RE: Java problem
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(a)gmail.com
To: fedora-list(a)redhat.com
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(a)redhat.com
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/