--- Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Antonio Olivares wrote: > > > > >> So you like it because it's not quite impossible > to > >> do what you want? > >> > > Yes, it is not impossible. Just leave the default > > Fedora stuff alone, put the stuff you need > elsewhere > > and you are good to go. Fedora does not prohibit > us > > from compiling from source and installing our own > > programs. > > But it's not really the best platform for this since > it changes so > quickly and makes you repeat much of your own work > frequently. > > > Now if you want to use third party rpms for > > the programs that you need, that is another > matter, > > that is between you, the third party packagers and > the > > fedora team. This I cannot say much because I try > not > > to depend too much on third party packagers. > > And likewise, their choice to change interfaces > rapidly makes it > difficult to take advantage of other people's work. > > > > > I commend the third party packagers because they > work > > hard to make the *non-free stuff* work on Fedora. > The > > programs work nicely, but then updates come about > and > > the program might not work as it did and bugs > appear > > and it takes time for the mirrors to sync and us > users > > complain that a certain program is not working. > We > > want everything right here right now, and we > simply > > cannot have that. It is not a matter of Fedora > being > > the bad guy, Life is like that in general. > > Interfaces and standards are what makes cooperation > possible. Whether > you think they are bad guys or not will depend on > how seriously you take > the proposition that interfaces are contracts among > programmers. I take > it very seriously because every change hurts > everyone else, and > everything that is not backwards-compatible or > standards-compliant will > cost other people time and trouble. I think that is > a bad thing. Other > people have a different opinion and think everything > an upstream > developer writes should be published even if it is > buggy, badly > designed, not compatible with what they did last > week and breaks all of > the work others had been trying to do to build on > it. I can respect the > long view of that opinion in that new ideas and code > have to be tested > somewhere, but I do what I have to to avoid being > hurt by it personally. > > >>> If some software is illegal, what will the big > >> guys do > >>> to a little guy? Will they sue me because I > have > >>> nonfree stuff? > >> If they had any sense, they would arrange simple > >> ways for you to get > >> legal, licensed copies. > > > > They tried to do that with Fluendo/Codec Buddy, > but in > > many ways it sucks! The third party packagers > *put > > their name here* make programs work in combination > > with the fedora programs and everything works as > it is > > supposed to. > > Agreed - the sensible approach would be to design a > strictly-standard > interface around all patented code so you could get > a licensed copy for > yourself or a specific device once, ever, and > continue to use it > regardless of OS or application changes. But with > any GPL'd code > involved there is no way to design such a thing and > no business model to > support it. Proprietary OS's and applications can > simply roll the cost > of the license into the cost of the overall product. > > >> And the OS would go out of > >> its way to make sure > >> that the one such copy you obtain continues to > run > >> for at least the life > >> of your machine. With Java, getting the copy is > >> matter of accepting the > >> form as you download from the Sun site - getting > >> fedora to recognize > >> that you have a JVM installed for the packages > that > >> need one is a whole > >> different matter. > > > > The legal staff is the one that recommends that > Fedora > > do this to avoid potential lawsuits and to > restrict > > certain stuff from happening. > > The jpackage nosrc rpm approach had no legal issues. > > > Java is coming along > > very well, in Fedora 8 there was iced tea, > > Standards compliance is a yes or no question. > Almost doesn't count. > > > in the > > upcoming Fedora 9, there will be an adaptation to > the > > OpenJDK/ whatever it is called and it is working > for > > me very well. Of course some of the stuff that > Sun > > puts in there does not get there because of little > > technicalities, but otherwise the product works > and > > many users appreciate that. > > Do you expect this to be backwards compatible with > what they have > published previously? That is, will the almost-java > code that has been > written to work around the non-compliant version > that fedora has shipped > for years run transparently on a compliant JVM? If > it doesn't, how is > the fedora near-java different from the one > Microsoft tried to ship from > the perspective of an end user who doesn't want to > be locked into a > platform? Actually no, there have been alot of complaints against the sun java itself not being compatible with itself much less with the one in Fedora. This won't be Fedora's fault, but the other guys. Regards, Antonio > > -- > Les Mikesell > lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
