Java problem

[Les Mikesell]

Peter Boy wrote:
> It's rather a long thread now, but I think we must have the patience to
> explain and promote key principles again and again.

It would be better if you tried to understand the consequences of this 
choice instead of blindly defending it.

> Am Samstag, den 29.12.2007, 18:17 -0600 schrieb Les Mikesell:
>> I'm asking why fedora chooses not to be compatible with the reference 
>> version of java.  And why it ships something that executes with the name 
>> java that probably doesn't pass the compatibility tests.
> 
> Simply the wrong questions.

It is the one that matters.

> 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.  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.

> And Fedora did not choose "not to be compatible with ..." but choosed to
> support the development of a truly free alternative which is (rsp. was)
> intended to achieve compatibility, but needed time for development and
> testing. 

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.

> Those who need a reference-compatible version have to install a Java
> distribution outside the Fedora repositories. And there are provisions
> that you can do that without conflicts with the Fedora (test) version.

Ooohh fedora has 'provisions' to permit it to run outside programs. 
Great...

> 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.

> And regarding the file locations: it is not part of the reference. And
> when you engage a search engine of your choice you will find a lot of
> discussios in the past about problems with the file layout Sun choosed
> to use.

What I find in a search is a confusing and conflicting mess of 
instructions about how to fix fedora in various ways.  As for file 
layouts, they are pretty much arbitrary and I don't see anything to 
defend the choice of parking executable binaries under /usr/lib either.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com