Java problem

[Karl Larsen]

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.

Karl


-- 

	Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI
	Linux User
	#450462   http://counter.li.org.
   PGP 4208 4D6E 595F 22B9 FF1C  ECB6 4A3C 2C54 FE23 53A7