On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2012, at 11:30 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> You can never count on free future support or additions to anything
>> and java isn't an exception, but how can anything that works now on
>> current openjdk (which includes most open sour
On Jan 12, 2012, at 11:30 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> You can never count on free future support or additions to anything
> and java isn't an exception, but how can anything that works now on
> current openjdk (which includes most open source java apps and
> libraries) be locked in?
Ok, I may be d
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
>
>> You can't be very agile working in C, though. Something called C with
>> roughly similar syntax may work on a lot of platforms but that doesn't
>> mean that you can actually compile and run the same code. Where with
>> java you don't even
On Jan 12, 2012, at 2:13 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
>>>
>> Corporate greed will always trump idealistic pursuits.
>
> I'm still pondering how Sun's demise fits into this picture
>
>> As soon as a product has enough momentum there will be
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
>>
> Corporate greed will always trump idealistic pursuits.
I'm still pondering how Sun's demise fits into this picture
> As soon as a product has enough momentum there will be patent fights,
> copyright fights, licensing and revocation o
On Jan 12, 2012, at 12:25 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2012, at 9:45 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
>>>
>>>
But you'd be wrong on all counts. I'd argue the opposite - that you
should only be allowed to use languages that wor
On Jan 11, 2012, at 9:45 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
>>
>>
>>> But you'd be wrong on all counts. I'd argue the opposite - that you
>>> should only be allowed to use languages that work across CPU types and
>>> OS's so as to never be locked int
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
>
>
>> But you'd be wrong on all counts. I'd argue the opposite - that you
>> should only be allowed to use languages that work across CPU types and
>> OS's so as to never be locked into a monopolistic single vendor.
>
> You mean like Oracle?
N
On Jan 10, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> But you'd be wrong on all counts. I'd argue the opposite - that you
> should only be allowed to use languages that work across CPU types and
> OS's so as to never be locked into a monopolistic single vendor.
You mean like Oracle?
-Ross
_
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:32 AM, wrote:
> Would someone advise whether the distribution of an obsolete version
> of java should be reported as a bug;
> http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=827
One *could* argue that Java is a bug,
On 01/10/2012 07:17 AM, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
> On 10 January 2012 13:04, e-letter wrote:
>> Readers,
>>
>> Would someone advise whether the distribution of an obsolete version
>> of java should be reported as a bug;
>> http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=827
> Why is this a bug?
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:47 AM, wrote:
>>
But you'd be wrong on all counts. I'd argue the opposite - that you
should only be allowed to use languages that work across CPU types and
OS's so as to never be locked into a monopolistic single vendor.
>>> So if I were to develop
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:32 AM, wrote:
>>>
Would someone advise whether the distribution of an obsolete version
of java should be reported as a bug;
http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=827
>>>
>>> One *could* argue that Java is a bug, being a) so error-prone, b)
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
>>>
>>> But you'd be wrong on all counts. I'd argue the opposite - that you
>>> should only be allowed to use languages that work across CPU types and
>>> OS's so as to never be locked into a monopolistic single vendor.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
>>
>> But you'd be wrong on all counts. I'd argue the opposite - that you
>> should only be allowed to use languages that work across CPU types and
>> OS's so as to never be locked into a monopolistic single vendor.
>>
>
> So if I were to dev
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, wrote:
>>
>>> Would someone advise whether the distribution of an obsolete version
>>> of java should be reported as a bug;
>>> http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=827
>>
>> One *could* argue that Java is a bug, being a) so
On Tue, January 10, 2012 17:15, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, wrote:
>>
>> One *could* argue that Java is a bug, being a) so error-prone, b) so
>> vulnerable to attack, and c) so huge and slow, and shouldn't be
>> allowed
>
> But you'd be wrong on all counts. I'd arg
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, wrote:
>
>> Would someone advise whether the distribution of an obsolete version
>> of java should be reported as a bug;
>> http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=827
>
> One *could* argue that Java is a bug, being a) so error-prone, b) so
> vulnera
e-letter wrote:
> Readers,
>
> Would someone advise whether the distribution of an obsolete version
> of java should be reported as a bug;
> http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=827
One *could* argue that Java is a bug, being a) so error-prone, b) so
vulnerable to attack, and c) s
On 10 January 2012 13:04, e-letter wrote:
> Readers,
>
> Would someone advise whether the distribution of an obsolete version
> of java should be reported as a bug;
> http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=827
Why is this a bug? The bug comments mention that the latest CentOS 6
has
Readers,
Would someone advise whether the distribution of an obsolete version
of java should be reported as a bug;
http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=827
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinf
21 matches
Mail list logo
