> As for your original question, jdk 1.1 is obsolete and buggy (well,
> at least the bugs and other limitations are fairly well-known by now).
> jdk 1.3 is fairly current, and the Blackdown folks provide
> apt-gettable packages. If you want 1.4, Sun is (currently) the sole
> provider. Oh, yeah, t
On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 12:03:21PM +0930, Tom Cook wrote:
(lots o' snippage)
| You are not free to do what you will with it, so it is
| not free software.
Capitlize the Free :-).
| Generally speaking, a restriction on the modification of source
| kills something in Debian,
Agreed.
| since (I u
On 0, Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Cook wrote:
>
> > On 0, Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > The Java you get from Sun will require you to have the version of the C
> > > runtime library that it was compiled for, which is older than what Woody
> > > or Sid use
Tom Cook wrote:
> On 0, Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The Java you get from Sun will require you to have the version of the C
> > runtime library that it was compiled for, which is older than what Woody
> > or Sid use at this point. (I don't recall offhand what libc Potato
> > us
On 0, Oki DZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 28-06-2002 01:47 Kent West wrote:
> >Thanks for everyone's input. I think I'll go the Sun route. Anyone
> >have any idea why Sid's isn't up-to-date? Is it a "freedom" issue? If
> >so, does Sun not realize they are hurting the spread of Java by not
>
On 0, Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kent West wrote:
>
> > I can get Java installed and working in my browsers, but at the risk of
> > starting a Holy Way, what's the canonical way to install Java (run-time
> > only needed, not dev. kit)?
>
> "Derrick" == Derrick 'dman' Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Derrick> Does Sun realize that they're hurting Java/Solaris by requiring
Derrick> an X server on any (headless) server doing server-side
Derrick> graphics?
Apparently JDK 1.4 doesn't require an X server. Just add
"-Djava
On 28-06-2002 01:47 Kent West wrote:
Thanks for everyone's input. I think I'll go the Sun route. Anyone
have any idea why Sid's isn't up-to-date? Is it a "freedom" issue? If
so, does Sun not realize they are hurting the spread of Java by not
making it truly free?
In what way? The SDK is freel
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 01:47:38PM -0500, Kent West wrote:
| >"Kent West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >>at the risk of starting a Holy Way,
|
| Do'h! Six or seven postings later, I notice the misspelling. It's
| supposed to be "Holy War", as I'm sure everyone realized. :-0
Some of those who
Kent West wrote:
> Thanks for everyone's input. I think I'll go the Sun route. Anyone have
> any idea why Sid's isn't up-to-date? Is it a "freedom" issue? If so,
> does Sun not realize they are hurting the spread of Java by not making
> it truly free?
Sun doesn't care about Java as such; they
"Kent West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
at the risk
of starting a Holy Way,
Do'h! Six or seven postings later, I notice the misspelling. It's
supposed to be "Holy War", as I'm sure everyone realized. :-0
Thanks for everyone's input. I think I'll go the Sun route. Anyone have
any idea w
"Kent West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can get Java installed and working in my browsers, but at the risk
> of starting a Holy Way, what's the canonical way to install Java
> (run-time only needed, not dev. kit)?
>
> From Blackdown? From Sun? From Debia
On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 12:03, Craig Dickson wrote:
> The Java you get from Sun will require you to have the version of the C
> runtime library that it was compiled for, which is older than what Woody
> or Sid use at this point. (I don't recall offhand what libc Potato
> uses.) It's available in the
Craig Dickson wrote:
Kent West wrote:
at the risk of
starting a Holy Way, what's the canonical way to install Java (run-time
only needed, not dev. kit)?
I wouldn't bother with Java 1.1 at this point.
The Java you get from Sun will require you to have the version of the
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:41:57 -0500
"Kent West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can get Java installed and working in my browsers, but at the risk of
> starting a Holy Way, what's the canonical way to install Java (run-time
> only needed, not dev. kit)?
>
Kent West wrote:
> I can get Java installed and working in my browsers, but at the risk of
> starting a Holy Way, what's the canonical way to install Java (run-time
> only needed, not dev. kit)?
>
> From Blackdown? From Sun? From Debian's site, which seems to on
I can get Java installed and working in my browsers, but at the risk of
starting a Holy Way, what's the canonical way to install Java (run-time
only needed, not dev. kit)?
From Blackdown? From Sun? From Debian's site, which seems to only have
JDK1.1 for Sid?
I would suspect that
17 matches
Mail list logo
