Fedora not "free" enough for GNU?

[Les Mikesell]

Simo Sorce wrote:
> 
>>>> I think I've missed something if that's actually the case.  Is there 
>>>> really a non-Sun java that is 100% compatible?  When I run java apps, I 
>>> IBM I believe
>>>
>>>> don't want something "interesting" to happen.
>>> Thats about the trademark name not the code. You don't care what running
>>> 'frobozz' does, but what 'java' means..
>> Right - but I've just seen too much stuff that pretends to be java that 
>> isn't quite.  My latest encounter is a cell phone that doesn't give the 
>> jvm access to its soft (and only) keyboard.  You can install mini-opera 
>> but you can't type a url...
> 
> This really does not apply, you are confounding JVM compliance with the
> sandboxing technique the phone maker decided to adopt.

If JVM compliance doesn't require access to your input, why bother 
testing something that can't work?

> You can as easily have a Sun JVM running in Linux and denying it access
> to a keyboard.

It isn't denied access as a permission issue.  The code that would give 
it access is replaced by custom code that requires matching changes in 
the apps.

> These are 2 completely orthogonal things.

It is either just a bug or an effort on the vendor's part to make people 
buy their custom apps (which aren't available yet either..).  They are 
promising an update to fix it sometime in the distant future.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com