Re: [freenet-support] Re: [Freenet-list] Freenet: Kaffe (free software) compatibility: Was: R freesite
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] scriveva: =20 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 more important then that the mean Freenet developer think. It crashes in minutes on my machine. The developers have been somewhat nonresponsive, the bugs seem to be deep magick and the Project Leaders have determined that we don't need to spend money making Kaffe work wi= th Freenet. =20 This statement is very important; IMHO the Freenet Project=20 need an explicit position on that question. =20 Project Leaders, can we hear you ? =20 Releasing the main code under GPL is ineffective, if the .jar need proprietary software; in my understanding the use of the GPL licence is incorrect; I think in this case LGPL is the right type of licence. =20 Anyway, till Freenet remains in java, dropping the Kaffe compatibility IMHO is a fundamental mistake, both from the point of view of free software and from the security. =20 The only other way to solve this problem is IMU, to=20 release a C (or other freely compilable/runnable language) version =20 Totally agree with Marco: this shows my old sensation, Freenet is a good project but not its developer group :-( Yeah yeah whatever. We can release a C version, but that means no new features, no significant bugfixes and no speed improvements for a year. And we need you to fund me to the tune of $1,250/month for all that time. And finally it would be much easier to go to C++ and it would run on almost as many platforms. A year is probably an underestimate for C, since it'd have to be pretty much a complete reimplementation. AFAIK, Mattew, you are probably the only person in the world (if any) that understand the overall Freenet software architecture. Even oskar doesn't understand _all_ the code. Neither do I. Can you try to explain me why a software that run smootly in the stable version (552) on Kaffe 1.0.7, so desperately need other java features in the developement branch ? It is really impossible to find a trade off between new developement and the existing features of Kaffe ? Every time I have tried either branch on my particular machine under Kaffe (lots of different versions of Kaffe), it has fubar'd. What new vital feature need it ? It needs to work. Major bug fixes, some of them sadly pretty deep in Kaffe. I need just one good reason to change my mind. Thanks a lot for your patience . Ciao. Marco -- + il Progetto Freenet - segui il coniglio bianco+ * the Freenet Project - follow the white rabbit* * Marco A. Calamari[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.marcoc.it* * PGP RSA: ED84 3839 6C4D 3FFE 389F 209E 3128 5698 * + DSS/DH: 8F3E 5BAE 906F B416 9242 1C10 8661 24A9 BFCE 822B + -- Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Full time freenet hacker. http://freenetproject.org/ Freenet Distribution Node (temporary) at http://amphibian.dyndns.org:8889/3arPAuj7w-c/ ICTHUS. msg02863/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [freenet-support] Re: [Freenet-list] Freenet: Kaffe (free software) compatibility: Was: R freesite
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 more important then that the mean Freenet developer think. It crashes in minutes on my machine. The developers have been somewhat nonresponsive, the bugs seem to be deep magick and the Project Leaders have determined that we don't need to spend money making Kaffe work with Freenet. This statement is very important; IMHO the Freenet Project need an explicit position on that question. Project Leaders, can we hear you ? Releasing the main code under GPL is ineffective, if the .jar need proprietary software; in my understanding the use of the GPL licence is incorrect; I think in this case LGPL is the right type of licence. Anyway, till Freenet remains in java, dropping the Kaffe compatibility IMHO is a fundamental mistake, both from the point of view of free software and from the security. The only other way to solve this problem is IMU, to release a C (or other freely compilable/runnable language) version Totally agree with Marco: this shows my old sensation, Freenet is a good project but not its developer group :-( Yeah yeah whatever. We can release a C version, but that means no new features, no significant bugfixes and no speed improvements for a year. And we need you to fund me to the tune of $1,250/month for all that time. And finally it would be much easier to go to C++ and it would run on almost as many platforms. A year is probably an underestimate for C, since it'd have to be pretty much a complete reimplementation. -- Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Full time freenet hacker. http://freenetproject.org/ Freenet Distribution Node (temporary) at ICTHUS. msg02823/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [freenet-support] Re: [Freenet-list] Freenet: Kaffe (free software) compatibility: Was: R freesite
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 slow system; the memory profile and resource use of kaffe is far better respect sun jre. Take care of this compatibility; IMHO is more important then that the mean Freenet developer think. It crashes in minutes on my machine. The developers have been somewhat nonresponsive, the bugs seem to be deep magick and the Project Leaders have determined that we don't need to spend money making Kaffe work wi= th Freenet. =20 This statement is very important; IMHO the Freenet Project=20 need an explicit position on that question. =20 Project Leaders, can we hear you ? =20 Releasing the main code under GPL is ineffective, if the .jar need proprietary software; in my understanding the use of the GPL licence is incorrect; I think in this case LGPL is the right type of licence. =20 Anyway, till Freenet remains in java, dropping the Kaffe compatibility IMHO is a fundamental mistake, both from the point of view of free software and from the security. =20 The only other way to solve this problem is IMU, to=20 release a C (or other freely compilable/runnable language) version =20 Totally agree with Marco: this shows my old sensation, Freenet is a good project but not its developer group :-( Yeah yeah whatever. We can release a C version, but that means no new features, no significant bugfixes and no speed improvements for a year. And we need you to fund me to the tune of $1,250/month for all that time. And finally it would be much easier to go to C++ and it would run on almost as many platforms. A year is probably an underestimate for C, since it'd have to be pretty much a complete reimplementation. AFAIK, Mattew, you are probably the only person in the world (if any) that understand the overall Freenet software architecture. Can you try to explain me why a software that run smootly in the stable version (552) on Kaffe 1.0.7, so desperately need other java features in the developement branch ? It is really impossible to find a trade off between new developement and the existing features of Kaffe ? What new vital feature need it ? I need just one good reason to change my mind. Thanks a lot for your patience . Ciao. Marco -- + il Progetto Freenet - segui il coniglio bianco+ * the Freenet Project - follow the white rabbit* * Marco A. Calamari[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.marcoc.it* * PGP RSA: ED84 3839 6C4D 3FFE 389F 209E 3128 5698 * + DSS/DH: 8F3E 5BAE 906F B416 9242 1C10 8661 24A9 BFCE 822B + ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Re: [freenet-support] Re: [Freenet-list] Freenet: Kaffe (free software) compatibility: Was: R freesite
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 with it easily, and the owner of the copyright on the Kaffe code has apparently abandoned it. If the FreeNet Project wants to support a free Java product, GCJ is the proper product to support. GCJ (the GNU Compiler for Java) is under active development and has re-implemented a number of the more interesting Sun libraries, though there is still much to be done. It also has the advantage of producing code that runs considerably faster than Kaffe, and on par or better than Sun's latest JDK1.4. -- Jack D. Ripper, NORAD HQ, Cheyenne Mountain, CO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
