Karl Larsen wrote: > Peter Boy wrote: >> Am Sonntag, den 30.12.2007, 12:49 -0600 schrieb Les Mikesell: >> >>> It would be better if you tried to understand the consequences of >>> this choice instead of blindly defending it. >>> >> As with most decisions in real life: most benefits in one dimension have >> drawbacks in others. If I want the freedom of free software, I may have >> to struggle with issues in using non-free software. It is simply a >> matter of choice (and conscious decision). >> >> >>>> Fedora did not choose "not to be compatible with..." but Fedora >>>> choosed >>>> not to include an non-free program (i.e. Sun's Java) >>>> >>> They did both. Including or not including isn't the issue. Making >>> it difficult for the user to install his own freely available copy >>> is one problem. >> >> Fedora does not make it specifically difficult. You may install the Sun >> provided Linux rpm, are free to search the Sun bugzilla database why it >> doesn't work out of the box (doesn't work in any Linux distribution, the >> bug report is some years old and Sun choosed not to fix it), install one >> of the suggested workarounds (e.g. edit a shell script >> in /etc/profile.d) and you are ready to go. As with any distributions >> Fedora does only care about software, which is part of its distribution. >> Third party vendors have to care ybout their software. >> >> And don't confuse the Fedora model with RHEL. In RHEL Red Hat takes care >> about Sun java integration and customers have to pay for it. Or the >> former SuSE distribution where SuSE made a different regarding the >> licence issue. >> >> >>> A whole separate 'jpackage' project has to exist just to fix this >>> problem in the distribution. The problem wouldn't exist if the >>> distribution included a java-*-sun-compat package of perfectly legal >>> symlinks. >>> >> >> You may think of the jpackage distribution as just another workaround >> for the fact that Sun didn't care about Linux compatibility of their >> Linus rpm's. And it is a general purpose workaround, not a Fedora >> specific one. >> >> >> >>> The bigger problem is distributing something that is not java >>> compatable but executing it with the java name. Microsoft tried >>> to promote an incompatible program that similarly fit their agenda >>> with the java name and Sun successfully sued them over it. The >>> fedora-shipped not-java program that executes with the java name >>> does just as much damage and shouldn't be named java until it passes >>> the compatibility tests. I'm surprised fedora's legal dept. allowed >>> this abuse of a trademarked name. >>> >> >> The software is not shipped as java, but as gcj (and with some starter >> scripts with the filenama java for compatibility). And in contrast to MS >> the gcj project aimed to full compatibility and the lack thereof was an >> intermediate state during development. All this is quite different. >> >> >> >>>> So you can develope (or simply run) against the reference version and >>>> you can test (and support the devel of) the truly free alternative in >>>> parallel. That's the Fedora way. >>>> >>> It's not an alternative java until it passes the compatibility test. >>> >> >> You are free, not to use (and just to ignore) it! Remember, you just >> have to use one of the above mentioned alternative ways. >> >> >> Peter >> >> > You guys are both wrong. Fedora does ship F7 and F8 with a small > java version 1.5 which is too old for newer java programs, and that > broken icedtea that does nothing good. But light at the end of the > tunnel. Fedora can make the necessary changes to their design to allow > the method given on the Sun Site to work. I have been doing the work. > Look at my new messages on java. > I still don't understand a word of what you think you are saying..... Try again, in English. -- "More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." -- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_
