Re: [freenet-support] Re: [Freenet-list] Freenet: Kaffe (free software) compatibility: Was: R freesite

2003-02-07 Thread Matthew Toseland
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 09:02:19PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 18.46 06/02/03 +, you wrote: Re [freenet-support] Re [Free4.emsfile://D:\Mail\Attach\Re [freenet-support] Re [Free4.ems 0880.0002 On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:26:35PM -0800, AARG!Anonymous wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [freenet-support] Re: [Freenet-list] Freenet: Kaffe (free software) compatibility: Was: R freesite

2003-02-06 Thread Matthew Toseland
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:26:35PM -0800, AARG!Anonymous wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] scriveva: is happy to run on build 552; it is slow because run on a slow system; the memory profile and resource use of kaffe is far better respect sun jre. Take care of this compatibility; IMHO is

Re: [freenet-support] Re: [Freenet-list] Freenet: Kaffe (free software) compatibility: Was: R freesite

2003-02-06 Thread marcoc1
At 18.46 06/02/03 +, you wrote: Re [freenet-support] Re [Free4.emsfile://D:\Mail\Attach\Re [freenet-support] Re [Free4.ems 0880.0002 On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:26:35PM -0800, AARG!Anonymous wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] scriveva: =20 is happy to run on build 552; it is slow because run on a

Re: [freenet-support] Re: [Freenet-list] Freenet: Kaffe (free software) compatibility: Was: R freesite

2003-02-06 Thread Jack D. Ripper
On Thursday 06 February 2003 01:02 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is really impossible to find a trade off between new developement and the existing features of Kaffe ? Mostly a matter of Kaffe implementing such an ancient and limited version of Java that modern Java programmers can't deal