The core of JavaFX is very portable and has always run on Linux and Solaris. This is to be expected since it's built on the Java platform. What is not as portable are things which touch the native layer like video playback, shaped windows, and hardware acceleration. I wish we had shipped Linux & Solaris with Windows and Mac in December but it simply wasn't ready and we didn't want to delay JavaFX any more than we already had. Rest assured Linux & Solaris have always been a part of our release plan, and have always been in our continuous build system. They are close to being ready and we hope to have something for you very soon.
- Josh On May 6, 2009, at 11:56 AM, Jess Holle wrote: > But doesn't it work fine on both platforms except for some video > codecs, etc? > > That says nothing about the overall technology set but rather about > the lack of portability of a handful of bits. > > Paul Hardin wrote: >> >> As a Java developer it does strike me that there is something deeply >> wrong with JavaFX if, 5 months after release to production, and, >> after >> releasing a second revision, the development team is unable to make >> it >> work on Linux and OpenSolaris. >> >> Right or wrong, it makes Ed's comments about finding it to be >> difficult to use resonate. I am thinking, "Why is this architecture >> so >> difficult to make work on open systems?" >> >> There is also the, seemingly, somewhat derisive and sneering chorus >> of, "Oh, come on, just rip open the release for XYZ platform, tape >> the >> pieces back together in a semi-functional manner, on your open >> system, >> and quit whining", from some quarters and the loud cricket noises >> from >> Sun and the development team regarding JDK releases on open >> platforms. >> >> Add all this together and I am just failing to find a lot of >> enthusiasm for JavaFX. Sadly, this has little or nothing to do with >> the relative technical merits of JavaFX itself. >> >> Paul >> >> On May 6, 10:46 am, kirk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Joshua Marinacci wrote: >>> >>>> You can join apple's free developer program to get the latest >>>> releases >>>> of Java. They recently posted a developer preview of something more >>>> recent than update 7. >>>> >>> _13 and it works very well >>> >>> Kirk >>> >>> >>>> On May 6, 2009, at 7:45 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote: >>>> >>>>> Summary of OP: >>>>> >>>>> I looked at it, it sucked. I won't tell you why; instead I'll just >>>>> whinge, because I'm a non-contributing zero. >>>>> >>>>> Ed, post some constructive criticism, or go away. >>>>> >>>>> NB: Michael, Gladwell is a gifted author, a real yarnspinner, >>>>> but you >>>>> shouldn't quote him with the presumption that his delusional >>>>> ranting >>>>> has any basis in fact, at least, not in polite company. However, >>>>> in >>>>> the vein of completing the argument in a proposed faulty logic >>>>> frame >>>>> being just as effective as proving the logic is false in the first >>>>> place: People who have actually used JavaFX almost never >>>>> complain. If >>>>> you follow the posse, or read anything about java at all, you'd >>>>> know >>>>> that the update to get is 6u10, which you didn't have. No wonder >>>>> stuff >>>>> isn't working quite as well as it should; the fact that it does >>>>> work >>>>> in the first place is a small miracle. >>>>> >>>>> Joshua, do you know when apple will roll out something with the >>>>> flavour of 6u10 across all macs? My mac is still on 1.6.0_07- >>>>> b06-153. >>>>> Could be because I've been downloading releases from >>>>> developer.apple.com. >>>>> >>>>> On May 6, 3:13 am, Ed <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Why is JavaFX such an extreme departure from Java? At least >>>>>> Flex has >>>>>> ActionScript and MXML--something that anyone reading this list >>>>>> can >>>>>> figure out without having to look up and strain to grok. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am trying, really trying, to get into JavaFX but I just cannot >>>>>> tolerate it's ugliness. JavaFX has to be the single most >>>>>> unintuitive >>>>>> language to come out since COBOL. I mean really...can you be >>>>>> serious? >>>>>> >>>>>> I know that on one of the recent podcasts the posse was in >>>>>> agreement >>>>>> that JavaFX was going to be the future of desktop Java but I >>>>>> respectfully disagree. There is just no possible way any sizable >>>>>> group of critical mass will ever adopt JavaFX. As with any >>>>>> technology, there will be 'pockets of users' but the whole >>>>>> reason we >>>>>> came over to Java from C++ was for the elegance and safety of >>>>>> Java. >>>>>> The write once redevelop everywhere fantasy has been painful >>>>>> for the >>>>>> past 15 years; Java is just now coming of age where we can >>>>>> actually >>>>>> write something once and get the rest for free. Why did Sun, now >>>>>> Oracle, ever let JavaFX out of the lab? >>>>>> >>>>>> JavaFX will do more harm than good for Java; the most JavaFX >>>>>> will do >>>>>> is make people consider Flex, and or Silverlight all that much >>>>>> more. >>>>>> >>>>>> What's so wrong with Swing anyway, why can't we just rev Swing >>>>>> and >>>>>> Java3D? >>>>>> >>>>>> I can see Groovy (or substitute your favorite JVM language Scala, >>>>>> Clojure...etc here) breaking out with an elegant/terse wrapper >>>>>> around >>>>>> the Swing, Java2D, Java3D primitives long...long before JavaFX >>>>>> ever >>>>>> gets past the demo experiment that it is. Oracle should bury >>>>>> JavaFX >>>>>> as fast as it can. >>>>>> >>>>>> That said the JavaFX 'rendering engine' is awesome. Just >>>>>> awesome. >>>>>> If >>>>>> you haven't yet tried it you are missing something truly great. >>>>>> Oracle should roll the JavaFX engine into a standard Java7 >>>>>> library. I >>>>>> think JavaFX is the right idea it just needs (come on guys) a >>>>>> realistic scripting language behind it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I know I have been hard on JavaFX, I have I hopes for the >>>>>> future of >>>>>> Java and I strongly believe Java needs something like JavaFX >>>>>> going >>>>>> forward. Great job to those who worked on JavaFX--as a >>>>>> developer I >>>>>> know how much work it must have taken--it was a necessary first >>>>>> step >>>>>> in a much needed direction. >>>>>> >>>>>> Overall I give JavaFX a 'B-' >>>>>> >>>>>> - >>>>>> ed >>>>>> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
