On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 22:43 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Friday 28 December 2007, Craig White wrote: > >On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 21:37 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > >> On Friday 28 December 2007, Les Mikesell wrote: > >> >Cameron Simpson wrote: > >> >>>>> Hi > >> >>>>> I installed the jre from the file jre-6u3-linux-i586-rpm.bin and it > >> >>>>> give me done with no prob , but there is no java file in /usr/bin/ , > >> >>>>> can any one suggest some thing about that ? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> ---- > >> >>>> look in /usr/java > >> >>>> > >> >>>> if you know what you want, you can create a symbolic link in /usr/bin > >> >>>> but that should never be necessary. > >> >>> > >> >>> It's too bad that RedHat and Sun can't agree on where java should > >> >>> live. > >> >> > >> >> It's a third party RPM! > >> >> Of course it should install out of the way! > >> >> That way you can use Sun's RPM or another RPM, or both! > >> >> > >> >>> For earlier versions of fedora, jpackage.org had a way to fix this > >> >>> breakage, but they seem to have stopped at FC6. > >> >> > >> >> 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. > >> > >> +5 at least, Les. > > > >---- > >I can't see any reason why you should have more than 1 vote > > Which you usually discount anyway, based on my Senior Citizen discount status > or whatever.. So I vote early and often to compensate. :) > > >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... > > > >from my installation of jdk-1.6.0.0.3 under LICENSE... > > > >3. RESTRICTIONS. Software is confidential and copyrighted. > >Title to Software and all associated intellectual property > >rights is retained by Sun and/or its licensors. Unless > >enforcement is prohibited by applicable law, you may not > >modify, decompile, or reverse engineer Software. You > >acknowledge that Licensed Software is not designed or > >intended for use in the design, construction, operation or > >maintenance of any nuclear facility. Sun Microsystems, Inc. > >disclaims any express or implied warranty of fitness for > >such uses. No right, title or interest in or to any > >trademark, service mark, logo or trade name of Sun or its > >licensors is granted under this Agreement. Additional > >restrictions for developers and/or publishers licenses are > >set forth in the Supplemental License Terms. > > > >Thus with those restrictions, there is no way that Fedora or Red Hat > >would ever distribute it. 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. > > > >Thus with your logic, people would logically go to another distro that > >either embraces restrictive licensed software or pisses on restrictive > >licensing. > > > >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. > > > >Craig > > You should know by now that I'm pro open src, and have been since forever it > seems. But, if the people who write this stuff can use it in good > conscience, then it doesn't bither me a bot to go download java from the real > source. It used to be blackdowns version that was the defacto std but it > appears Sun has elbowed them out of the picture, mainly I believe by way of > the free OpenOffice.org offering, the camels nose in the tent if you will. > > In this case, its a whatever works reliably, we'll use it. Without feeling > like I should go and have my mouth warshed out with some of Grandma's good > old Lye soap. > > If IcedTea or whatever they want to call it, could do what was requested, then > more power to the coders that adapted it. But it more often than not > doesn't, and rather than filing bz's by the hundreds, we just go get what > works, its far easier than filing a bz in terms of effort required. Given > the time & effort to go get the real thing, that should send the message that > bz is still, although its gotten easier, a PITA to use. ---- that's a lot of words that essentially mean nothing at all. Fedora is a community project - if people want to pitch in to integrate Sun's Java more easily, great, I'm all for it. As it is distributed, the license is still restrictive and none of the repositories will touch the packaging which means that you have to get the software from Sun and rely upon their assistance (which is minimal) to install / integrate. In the meantime, Red Hat and Fedora are distributing a free version that mostly works, on all platforms, without restrictive licensing, thereby providing a working Tomcat, Eclipse, etc. I guess I fail to see what the complaint is. I don't recall ever seeing you post on something that you couldn't get done with the GCJ version so I suspect that you are just downloading and playing with the Sun version of Java because you think you need to do that. To the OP, I think I gave you a reasonable method to install either Sun's JDK or JRE and to create the environmental variables so that each user has full access to the Sun version. Craig -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
