Java problem

[Les Mikesell]

Craig White wrote:

>> Why is the license an issue?  The distribution doesn't have to include 
>> everything to work with it.
> ----
> I know you are on CentOS list. You know that Sun requires idemnification
> from anyone who redistributes their software which is why so few
> redistribute their software.

Cooperation would be enough.  Redistribution would be even better, but I 
suppose the fedora freeloaders aren't going to get that from RedHat.

>> OK, there's this thing called the internet, where you can get things 
>> from other places - places that are willing to distribute them.
> ----
> yeah...why don't you complain to them?

Them?  Fedora is the one that ships something that isn't java that 
executes when you type 'java'.

> ----
>>> Thus without the 'imitation java' (as you call
>>> it), there wouldn't be a fully functioning OpenOffice.org, and no
>>> Docbook XSL, no Tomcat, no Eclipse, etc.
>> OK, I could live with those not working until I install a java that 
>> meets the official spec.
> ----
> OK - good for you. Are you suggesting that Fedora create a bunch more
> Totem type situations?

Is a Totem type situation something where the distribution includes a 
link to a legal download that you click and it comes up running? If so, 
that would be great.

> Are you suggesting that Fedora ship a broken
> OpenOffice.org? Are you suggesting that the Eclipse environment not work
> out of the box? Are you suggesting that the whole notion of
> 'pre-requisite' packages go ignored where Java is concerned?

I'm suggesting that calling something java that isn't java is just plain 
wrong. These things should either not work until a conforming java is 
installed (which should never have been a problem) or they should use 
something with a name other than java to do whatever they need if 
something sort-of like java to do whatever they are missing.

> Besides...I'm certain that you have a skill set that would allow you
> completely remove the gcj version and install the Sun version so I fail
> to see where you're harmed by the current setup.

I think everyone has been harmed by the difficulty in getting a 
conforming java installed - just like they were when Microsoft shipped 
something called java that wasn't.

> ----
>>> Thus with your logic, people would logically go to another distro that
>>> either embraces restrictive licensed software or pisses on restrictive
>>> licensing.
>> How about one that respects both other companies licenses and their own 
>> users?  As in making Sun java work when installed?
> ----
> Isn't that Sun's job? There isn't a Sun java package available from any
> Fedora package/respin/repository that I am aware of.

Sun's java works, but if you install it and type java, something else 
will run.  That's fedora's fault.

>>> So while it may feel useful to bemoan the 'imitation java' aka, GCJ
>>> version, it provides most of the functionality...and last I checked,
>>> even the Sun Java '64' couldn't run applets.
>> I'm bemoaning calling it java.  If you don't ship a fully conforming 
>> java, don't execute it with the name java.  And isn't the 64-bit applet 
>> problem specific to Linux, not java?
> ----
> I don't know about Windows 64...it's not very popular you know and I am
> not rushing out to get it myself. If Sun's Windows 64 bit version works
> properly, it would be one of the few software packages that does.

Does anything work on Windows?  I meant Solaris as the comparison.


-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com