendors?) does what (maintenance or support?) and with which guarantees.
Is that reversed prisoner dilemma not exactly how open source is supposed to work in general?
Absolutely and it often does (although there are counter examples) but rarely on the scale and with the stability of the Java community. One problem that often plagues open source communities that is much less prominent in Java is financial viability and diversity of investment (i.e. not just one company earning/investing money).
What makes Java 21 special vs Java 18, Java19, Java 20?
Virtual threads? 😉 Java SE 21 is a specification defined by the Java Community Process (JCP) and, technical prowess aside, it's no different from 18-20. What makes it special is that many vendors will have (commercial) offerings for their implementations of Java 21, e.g. Oracle JDK 21.
Thank you for the interesting video, indeed some important distinctions
If the incentivized support is provided by vendors to the OpenJDK community and that's what makes it LTS then how was it before? What's different from previous LTS to this?
@@buximam The OpenJDK community never offered any services or even regular builds - that was always the vendors surrounding it. So LTS was always a (commercial) offering outside of OpenJDK and since OpenJDK defines JDK versions, there were never any "JDK LTS versions". So what I'm describing in the video isn't new.
Ok, what was it that you put in that glass besides milk? ;-)
Licor 43. My rule of thumb is, it works great with everything that works great with milk: milk (:D), coffee, hot chocolate, etc.
@@nipafx I love 43, but honestly never tried it with milk! Will try ASAP, because with the heat here (at about 1.5h drive from where they make 43) I crave cold drinks!
@@quintesse Tell me how it went. :)
@@nipafx Well I tried it and now my wife is asking me when I'm going to make one again... so it was a total (and unexpected) success! I always knew your videos were instructive, but I never would have imagined in this particular way 😂
@@quintesse I'm glad you and your wife enjoyed the drink. This exchange makes me very happy. :)
this video just created more confusion. i suspect there is something going on here that this nice guys hides
"I don't understand the information that is given to me for free, so something nefarious must be going on." Better not read Wikipedia with that perspective. 😉 Jokes aside, if you have specific questions, I'm happy to answer them. (I'm the nice guy in the video.)
What it meant is that OpenJDK has no long term support. You if need that you must use a JDK created by a vendor, typically Oracle JDK, and pay license.
don't throw empty milk package outdoors !🤨
considering that in 2022 , java 11 that came out in 2018 , was only used in 3rd of the market by some surevy , i think worrying about java 21 is something that be postponed for a couple of years.
There is a long list of improvements including performance, and the upgrade is easier compared to 11. It seems likely for 21 to be more quickly adopted than either 11 or 17 have been.
So I will have to start contributing to openJDK and make a better product for all? Okay 😇
Was the guy on the right a cow or a young bull? Hard to tell from such a distance ;-)
릴리즈 주기를 빠르게 가져갈 때 어쩌려나 했다. fixed in 하게 만들려는거야. 기술의 흐름이 빠르지만 그걸 안정적으로 이끌어가는게 대형 벤더의 책임이라 생각했는데 역시 오라클 이구만.
I am happy to hear that, because 17 is chosen for our companies enterprise system, and no need to migrate it soon. Cause 17 is a LTS.
I should've made that way clearer in the video but everything I describe applies 100% to 11 and 17 as well. And I think it's even mostly true for 8 and before as well: JDK is made by OpenJDK and OpenJDK doesn't offer support. Support is a paid-for offering by vendors.
No matter how many videos I'll share with my company devops guys, they are firmly convinced that non LTS version aren't "production ready enough". I can't with these people...
So a click-baity title and confusing message to those using Oracle Java/JDK (not the insignificant community which some openjdk folks might think).
Bottom line: Oracle DOES identify the upcoming 21 to be the next LTS, along with (for now) 17, 11, and 8. It's well-documented in many places. This video is NOT countering that.
Instead, it's speaking to those NOT using Oracle Java/JDK. Nothing wrong with that, but it SURE would have helped to somehow clarify this, in the title, the opening of the video, or the description (less valuable, as fewer read that first).
Hope some will see this comment. If I have something wrong, I'm open to feedback, and even to editing my comment.
Thanks for clarifying this mess.