Re: Download page incorrectly lists "OS X" and "Unix" as being compatible
IMO it is really lame to need to certify a Java product on a billion different operating systems... Isn't Sun's Java motto still write once run everywhere? Or does that not apply to certification of j2ee platforms? Write once certify everywhere?! --jason On Oct 19, 2006, at 9:08 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: Geir, Can you enumerate the specific requirements for "certification"? You have a valid point about OS X but if we certified on SuSE 9.3 is it not still certified release on SuSE 10? Or even jumping from SuSE to Red Hat or even Solaris x86 or SPARC. I'm curious about how the certification treats all these possible permutations (yikes ;-0 ) Would it be acceptable to say something like: J2EE certified Release (with some link to a page that describes the exact certification environment) and lists *nix as a general platform? I guess I'm really curious about what certified means based on your comment below. On Oct 18, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: They aren't tested. Can we put a separate section (or a separate page) for the non- certified downloads? geir Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Download page incorrectly lists "OS X" and "Unix" as being compatible
Geir, Can you enumerate the specific requirements for "certification"? You have a valid point about OS X but if we certified on SuSE 9.3 is it not still certified release on SuSE 10? Or even jumping from SuSE to Red Hat or even Solaris x86 or SPARC. I'm curious about how the certification treats all these possible permutations (yikes ;-0 ) Would it be acceptable to say something like: J2EE certified Release (with some link to a page that describes the exact certification environment) and lists *nix as a general platform? I guess I'm really curious about what certified means based on your comment below. On Oct 18, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: They aren't tested. Can we put a separate section (or a separate page) for the non- certified downloads? geir Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Download page incorrectly lists "OS X" and "Unix" as being compatible
On Oct 18, 2006, at 5:31 PM, Joe Bohn wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: They aren't tested. Can we put a separate section (or a separate page) for the non- certified downloads? geir IIUC you are concerned about the heading "J2EE 1.4 Certified Releases" followed by "Linux/Mac OS X/Unix Downloads". Those downloads are for those various platforms listed even if we only certified against a subset of the list. Would it be better to just remove the word "certified" from the earlier heading? If necessary, we could specify somewhere else on the download page that we actually only certified against Linux and Windows. What do you think? The web page seems OK to me, as is. The *releases* are certified. We create different distributions to aid users in installing on different platforms. They all contain the same binaries... If you want to remove the "certified", I'm ok with that. If we want to add explicit information about what platforms we certify on (Linux and Azul at the moment), we can do that, also... --kevan
Re: Download page incorrectly lists "OS X" and "Unix" as being compatible
Maybe we can add something like this at the top of the download page J2EE Certified! <- title Apache Geronimo is certified in the full J2EE 1.4 stack on Linux and Windows platforms. and then, as Joe said, entirely remove the "J2EE 1.4 Certified Releases" from the individual download sections. Do we need to disclose anything in particular for Little-G being a subset of the "Big-G"? Cheers! Hernan Joe Bohn wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: They aren't tested. Can we put a separate section (or a separate page) for the non-certified downloads? geir IIUC you are concerned about the heading "J2EE 1.4 Certified Releases" followed by "Linux/Mac OS X/Unix Downloads". Those downloads are for those various platforms listed even if we only certified against a subset of the list. Would it be better to just remove the word "certified" from the earlier heading? If necessary, we could specify somewhere else on the download page that we actually only certified against Linux and Windows. What do you think? Joe
Re: Download page incorrectly lists "OS X" and "Unix" as being compatible
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: They aren't tested. Can we put a separate section (or a separate page) for the non-certified downloads? geir IIUC you are concerned about the heading "J2EE 1.4 Certified Releases" followed by "Linux/Mac OS X/Unix Downloads". Those downloads are for those various platforms listed even if we only certified against a subset of the list. Would it be better to just remove the word "certified" from the earlier heading? If necessary, we could specify somewhere else on the download page that we actually only certified against Linux and Windows. What do you think? Joe
