Jenkins is a great name, by the way.
The other half is this is that it seems like they want to avoid any sort of bad PR over a pretty visible OSS project which was under their (inherited) hosting umbrella (java.net) moving to other hosting platforms because Oracle's platform is so unreliable or just flat-out not popular.
Sadly, for me all it evokes is Leeroy Jenkins. Surely there are better English butler names such as Wadsworth, or you know, just Butler. :)
Sadly, for me all it evokes is Leeroy Jenkins.
I always thought of Henry Hudson. (Maybe because I grew up a few blocks from the river.)
You don't need to tell upper management, you know. Your late-night Continuous Integration battle cry can be your own little secret.
Beyond that, I'd think their partners (e.g. Sonatype, which has its own commercial hudson-based product) would prefer to not be faced with a choice between Oracle Hudson and OSS Jenkins (where the latter would surely have the majority of heat and light).
Before Oracle acquired Sun, I was neutral toward them, and didn't really care. I thought they were a big enterprise vendor, with a supposedly very good (but pricey) database. If I were given the money to use their DB, I would use it.
Now, I really hate what they represent. 10 years from now, as a CTO, I will try my best to consider other options, even if I have the "money" for an Oracle DB. I already love Postgres, but with Oracle's recent behavior, I will push even more toward good open source projects and away from bloated enterprise solutions.
Plus, Postgres / RethinkDB / other OSS databases will be better in 10 years ;)
Every time Oracle does something like this, it pushes further away from selecting it. Guess I need to brush up on my Erlang.
JVM languages like Clojure, Scala, JRuby, etc. would seem to be an entirely safe choice AFAICT. I'd be interested in hearing concrete contrary theories.
And whilst the OpenJDK is open source, Oracle have made it pretty clear that they are not above using trademarks and patents to enforce their control over the JVM.
FWIW, I say most of this to reassure myself more than anything else, given my investment in the JVM. If there are real substantive reasons to be concerned – essentially, indications that Oracle has likely just lied about their plans for the JVM, or something more than the vague warnings I usually see – I want to be the first to know.
However, a technology controlled by a single vendor, even one as large as Oracle, is at greater risk than one that is an open standard with several competing implementations. I'd be happier if Oracle were encouraging alternative JVMs, rather than suing them or withholding testkit licenses.
There is no doubt that a year later, all would be fine, but in that year, my pain was increased (potentially, obviously). Would I re-write code for this potentiality? Not a chance. Does it factor into my decision for a new architecture? Absolutely.
The short of it is that I don't trust Oracle. I haven't for many years, but I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when they purchased Sun in hopes Sun's culture might impact Oracle's. They have proven they are going to behave exactly as I expected them to. My company won't have infrastructure from companies I don't trust.
"He showed those men of will what will really was."
Overly dramatic? Perhaps, but it's not easy to give up a name to retain the freedom for a project.