Java problem

[Les Mikesell]

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.

> Thus with those restrictions, there is no way that Fedora or Red Hat
> would ever distribute it.

OK, there's this thing called the internet, where you can get things 
from other places - places that are willing to distribute 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.

> 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?

> 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?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com