On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Patrick Lists <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > You always jump in Oracle's defense when someone sticks it to them and get > all wound up about it. Of course, I support companies that support open source development. I don´t support attempts to balkanize foss projects or wrestle control of foss projects from the firm that is investing heavily in its development, in the name of so-called freedom, which only leads to forks and fragmentation and the ultimate loss of the main corporate backer (as happened with OO.o, not to mention the loss of the commercial product, StarOffice, which had made many inroads in - all because a vocal minority rejected the dual-licensing and Sun contributor agreements, see Shuttleworth´s words at this redirector http://ho.io/libreoffice ). > Maybe you read about how Oracle fixed that dangerous Java bug the other day > which they did not fix correctly? How is a proper fix done right the first > time not a good reason to switch? Transparency allows many eyeballs and > given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. Are you saying that OpenJDK development is not open? because all bugs seems to have been fixed on a timely manner, and bugfixes landed in Open JDK which were incorporated into Icedtea builds hours later. Patches are flowing, so what is all the fuzz and villifycation (sp?) about? RedHat along with IBM are investing in OpenJDK too, see this mid-2012 presentation: http://www.redhat.com/summit/2012/pdf/2012-DevDay-OpenJDK-Bhole.pdf But I guess you read too much FUD from interested parties echoed by ZDNet and IDG, and amplified by the rest of the copy-paste IT press... I will stop now because we´re drifting off-topic. Last message from me on this thread. FC -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
