Hi , resolved the problem , the symolink in the /etc/alternatives/java was mentioning to error place , recreate it and every thing work fine thanks ---------------------------------------- > Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:42:09 -0800 > From: kam.leo@xxxxxxxxx > To: fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Java problem > > On Dec 28, 2007 8:33 PM, Craig White wrote: >> On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 22:03 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: >>> Craig White wrote: >>> >>>>>>> Maybe there should be something in /etc/alternatives... >>>>>> Or maybe no one should have ever shipped an imitation java that doesn't >>>>>> meet the spec and called it java in the first place. >>> >>>> Of course the issue is and has always been Sun's restrictive licensing >>>> and if it weren't for the 'imitation java' as you call it, Sun might >>>> never have decided to migrate Java to GPL...but they still aren't >>>> there... >>> >>> 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. Then of course, there's the restriction >> against using it in nuclear plants which apparently is enough to get >> Fedora/RH to drop the pdftk (F8 users can rebuild from F7 src RPM). >> ---- >>> 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? >> ---- >>> >>>> 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? 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? >> >> 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. >> ---- >>>> 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. >> ---- >>>> 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. >> >> Craig > > Stop being so fanboyish and an ingrate. You shout praises for Open > Office but don't give credit to the donor of the source code. That's > right, Sun. Without much of the Sun donated code the Linux desktop > wouldn't be competitive with MS Office. > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
