Java problem

[Gene Heskett]

On Thursday 03 January 2008, 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.

Here, with a fresh install of x86_64 on my lappy, an about:plugins gives a 
long list of IcedTea stuff.

So I sent FF off to http://www.cnn.com.  Clicking on the first video in the 
list, it said I needed flash, so I clicked on the download button.  Then I 
became root and installed it, and restarted FF.  It was there in the about 
list, so I went back to cnn.com and they all played just fine.

Now, this thread was saying what about IcedTea?

>Peter

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Bare feet magnetize sharp metal objects so they point upward from the
floor -- especially in the dark.