Hi Seth,
I think HURD has potential from the fact that it is an operating
system rather than a language. Implementation of the java 2.0 specs may
not be constrained by sun's license, although I'm not sure.
Jim
Seth R Arnold wrote:
>
> John, there is one point you raised I am not sure I agree
Hi John,
I've been following debian-hurd myself the last few months. If you
could send some URLs, other than the usual hurd ones, on the hurd
architecture(translators,etc) and perhaps detail your thoughts on a HURD
VM (eg cross-platform, structure, etc), I would be very interested.
Jim
John Fo
> Java is being taught in many schools, mine included, as the default
>
> Some very nice points, but I doubt the hurd will be able to serve as the
> magic bullet.
>
> comments?
Java the language (sans all the added classes) might well be
implemented using a different VM. The school does not car
John, there is one point you raised I am not sure I agree with:
> 8. A HURD VM is possible due to the nature of its message passing system
> and would be the most reasonable course to pursue for the development of
> portable software. This course would basically make Java obsolete, and
> would all
I have been watching this thread for some time and feel that some
reality is in order for anyone interested in this subject.
My 2 cents worth:
1. Sun and all other commercial ventures exist solely for the purpose of
making money. They will sometimes do some things that seem to be for the
"good of
Ean R . Schuessler writes:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:05:19PM -0700, Cris J. Holdorph wrote:
> > This has been discussed before. I have pointed out that you do NOT need to
> > sign the SCSL to purchase a book that describes the specification of the
> > JVM
> > and the Java 2 class librarie
Ean R . Schuessler writes:
> With the SCSL it is NOT POSSIBLE to produce a free implementation
Here's a quote I posted on the Kaffe list a while ago:
--- snip -
Tim Wilkinson writes:
> Also, has anyone got a legal opinion of using the 1.2 spec
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 12:55:21PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 09:30:44AM -0700, Cris J. Holdorph wrote:
> > Ean R . Schuessler Writes:
> > > Now, maybe you can show me a way of getting specs from Sun that would
> > > waive
> > > you of this liability, but I don't kn
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:25:52PM -0700, Cris J. Holdorph wrote:
> Seth R Arnold Writes:
> > Chris, could you go into more detail why? I think the effort will be great,
> > and the returns might be small. (I am not sure it is worth it...)
> >
> > But, I think you are reading the idea of 'fork' in
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 09:30:44AM -0700, Cris J. Holdorph wrote:
> Ean R . Schuessler Writes:
> > Now, maybe you can show me a way of getting specs from Sun that would waive
> > you of this liability, but I don't know where.
>
> For the Java language (e.g., .java -> .class files)
>
> http://java
Ean R . Schuessler Writes:
> Now, maybe you can show me a way of getting specs from Sun that would waive
> you of this liability, but I don't know where.
For the Java language (e.g., .java -> .class files)
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/index.html
provides links to the
copyright
http://java
On Tuesday 14 September 1999, at 23 h 11, the keyboard of Julio
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can a virtual package have a version (to be set by a 'real' package that
> implements it)? If so, it'd be useful to have java-virtual-machine packages
> to set their jdk-compliance versions (1.0, 1.1, 1
Ean R . Schuessler writes:
> It is now clear to me that Sun is engaging in one of the most
> effective attempts to hijack the tenets of the free software movement
> to date.
Agreed. It is a logical progression of their 1995 marketing
strategy, which has been extraordinarily successful in
drawin
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Seth R Arnold wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 11:24:35PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 11:11:43PM -0300, Julio wrote:
> > > Can a virtual package have a version (to be set by a 'real' package that
> > > implements it)? If so, it'd be useful to
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:05:19PM -0700, Cris J. Holdorph wrote:
> This has been discussed before. I have pointed out that you do NOT need to
> sign the SCSL to purchase a book that describes the specification of the JVM
> and the Java 2 class libraries. It *IS* possible to fully implement these
Seth R Arnold Writes:
> how would you feel if instead of forking java like that, he meant forking
> the jdk? (For the sake of argument, if nothing else. :)
I consider the blackdown port it's own kind of fork of the jdk. So, in
essence I would probably support a fork of the jdk. But I don't under
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:25:52PM -0700, Cris J. Holdorph wrote:
> Seth R Arnold Writes:
> After re-reading his message, he did not state what the "fork" would be.
> So, he would have to provide clarification himself.
Fair enough. :)
> But I thought, his idea was, "because Java 2 is under SCSL .
Seth R Arnold Writes:
> Chris, could you go into more detail why? I think the effort will be great,
> and the returns might be small. (I am not sure it is worth it...)
>
> But, I think you are reading the idea of 'fork' incorrectly. It could be
> that I am also incorrectly interpreting it... The w
> I would also think the new standards group they went
> to (I forget the name) is going to accept their proposal to standardize
> Java if the JVM/Java class libraries spec is *ONLY* available under the
> SCSL.
I meant... "I also do NOT think the new standards group would accept"
Sorry for any
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 09:30:23PM -0700, Cris J. Holdorph wrote:
> Ean R . Schuessler Writes:
> > So, what can we do about it? I have been giving the subject some small
> > amount of thought and have been having conversations with Tim
> > Wilkinson (Kaffe) for almost a year now. My opinion is that
Ean R . Schuessler Writes:
> produce a free implementation of the published specs. The SCSL does NOT
> ALLOW IT.
>
> According to the SCSL, an implementation of specifications published
> under the SCSL is considered a _derivative_work_ and is still covered
> by the terms of the SCSL. The SCSL sta
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 11:24:35PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 11:11:43PM -0300, Julio wrote:
> > Can a virtual package have a version (to be set by a 'real' package that
> > implements it)? If so, it'd be useful to have java-virtual-machine packages
> > to set thei
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 09:30:23PM -0700, Cris J. Holdorph wrote:
> If this ever happens, I will no longer support Debian or SPI, and I will
> try to use other alternatives.
>
> I thoroughly disagree that even a "minimal" fork is good for Java.
> I encourage and applaud those doing free implementa
Ean R . Schuessler Writes:
> So, what can we do about it? I have been giving the subject some small
> amount of thought and have been having conversations with Tim
> Wilkinson (Kaffe) for almost a year now. My opinion is that the only
> reasonable response is a large scale, highly organized, optima
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 11:11:43PM -0300, Julio wrote:
> Can a virtual package have a version (to be set by a 'real' package that
> implements it)? If so, it'd be useful to have java-virtual-machine packages
> to set their jdk-compliance versions (1.0, 1.1, 1.2) when installing (or
> being set b
Can a virtual package have a version (to be set by a 'real' package that
implements it)? If so, it'd be useful to have java-virtual-machine packages to
set their jdk-compliance versions (1.0, 1.1, 1.2) when installing (or being set
by update-alternatives), since it's better to bind some packages
26 matches
Mail list logo
