Java and openjdk

[Les Mikesell]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> Oh, sure. Feel free to look up the archives.
>>
>> Different conversation, I guess. 
> 
> You claimed a official Java implementation wouldn't have issues. OpenJDK 
> is one.

I expected more from the conformance test.  Apparently what fedora ships 
as a java 1.6 has different behavior than Sun's 1.6.   And if you follow 
the conversation in that link I sent 
http://n2.nabble.com/Broken-Startup-on-Fedora-9-td640408.html#a640628, 
you'll see that the developer describes openjdk as a moving target where 
they even have trouble detecting the version/capabilities.

>> Errr, that blog says it builds...  Is it your/fedora's policy that if 
>> something builds you should ship it? 
> 
> You presume a lot without me saying anything of that as usual. This 
> discussion was never about shipping anything.
> 
> http://blogs.opennms.org/?p=223

When you don't say what you mean, I have to guess.  I thought you were 
trying to say that what fedora ships was good enough to use - which is 
what my side of the conversation has been about.  I'm not convinced.

> There is a screenshot showing that it works.

For some very strange definition of 'works'.  The article accompanying 
it describes parts that don't work.

> If you are not even running 
> a recent release of Fedora, this doesn't affect you anyway. So again a 
> theoretical discussion which I am not interested in.

I'm also not very interested in a conversation about _why_ it doesn't 
work, whether practical or theoretical, and at this point it is clear 
that is where running what fedora ships would lead.  When I need 
something newer than FC6/RHEL5/Centos5 and have some reason to expect it 
to work I'll probably try again.  In fact, I'd probably have one running 
under vmware if I expected even that to work without having to track 
non-standard patches.  Is that listed on the FAQ these days?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com