> 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 exce
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 s
Uncle George wrote:
>
> u really r stupid.
No, actually, I'm not.
> The topic was porting issues, and ur notion that the .java jdk/source code cannot be
>altered to fit the port. Do i really need to say more.
> gat
I only said the platform-independent portions of the jdk source code
cannot
The original statement I made was 1) source for free, 2) JCK not so free, and 3)
distribution not so free.
the issue with the majority of ur correspondence, was ur inability to understand
that u cannot do a port if ur not allowed to modify the '.java' source code. U
apparently misled some folks
Calvin Austin wrote:
> I would just like to set some facts straight.
>
> 1. Anyone can get the full java 2 source for research, evaluation and
> internal use (which roughly equates to the previous non-commerical license
> before). You couldn't get the full source without this license before
> Jav
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:19:13 -0700 (PDT), Calvin Austin wrote:
>
>I would just like to set some facts straight.
>
>1. Anyone can get the full java 2 source for research, evaluation and
>internal use (which roughly equates to the previous non-commerical license
>before). You couldn't get the full
TED]>
> CC: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [off-topic] stop bashing!
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Please return a long/64 bits Window address. Lemme know what gets stored in in the
java int valiable "lets_store_a_32_bit_address", which has the capacity to store 32
bits. I'm sorry, I thought a fairly simply program sample would demonstrate it best.
While ur pondering this porting delima, may
I'd much perfer that you private porting club become public. Ur hiding behind
the NDA, just makes u appear to be in the marketeering pockets os SUN. This
can be exemplified by the way that the JDK 1.2 release announcement was made
by SUN before any announcements on the normal channels at blackdow
On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:01:05 -0400, Uncle George wrote:
>1) I am not a member of java-linux-porting@blackdown. They are a private
> porting club.
You have been invited to be part of the effort. The "private" part
comes from the fact that we had to sign NDA/Contracts so that we could
start wor
Jeff Galyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And your point is...?
That you're an asshole with a long signature
--
Jan-Henrik Haukeland
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Con
Uncle George wrote:
>
> 1) I am not a member of java-linux-porting@blackdown. They are a private porting
>club.
Then you should be talking to Sun, not java-linux.
> 2) I have been porting the Javasoft's non-commercial JDK source for a number of
>years.. But just for for alpha/linux.
And your
1) I am not a member of java-linux-porting@blackdown. They are a private porting club.
2) I have been porting the Javasoft's non-commercial JDK source for a number of
years.. But just for for alpha/linux.
3) I have also been a member of java-linux@blackdown for a number of years.
4) the change o
Uncle George wrote:
>
>
> Tell me, did Microsoft alter the published core API to suit their own
> sensibilities? I dont know, as I didnt pay much attention. Or did they just
> manipulate the back-end services.
>
As a matter of fact, they did. This is why Sun sued them - they created
something
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> But eventually someone is gonna want to try to build a >4gig file ( >
> 32bit seeks ) on the alpha/linux box.
As file offsets/lengths are specified as 64bits in
java.io.{File,RandomAccessFile}, that shouldn't be a problem. Downloading a
200Gig file to a DOS filesyste
The distance between the core published API and the actual layer at which
system services requests are made, is very far. The is a set of .java routines
that just dont get changed, and are common between win&solaris machines. Then
there is a set of '.java' routines, that are particular to windoz,
Actually i pay attention quite well, and observe quite well. The example(s) that i
have presented to u dont seem to impress u at all. I am very sorry for u.
Can I presume that u havent looked at the diffs provided by the java-linux-porting
folks. I guess u'd be perplexed with the modest '.ja
> Cees de Groot writes:
Cees> Uncle George:
>> Actually u do have to change the '.java' files ( simply for
>> practicable convience ). Having extensive experience in porting
>> sun's JDK, I find it rather difficult to store 64bits into a
>> 32bit java int. Maybe u can rev
Uncle George:
>Actually u do have to change the '.java' files ( simply for practicable
>convience ). Having extensive experience in porting sun's JDK, I find
>it rather difficult to store 64bits into a 32bit java int. Maybe u can
>review the java-linux-porting diffs of their 1.2 port. I'd like
Jeff Galyan wrote:
> Actually, you don't need to modify the .java files, and in fact, modifying the .java
>files is strictly prohibited in the license (as such modifications could potentially
>be misconstrued by the licensee as permission to change the apis). The license does
>permit personal
Actually, you don't need to modify the .java files, and in fact, modifying the .java
files is strictly prohibited in the license (as such modifications could potentially
be misconstrued by the licensee as permission to change the apis). The license does
permit personal use of your own port. If
Thanks,
I Think that u will find that 'any' distribution, and completed port now is
considered commercial, therefor not for free ( i believe this extends even to
yourself, for personel uses ). The Non-Commercial licenses appears to have bitten the
dust when this OPENNESS was made.
A proper p
No, I think you're the one who's confused. The license *you* are
referring to is the SCSL - the source license for the VM. I'm referring
to the license agreement which accompanies the *add-on* libraries -
Java3D, Swing, etc.
--Jeff
Uncle George wrote:
>
> I think u need to reread the "open so
You mentioned earlier that you had jdk 1.1.8 non-commercial port. We will
check out what is happening with the Java 2 version. (myself or Anand)
although with Javaone here it make take a week or so to get an answer
regards
calvin
>Therefor for the Alpha/Linux platform I would like:
>1) The JCK
Therefor for the Alpha/Linux platform I would like:
1) The JCK for free for this port
2) distributions for free for this port.
gat
Calvin Austin wrote:
> For all other platforms you are correct. For Linux and the Blackdown port.
>
> 1) source is free
> 2) JCK is free for that port
> 3) distribu
I think u need to reread the "open source" licensing requirements. They appear to be
"commercial" in nature, and monetary in fact. Please extract the particular places
from the licenses which states quite clearly that "non-commercial", if there is such a
thing anymore, distribution & use is still
Your comments assume a desire to distribute the JDK itself. There are no
restrictions or fees for distributing the software you develop, nor are
you restricted from distributing the *binaries* of add-on libraries you
get from Sun (there may be some exceptions on redistributing binary jars
of class
--- Calvin Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Louis-David I will show you the code! Hop on over to
>
>
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/products/java2cs
>
> you can get all the Java 2 source code for no fee.
Ah, but what is your definition of free? Here is my
example. I was doing a litt
For all other platforms you are correct. For Linux and the Blackdown port.
1) source is free
2) JCK is free for that port
3) distribution is free for that port.
This is a stepping stone to where Linux can go with Java. I personally
want mozilla with a Java 2 VM on Linux. We can get there with th
I think ur notion is somewhat short sighted:
1) The source -> free,
2) The Jck -> No so free ( exceeding bogus claim that ur not smart enough to run
the tests, but ur smart enough to port it, which porting, u seem to admit it , is
a difficult task )
3) Distribution -> Not so free.
4) so wheres t
Louis-David I will show you the code! Hop on over to
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/products/java2cs
you can get all the Java 2 source code for no fee. Then make a trip
to blackdown.org, you can get Java 2 releases. blackdown has the diffs
that I will be linking to make a Java 2 linux s
31 matches
Mail list logo
