It would be a smooth process via the installer. Gj
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:43 PM, John Yeary <johnye...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello All, > > I agree with John. > > One of the things that I really find annoying about Eclipse is that you > have all of these options, and as a new user it is a daunting task to pick > what you need, or even KNOW what you need. > > If we start asking new users to go download modules to make it a functional > IDE, it is a non-starter. The ease of use that NetBeans is known for > suddenly is no longer. > > > > ____________________________ > > John Yeary > ____________________________ > *NetBeans Dream Team* > > *Founder Greenville Java Users GroupJava Users Groups Community Leader* > ____________________________ > > <http://javaevangelist.blogspot.com/> <https://twitter.com/jyeary> > <http://www.youtube.com/johnyeary> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jyeary> > <https://plus.google.com/112146428878473069965> > <http://www.facebook.com/jyeary> > <http://feeds.feedburner.com/JavaEvangelistJohnYearysBlog> > <http://netbeans.org/people/84414-jyeary> > > "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even > though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who > neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight > that knows not victory nor defeat." > -- Theodore Roosevelt > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:28 PM, John McDonnell <mcdonnell.j...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > HI, > > > > To me Netbeans has always been first and foremost a Java IDE. This move > > now seems to be making Java an optional extra to Netbeans that means I > need > > to head off somewhere else to get this nb-javac module. > > > > Now I was probably wrong in always thinking that NB is a Java IDE first > > and foremost, as when I go to the Downloads[1] page 3 of the 6 > > download-able packages don’t contain Java. > > > > Is it worth getting download numbers for each of the 5 packages and > seeing > > what % of user base this change would effect currently? > > > > Will this additional download drive Java Developers away from Netbeans? > > > > Regards > > > > John > > > > > > [1]: https://netbeans.org/downloads/ <https://netbeans.org/downloads/> > > > > > On 7 Nov 2016, at 15:27, Geertjan Wielenga < > > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Shan Curcuru wrote: > > > > > > > > >> As a non-regular NetBeans user, I have a clarifying question from a > > >> *newcomers* perspective that I think will help on the "ASF code means > no > > >> licensing surprises" side. > > > > > > > > > 1- Yes. Assuming we resolve other issues that are going to be coming > up, > > > i.e., nb-javac is the current hurdle we're focusing on, though there > are > > > smaller ones to follow unrelated to this specific legal issue that > we're > > > now focused on. [See > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/ > > Overview%3A+NetBeans+Structure > > > to predict upcoming legal discussions.] > > > > > > 2- Yes. > > > > > > 3- Yes. > > > > > > 4- Yes. > > > > > > Thanks, and I agree, what we're doing is in sync with the "ASF code > means > > > no licensing surprises" side. > > > > > > Gj > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> > > wrote: > > > > > >> On 2016-11-06 15:01 (-0500), Geertjan Wielenga > > >> <geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at > 4:59 > > >> PM, Ate Douma wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Geertjan and others already clarified and are documenting the > > >> modularity of > > >>>> NetBeans [2], with the core NetBeans platform being the only > required > > >> part. > > >>>> All other modules (or clusters) being optional. > > >>>> So many users might not need the NetBeans Java cluster. > > >> ...snip... > > >> > > >> As a non-regular NetBeans user, I have a clarifying question from a > > >> *newcomers* perspective that I think will help on the "ASF code means > no > > >> licensing surprises" side. > > >> > > >> 1- If I want a great IDE where I can edit my C, JavaScript, PHP, HTML > > >> and other non-Java code, and check it in, build it, etc. - can I > > >> download NetBeans (plus perhaps some other modules) where *all* of the > > >> source code I'm downloading is under a Category A license? > > >> > > >> > > >> 2- If I then want to use NetBeans to edit/build Java code, apparently > > >> (as a new user) I need this nb-javac module from somewhere else which > > >> lets NetBeans the product do "useful stuff" with Oracle's current > Java, > > >> correct? > > >> > > >> Java developers today would understand that Oracle's Java platform - > > >> which is widely known and used - has GPL related code in it, so they > > >> should not be surprised when they have to go download nb-javac from > > >> Oracle, nor should they be surprised when the sources for nb-javac are > > >> also licensed under the GPL. Does that make sense? > > >> > > >> > > >> 3- Java developers who want to use NetBeans + nb-javac to build their > > >> own Apache-licensed Java programs for redistribution would never need > to > > >> worry about the GPL, because it would be clear as a Java programmer > and > > >> regular IDE user that the license of the IDE I'm using to write/build > my > > >> code doesn't affect the license I can use on the code I'm writing in > > >> that IDE. Correct? > > >> > > >> > > >> If all three of those are "Yes", then I'm +1 for this solution and +1 > > >> for LEGAL-279. The separation between Apache licensed Netbeans as an > > >> IDE and the underlying tooling integration with the Java compiler > > >> tooling using GPL seems clear, and given any experienced Java > developer, > > >> they would not be surprised to see the licensing difference. > > >> > > >> > > >> 4- If I want to extend the editing features in NetBeans for Java code > > >> (which I think you call "Java cluster"?), can I use the Apache license > > >> for patches and redistribution of the NetBeans editor code that > displays > > >> the UI, syntax coloring, etc. elements? I.e. is the editor portion > > >> going to be all Apache, and it's just the compiler (when tooling > > >> integration sends code off to do bytecode) that is under GPL? > > >> > > >> - Shane > > >> > > > > >
