On Sat, 2007-12-29 at 15:36 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > Craig White wrote: > > > ---- > > openNMS isn't packaged or distributed with Fedora is it? > > No, I'm not interested in being restricted to the subset of programs > that are included in a distribution. Are you? ---- Twasn't a big deal to install Sun's java as for usage with things like Zenoss and I ended up doing it again for Tomcat/Alfresco then again, I did install the jpackage too and was able to integrate it without any fuss but again, this was on EL not Fedora. The implementation path is now well understood and I installed the same JDK/Jpackage for my Fedora 8 desktop since I do Ruby on Rails development on my desktop and run the Ruby-Java-Bridge there. It workee nicely. ---- > > > ---- > >>> not if you run > >>> alternatives --config java # and set it to Sun's installation > >> But it doesn't work with Sun's RPM, which my point. > > ---- > > it doesn't? It has worked for me on Fedora 7/8 CentOS 5 and RHEL 5 > > > > I must be lucky then. > > ---- > > It's more than luck. It's a miracle if that happened after just > installing Sun's RPM. ---- yeah, it's a bear to have to 'yum install java-1.6.0-sun-compat' ;-) ---- > > seriously though, java just hasn't been a problem for me and I've been > > fooling with it quite a bit lately with Alfresco, docbook-XSL and even > > managed to implement ruby-java-bridge for ongoing Ruby on Rails > > development. > > It's not completely impossible to make it work but not trivial and I > think you have to admit that you aren't an average user. ---- dunno, I see a lot of people including you that know a hell of a lot more than I do so do actually think of myself as an average user. ---- > >> I think its amusing that Linux browser plugins haven't worked for so > >> long, yet it is so highly touted. > > ---- > > which ones don't work for you? That hasn't been an issue for me > > 64 bit java and flash (both are supposed to work in Solaris), and > probably others. ---- Flash has worked fine for me on F7-x86_64 and F8-x86_64 I'm convinced that it's the nspluginwrapper x86_64/i386 software making it happen...it's effective. It also allows the acroread plugin to work too but definitely not Sun's Java ;-( I don't see reports of Java working embedded in a 64 bit version of Firefox on any distribution so I don't think that it's a Fedora issue. ---- > So which one is perfect? There's nothing particularly mac-specific in > the problems of connecting inbound through NAT routers. At least Apple > doesn't just say 'you can't have it because its license isn't > restrictive enough to be called free'. And they don't go out of their > way to make their system difficult to use with 3rd party programs - > mostly, anyway. ---- No, Apple has perfected the notion of re-selling you the same software over and over again, ahem, Leopard, iWork and my current favorite story of Apple saying FU to their customers...BootCamp (we told you all along it was Beta...too bad it expired and now you have to pay to upgrade). As for Back to My Mac not being able to transverse NAT based routers (which probably represents 60+% of their user base), it's not as if they couldn't have anticipated that issue...it's the same issue that all software installations face. It's the same issue that typical exploitware faces. It's the face of a company that sells software upgrades based upon features that actually aren't fully baked, don't work but they'll get it fixed up sooner or later...who does that remind you of? Yeah...the folks making the 'Insanely Great Software' in Redmond. Craig
