Re: Quitting debian-java
I'm guessing this guy is one of those who thinks the only thing that can
be done with Java is a Web application (which, presumably, makes heavy use
of java.security.*). I think we should come up with a name for people like
that. Dot-communists? Dot-com-a-holics? Dot-com-iacs?
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GCS/CM>CC/IT d- s:+ a16 C++(++++)>$ UL++++>$ P--- L++>++$ E+ W+(-) N+ o? K? w---()
!O !M !V PS+(++)>+ PE-(--) Y+>+ PGP t+>++ !5 X-- R>++ tv(+) b+(++) DI(+) D++
G>+++ e--> h! !r y>+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
On 1 Mar 2001, Per Bothner wrote:
> Alan KF LAU <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Just for everybody's information. kaffe is in fact developed under a contract to Microsoft, please see http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,20225,00.html
> This quite misleading. As far as I know, the Microsoft contract
> referred to has only funded a very small part of Kaffe. (I have had
> contact with Tim Wilkinson and Kaffe since before there was a
> Transvirtual, and in fact was involved in some early of funding of
> Kaffe, when I worked at Cygnus .)
> > Also one of the very annoying thing in kaffe bother me much is that it has not implemented java.security. It is a mistake or an intention to make Java insecure?
> > See http://www.kaffe.org/cgi-bin/kaffe/security?user=guest;addsignature=1
> > How could one build a serious application without java.security?
> You are being deliberately provocative. Of course one can build a
> serious application without java.security. One can even build a
> secure application without it, though java.security gives you better
> control. A compiler, a word-processor, an editor, or any single-user
> application should not to deal with security concerns.
> --Per Bothner
> email@example.com http://www.bothner.com/~per/
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com