The Scope and Ownership of fedora-list
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Thu Aug 28 21:46:22 UTC 2008
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>>> You have argued before that, that the problems are due to the lack of
>>> "official java" moniker and that has never really been the case. The
>>> problems are either non-standard features used by Java applications
>>> or things not covered by the specification.
>>
>> But that doesn't matter.
>
> Sure, it does. Your claim was incorrect as I told you earlier and this
> only proves it.
That's a matter of opinion. It may matter to you why your 3rd party
application doesn't run. It matters to me whether it runs or not.
> Things work or not. And without a real Sun
>> Java which could have been trivial to obtain/install, many things
>> don't work. And instead of providing the trivial help to install a
>> working java, someone must have spent an enormous amount of effort
>> providing something sort-of-like java,
>
> OpenJDK is Fedora 9 is officially Java and certified as such. You cannot
> continue to claim otherwise. If you still run into problems, you should
> be filing bug reports.
Against what? Applications that specify that they require Sun Java 1.4
or 1.5? And what about that long history of shipping something known
not to be Java?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list