> "Eric" == Eric Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eric> Am I stupid or are these things tricky?
dpkg -Bi --force-overwrite java2-common
--
Stephen
"So if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood."... "And
therefore?"... "A witch!"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
On Tuesday 28 May 2002 10:20 pm, Rick Lutowski wrote:
> Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > as you think. Users *are* installing add-ons for flash and other crap.
>
> Only the more technically savvy ones. The majority of users
> don't know what a plug-in is and/or couldn't care less. That's
> why any tec
Browsers have been stuck at 1.1.4 for years because MS is legally
constrained by Sun from implementing any Java spec past 1.1.4.
Unfortunately, this of course suits MS to a T - they'd have had to have
tried much harder to justify something with the scope of .NET if a
modern J2SE-compliant JVM w
Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
>
> Rick Lutowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why have browsers been stuck at 1.1 for years? Just a wild
> > guess, but might it have something to do with MS stopping Java
> > support with 1.1, and also controlling 80% of the browser market?
>
> It could also be becau
On Tuesday 28 May 2002 10:20 pm, Rick Lutowski wrote:
> Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > as you think. Users *are* installing add-ons for flash and other crap.
>
> Only the more technically savvy ones. The majority of users
> don't know what a plug-in is and/or couldn't care less. That's
> why any te
Browsers have been stuck at 1.1.4 for years because MS is legally
constrained by Sun from implementing any Java spec past 1.1.4.
Unfortunately, this of course suits MS to a T - they'd have had to have
tried much harder to justify something with the scope of .NET if a
modern J2SE-compliant JVM
Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
>
> Rick Lutowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why have browsers been stuck at 1.1 for years? Just a wild
> > guess, but might it have something to do with MS stopping Java
> > support with 1.1, and also controlling 80% of the browser market?
>
> It could also be beca
Rick Lutowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why have browsers been stuck at 1.1 for years? Just a wild
> guess, but might it have something to do with MS stopping Java
> support with 1.1, and also controlling 80% of the browser market?
It could also be because the perceived benefit for the user
sources.list:
deb ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/os/Linux/distr/debian/ unstable main
non-free contrib
deb-src ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/os/Linux/distr/debian/ unstable
main non-free contrib
deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/non-US main
contrib non-free
deb-src http://non-us.debian.org/deb
Rick Lutowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why have browsers been stuck at 1.1 for years? Just a wild
> guess, but might it have something to do with MS stopping Java
> support with 1.1, and also controlling 80% of the browser market?
It could also be because the perceived benefit for the use
sources.list:
deb ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/os/Linux/distr/debian/ unstable main
non-free contrib
deb-src ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/os/Linux/distr/debian/ unstable
main non-free contrib
deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/non-US main
contrib non-free
deb-src http://non-us.debian.org/de
11 matches
Mail list logo
