[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: JDK



On 08-Jul-99 norvierk@muohio.edu wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Christopher C Chimelis wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Thu, 8 Jul 1999 norvierk@muohio.edu wrote:
>> 
>> > I've tried Uncle George's binaries, but they're apparently built on
>> > redhat-5.0, and won't run on potato.
>> 
>> Have you tried the v1.2 binaries?  I haven't, so I'm curious.  Also, I'm
>> going to look into compiling the source on potato and see what goes...
> 
> 
> Yeah, those are the ones I tried.  I bet they'd even work if Uncle George
> upgraded to (and built them on) redhat-6.0.

Alas, I do not think this will occur.  If you hadn't already read the entire
threads relating to Uncle George's experiences (subjectively or objectively
considered) with the new JDK "commercial licensing," maybe you should.  It
was on the axp-list several weeks ago.  I'd love to have a fully working JDK
that's WORE: Sun apparently does not even wish to pay lip service to this any
longer.  George seems to have no intent to extend his license, nor good
reason to do so.  I'm hoping, like others, that the Cygnus effort will come
through... they are a group I certainly have more sympathy towards; they also
have on the clue train when it comes to archetectural differences.

(Sorry for what turned out to be a rant.  Back to your regularly scheduled
info-mining.  ;)


Reply to: