Why FC4 using the Jpackage 1.4.2 Java?

[Ernest L. Williams Jr.]

On Sat, 2005-06-25 at 17:59 +0200, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Am Sa, den 25.06.2005 schrieb ha haha um 17:16:
> 
> > The 1.4.2 tree and 1.5 tree difference is something
> > like difference 2.4 kernel tree and 2.6 kernel tree,
> > both kernel trees are well maintained. But when you
> > have a chance to install a new machine, would you
> > prefer 2.4 kernel over 2.6? either for security or for
> > features or for performance or for easy maintenance?
> 
> Your cited yourself the FC4 release notes recommendation:
> 
> "Sun Java 1.5+ is recommended for stability purposes."
> 
> So what's your point?
> 
> > > I don't really understand what confuses you. You may
> > > review Sun's page
> > > and the jpackage.org page (non-free section!).
> > > 
> > 
> > I want a FREE version, best open-sources if possible,
> > of everything on FC4 Linux.
> 
> Sun's Java isn't free - period. Then live with the Java FC4 ships with
> in Core.
What about the java distro from IBM?  Is that one open-source?

Well, anyway I think a JVM is unnecessary overhead!! I would prefer
native code; so maybe I should stick with FC4's java distro.

Now is FC4's java distro basically GCJ (from the GNU Compiler
Collection)?




> 
> > Offering an old free demonstration version to allure
> > users to pay for non-free version can not touch me at
> > all, if this is the case.
> 
> What is the "old free demonstration version" you speak about? Where do
> you have to "pay" for a non-free version?
> 
> Alexander
> 
> P.S. It would be nice to speak to someone with a real name.
> 
> 
> -- 
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list