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@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
