Re: Java app without X installed
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Robert Ritchy wrote: > Listen - as yet another newbie - don't screw things up for me. This list > has been EXTREMELY helpful to me and my work. The promptness and quality of > reponse from this list is unmatched. These "gurus" have taken a lot time to > give us a quality product and support for FREE! The purpose of these lists are for interested people to ask questions. Some questions are easily answerable by looking at the docs, and others are not so obvious or may reflect that someone has become confused about something and because of that may not realize that the docs answer their question. Whatever the case, there is no reason to have an attitude when "helping" someone. Thats the simple point. Mark
Re: Java app without X installed
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Steve Byrne wrote: > John Summerfield writes: > > On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Steve Byrne wrote: > > > > > > > > Aw, come on, man! RTFM! I covered this in great detail; you should take the > > > > Well I for one don't know which frigging document you're talking about. > > I guess README.linux *could* be named more obviously :-) RTFM means manpage -- a README file is not a manpage. Plus, isn't it conceivable that with so many docs, someone could miss something? Mark
glibc question
An offpoint but related question Does anyone know of an easy way to get the glibc source files installed? The latest version from gnu is 2.0.6 (btw, how can redhat have a later version that gnu itself...) and the latest srpm from redhat is version 2.0.7-13. I need the source files for debugging. Anyone know of a convenient way to get the right source installed without making everything get messed up? Thanks, Mark On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Jim Burmeister wrote: > Regarding upgrading glibc on Red Hat 5.0, Michael Sinz wrote: > > > Since you most resently fought with the problem, what is the best answer > > here? (Other than to fix the wording to recommend to update to a known > > working version of glibc. 2.0.7-19 seems to be a good one) > > It sounds like that's the best solution. Just put something in README.linux > that says something like: > > Users of Red Hat Linux 5.0 that have never upgraded their glibc packages > need to do so in order for the JDK to work properly. The version of > glibc that ships with Red Hat 5.0 has bugs that will cause segmentation > faults and other problems when using the JDK. Upgrading to the > glibc-2.0.7-19 package available at ftp.redhat.com is recommended. > > If desired, you can also mention the security and other fixes in the updated > glibc, in case you think people need more convicing that the upgrade is a > good idea. > > -Jim Burmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
Re: glibc question
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Michael Sinz wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:21:02 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > >An offpoint but related question Does anyone know of an easy > >way to get the glibc source files installed? The latest version > >from gnu is 2.0.6 (btw, how can redhat have a later version that > >gnu itself...) and the latest srpm from redhat is version 2.0.7-13. > > > >I need the source files for debugging. Anyone know of a convenient > >way to get the right source installed without making everything > >get messed up? > > Well, if you are RPM enabled, just install the SRPM. > Thanks for the reply. But here is the problem. The srpm is for version 2.0.7-13, not 2.0.7-19 which is what I currently have and I don't want to mess with the libs I have installed already. Is there a convenient way to install just the source files that anyone knows of. Is it just a matter of a couple of directories worth or is it a variety of directories which are involved? I don't know why the redhat rpm doesn't install the source files along with the libs? Perhaps I should remove the libs and install fresh 2.0.6 from gnu itself. Are there any problems with 2.0.6?? Am I getting into trouble here? Mark
Re: A Scenerio
On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, Michael Emmel wrote: > 5 years from now you walk up to a street corner and a guy in a dirty > coat approaches you. > He say hey man I've got all the sources for JDK 1.2 for sell. > > How much would you give him > > How much is 1.02 worth today... > > While reading this thread I realized that I do not know enough about the issues to make an informed opinion. There are probably others on this list like myself who could use a brief summary of the relevant issues. Perhaps someone could summarize them or point to a good resource. A few question I have are below. Also, if anyone knows of any good resources for learning more detail about these issues please let me know. 1) Is the source code necessary for any reliable port of the JDK to Linux? 2) Is Sun selective when licensing the source code? If so, what guidelines do they follow when determining who gets a license? 3) What general restrictions does the license place on the holders' porting efforts. 4) Does Sun's recent announcement regarding supporting Java on Linux mean in effect that they are willing to license the source to a certain development team or does it mean that Sun themselves will be doing the port? Thanks, Mark
java-linux
On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Bernd Kreimeier wrote: > > Admittedly, Sun publishes the specs (for now and on most > > components) but thats an odd concession when matching > > their specs does not give you something you can call Java. > > Gimme a break. Mesa has lived and grown within similar constraints > for years and is quite well - it can be called "an implementation > of the OpenGL API", it just can't be called "OpenGL". > > The key to any successfull "taillight Open Source" project > are public, complete specs. Mesa is built using the OpenGL > specs provided by SGI, and Sun seems to be willing to provide > the Java specs needed for Japhar/Classpath etc. One can always > ask for more, but one might rather ask Microsoft for specs > that'd help the Wine developers. > > Isn't there an "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" by now for these threads? > Are you suggesting that this thread doesn't belong or is not relevant to java-linux? I disagree. The more discussion on these topics, the better. Mark
servlets
Is anyone using servlets with Apache? What documentation is there? Thanks, Mark --
jar
Is anyone else experiencing trouble with jar? When I run jar -t jarfile.jar it just hangs... I've tried it on more than one jar file __m --
Re: for the record
On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Java News Collector wrote: > To all the good people who are working hard to grow java on linux; I, for > one, appreciate your efforts. In my opinion, you are underpaid! > > This recent barrage of criticism from new subscribers and wall flowers is > completely baseless. We need to make everyone aware that there is a 100% > money-back-guarantee. If you aren't completely satisfied, it won't cost > you a cent. > > Its also worth pointing out (again) that this list generates a lot of > traffic. It would be to the benefit of everyone involved to stay on the > topic. As much as I enjoy MS-bashing, we don't need to do it here. We > also don't need to discuss list management issues or badmouth people who > haven't yet got it all figured out. > > I'd like to call a cease-fire and get back to coding, please. If you must > reply to this, please reply to me directly. > > Thank you. I am sorry for adding to the pollution. > > Douglas Toltzman > > I benefit from almost all the posts to this list and have found very few of the posts "off topic". Mark
Good article
"Sun to open up its Java standards process" http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG19981207S0033 Mark
