"Sun announced several course corrections today. For one thing, the company will
remove licensing and royalty payments for the desktop version of the software,
Java 2 Standard Edition, beginning Jan. 31."
gee, maybe i'll be back in the alpha/linux porting business again.
gat
Scott Murray wrote:
Fools fighting over scraps while the m$ buzzards eat caviar
Jacob Nikom wrote:
> I still cannot completely agree with Brian - credit not
> "should be given", but must be given. If you work for the
> company and you patented something, the company owns the
> patent, but you still own your name on
I still cannot completely agree with Brian - credit not
"should be given", but must be given. If you work for the
company and you patented something, the company owns the
patent, but you still own your name on the patent. Company
cannot change it, otherwise the patent will be invalidated.
Sun
> Paolo Ciccone writes:
Paolo> example. JBuilder has Emacs emulation, with the standard
Paolo> Swing of 1.2.2 if you press Alt-d or Ctrl-space Swing will
Paolo> pass also the "d" or the blank in the editor. While the
Paolo> event is processed correctly the extra character is
I've tried to stay out of this thread as much as I could; but since Paolo
is going to take this back to the "big picture" I'd like to take a second
here and say something, 'cause I perfer the big picture to the pissing wars
this could become (but thankfully hasn't yet (think "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux"
On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 12:07:07AM -0500, Nelson Minar wrote:
> I think we can all work together on this. A lot of us in the Linux
> community are annoyed and mystified by Sun's years-long snubbing of
> Linux in the Java world. It honestly makes no sense. The press release
> that came out today di
I think we can all work together on this. A lot of us in the Linux
community are annoyed and mystified by Sun's years-long snubbing of
Linux in the Java world. It honestly makes no sense. The press release
that came out today did no good, either, ignoring the Blackdown
contribution entirely. But I
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 08:37:11PM -0500, Scott Murray wrote:
> I don't really mean to be a bastard here, but here's an excerpt from one
> of your postings to this list earlier today:
>
> The Sun/Inprise port is not the same of Blackdown's, that's why the release
> number is different. The Su
>
> I think it is the drawback of the "Open Source" model. Technically,
> you can take any code and release it as yours after few changes.
>
Technically, this has nothing to do with the "Open Source" model.
Sun's JDK, the community license, or the blackdown port have little
in common with open
On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Scott Murray wrote:
[snip]
> What were we supposed to think? As well, I've read three different press
> articles on this today, and none of them contained the word "Blackdown".
> If Inprise/Sun wanted to give credit to the Blackdown team for providing
> a base for their furthe
On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Paolo Ciccone wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 04:39:07PM -0500, Derek Glidden wrote:
[snip]
> > It looks like either someone at Inprise or at Sun isn't playing fair.
>
> We actually are. We didn't say that this is a clean port, in fact we
> are giving credit to Blackdown for
On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 01:03:25AM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
>
> Early effort... Come on.
>
> Getting the VM running is the major part of the port. The step from
> 1.2 to 1.2.2 is so small that it nearly doesn't effect the port at
> all.
Well, you're free to think in this way but we had
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 06:28:29PM -0500, Jacob Nikom wrote:
> But it does matter how it was claimed. If the work was done by
> Inprise it is one thing, if it is only relabeling of Blackdown
> code, it is another.
yes, that would be plain and simple theft. We didn't "relabelled"
Blackdown JDK, wh
> Paolo Ciccone writes:
Paolo> We actually are. We didn't say that this is a clean port,
Paolo> in fact we are giving credit to Blackdown for the
Paolo> port. This has been done with the press at the Java Expo in
Paolo> New York and I personally posted here and on /. about ou
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 04:39:07PM -0500, Derek Glidden wrote:
> Paolo Ciccone wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 03:47:23PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I though the current 1.2.2 rc was 3, not 1? Have Sun picked up an older copy
> > > to release on their site?
> >
> > The Sun/Inpr
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 06:28:29PM -0500, Jacob Nikom wrote:
> But it does matter how it was claimed. If the work was done by
> Inprise it is one thing, if it is only relabeling of Blackdown
> code, it is another.
I was speaking from a legal standpoint. According to Sun's brain-dead
license, the
But it does matter how it was claimed. If the work was done by
Inprise it is one thing, if it is only relabeling of Blackdown
code, it is another.
This is the text:
"Inprise and Sun Microsystems have taken a big step toward
maintaining open, standards-based network computing architectures
that u
Brian Pomerantz wrote:
> It doesn't matter who did the work on it. Sun owns the rights to
> any work done to their JDK. When the Blackdown group sends patches
> back to Sun, Sun can do with those patches what they want, including
> give them to Inprise to do their own work.
Legally speaking, yo
Paolo Ciccone wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 12:31:28PM -0500, Scott Murray wrote:
> > Without native threads support, this release is IMO useless for running
> > any kind of serious Java applications on Linux.
>
> I disagree, we have a couple of very big applications running under this
> JDK,
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 04:39:07PM -0500, Derek Glidden wrote:
>
> Not to dis you or your company's efforts, but if this is actually a
> "clean" implementation of the JDK straight from Sun sources and never
> having touched the Blackdown code, then I find the contents of
> jdk1.2.2/jre/README.lin
Paolo Ciccone wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 03:47:23PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I though the current 1.2.2 rc was 3, not 1? Have Sun picked up an older copy
> > to release on their site?
>
> The Sun/Inprise port is not the same of Blackdown's, that's why the release
> number is d
Doug Robinson wrote:
| All of this interesting stuff but what about PPC &
| sparc-linux & alpha & all that?
As I've mentioned earlier, a Compaq-representative (former Digital)
announced first half of November that a jdk1.2-port is scheduled for
late Q4 (which really means: christmas-pre
>> Without native threads support, this release is IMO useless for running
>> any kind of serious Java applications on Linux.
>Realistically, I'm sure it's just a matter of time.
I suspect they'll get native threads out soon, too. I also expect
they'll end up needing to communicate some with the
A serious Java app "must" have native threads if:
a) It must use SMP (and the box it's running on has it),
b) It wasn't written well to deal with all threading models (for example,
non-preemptive threads) found under Java.
Since all serious applications are well written :-), perhaps Scott's
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 07:18:08PM +0100, Peter Schuller wrote:
> > running the Linux kernel v 2.2.5 and GLibC v 2.1, 32 megabytes RAM
>
> Why on earth would it only support 2.2.5? Why not any 2.2.x kernel?
> Is there any difference that is significant for a JDK?
>
> I'm downloading it anyway
Hi
All of this interesting stuff but what about PPC &
sparc-linux & alpha & all that?
dkr
--
The Office of Doug Robinson.These types are not "abstract"; they are as
[EMAIL PROTECTED]real as int and float. - Doug McIlroy
---
I've now run the matrix bench over all hot VM's:
BlackdownJDK1.2.2RC3, SunInpriceJDK1.2.2RC1, IBMJDK1.1.8,
BlackdownJDK1.2PreV2, all running RedHat 6.1 on the same machine, a
PentiumIII@600 MHz
Results are here:
http://nicewww.cern.ch/~hoschek/colt/V1.0Beta4/doc/cern/colt/matrix/doc-files/Perform
Hi
> Without native threads support, this release is IMO useless for running
> any kind of serious Java applications on Linux.
Realistically, I'm sure it's just a matter of time.
> While I will admit that I myself have been sometimes frustrated by the
> speed of the Blackdown porting team, they
> running the Linux kernel v 2.2.5 and GLibC v 2.1, 32 megabytes RAM
Why on earth would it only support 2.2.5? Why not any 2.2.x kernel?
Is there any difference that is significant for a JDK?
I'm downloading it anyway to see if it works on 2.2.13...
--
/ Peter Schuller
PGP userID: 0x5584BD
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 12:31:28PM -0500, Scott Murray wrote:
> Without native threads support, this release is IMO useless for running
> any kind of serious Java applications on Linux.
I disagree, we have a couple of very big applications running under this
JDK, including JBuilder, and the perfo
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 03:47:23PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I though the current 1.2.2 rc was 3, not 1? Have Sun picked up an older copy
> to release on their site?
Sun's isn't a copy, it's a competitor -- a version developed by Inprise.
To quote from the product page for that version:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nelson Minar) writes:
> Looking at the output of the Blackdown team in the past six months I
> think it's fairly clear why Sun is looking elsewhere.
>
> I really don't want to be too critical of Blackdown. They've done a
> lot of really good work in a very difficult envir
On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Paolo Ciccone wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 09:19:28AM -0500, Scott Murray wrote:
> > I'm praying that the Blackdown team continues it's work if this is what Sun
> > consider a useful release. I'm really curious as to why the hell Sun and
> > Inprise went off on their own
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 06:15:14PM +0100, Robb Shecter wrote:
> Paolo Ciccone wrote:
>
> > ... this version
> > includes JPDA and several Swing bugs that we found ...
>
> Do you mean "bug fixes?"
Yeah, I still have to get my first coffe :).
--
Paolo
-
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 03:47:23PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I though the current 1.2.2 rc was 3, not 1? Have Sun picked up an older copy
> to release on their site?
The Sun/Inprise port is not the same of Blackdown's, that's why the release
number is different. The Sun/Inprise port is a
Paolo Ciccone wrote:
> ... this version
> includes JPDA and several Swing bugs that we found ...
Do you mean "bug fixes?"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL P
I wrote directly to Sun about it (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
attached below). I'll try to post the results of both JDK 1.2.2 ports
-- what I thought was Blackdown *and* Sun, and the new port from Sun --
to the Volano Report today or tomorrow.
John Neffenger
John Neffenger wrote:
>
> Dear Sun,
>
Scott Murray wrote:
> I though the current 1.2.2 rc was 3, not 1? Have Sun picked up an older copy
> to release on their site?
They appear to be two different projects now - Sun/Inprise announcing
today their RC1 and Blackdown their RC3.
It would be nice to have a comment from Blackdown as to e
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 09:19:28AM -0500, Scott Murray wrote:
> I'm praying that the Blackdown team continues it's work if this is what Sun
> consider a useful release. I'm really curious as to why the hell Sun and
> Inprise went off on their own when the Blackdown port is available...
Besides e
>I'm praying that the Blackdown team continues it's work if this is
>what Sun consider a useful release. I'm really curious as to why the
>hell Sun and Inprise went off on their own when the Blackdown port is
>available...
Looking at the output of the Blackdown team in the past six months I
think
I though the current 1.2.2 rc was 3, not 1? Have Sun picked up an older copy
to release on their site?
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 09:19:28AM -0500, Scott Murray wrote:
> Check out:
>
> http://www.newsalert.com/bin/story?StoryId=CoeYuubWbu0zuvteXmW
>
> Their J2SE 1.2.2 RC1 is available at:
>
>
sage -
From: Scott Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 9:19 PM
Subject: Sun and Inprise Java 2 announcement
> Check out:
>
> http://www.newsalert.com/bin/story?StoryId=CoeYuubWbu0zuvteXmW
>
> Their J2SE 1.2.
Check out:
http://www.newsalert.com/bin/story?StoryId=CoeYuubWbu0zuvteXmW
Their J2SE 1.2.2 RC1 is available at:
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/earlyAccess/j2sdk122/
and here's their "System Requirements":
This version of the Java 2 SDK is supported on Intel Pentium platform
runni
43 matches
Mail list logo
