I'm sorry, but u appear to be angry
Calvin Austin wrote:
> Well you have totally missed that point, I was talking about choice of OS
> NT/Solaris/Linux for users, eg
I am aware of what I call "intel centrism". When some one says we ported to NT,
the intel part is always silent. When someone says linux, that intel part is also
silent. So whenever I hear of a great port, I ask "does it run on the alpha (
alpha/nt, alpha/linux )". The usual answer is, well, no. So to talk of OS without
architecture is an 'intel centrism'. to Say Nt/alpha, Nt/intel,
Linux/ppc,linux/intel,linux/alpha would be much clearer
>
> When you want to buy your next alpha chip machine from your compaq
> reseller do you want them to say.
>
> "Yes Mr Baeslack, we have a great deal for you, NT comes pre-installed
> and only costs $150. You want Linux?, oh we can't do that, not enough
> demand. No you cannot have a rebate for the pre-installed software"
I think u are a little outta date. Compaq appears to be on the way of dropping
Alpha/NT. I also got tired of asking various vendors what other packages are avail
that can run on the alpha . u just cant imagine how hard it is to get 'nt' device
drivers that will work on the alpha. Its exceedingly hard to obtain a copy of the
MSc++ on the open market. This is not ur fault, or problem.
BTW, u'll find the alpha resellers to be a little more realistic, and savy when it
comes to selling alpha computers. I (usually) find them more intellegent, than most
of the 'intel centric' vendors.
>
> I did forward your question to our legal department, posting to blackdown-linux
> won't make it go any faster. You can read the terms of the scsl license
> without accepting it, that answers some of your other questions in the
> meantime. Public aliases are not generally the place to discuss licenses
> and contracts terms, although I would suggest you read both licenses carefully.
Can I take this as some form of threat?
Cant understand Y it is posted to the "legal" department. Does the legal dept run
Sun ? shudda have been answerable by any executive.
Public places are the best places to talk, and to discuss things that affects
that public. It has in the past when it came to discussing the non-commercial
licenses. It has been a forum where one ( and all ) can discuss the document.
Other forums, that might be more appropriate, are closed to the general public. or
for licensee's eyes only.
For myself, there doesn't appear to be any reason to accept a license, where
one does not allow for the 'USE' of the port. For me the "USE" would be to have it
( the JDK ) distributable to the linux community.
gat
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
