FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Marketing

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-08-2010, 09:17 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default Question on Java apps

https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Fedora_13_Talking_Points&diff=1557 54&oldid=155751

Mark,

Good question you posted on the Talking points draft page on the
Fedora wiki. Unfortunately, we folks on the Marketing team are
writing these without specific domain knowledge about Java. Can you
provide some edits here that will help us better cover this particular
talking point, and why it's good for developers, without promoting
non-free software?

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 03-08-2010, 10:39 PM
David Nalley
 
Default Question on Java apps

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Fedora_13_Talking_Points&diff=1557 54&oldid=155751
>
> Mark,
>
> Good question you posted on the Talking points draft page on the
> Fedora wiki. Unfortunately, we folks on the Marketing team are
> writing these without specific domain knowledge about Java. Can you
> provide some edits here that will help us better cover this particular
> talking point, and why it's good for developers, without promoting
> non-free software?
>

So for reference the question posed is:
Are technologies like glassfish/java 6 ee, javafx, etc. packaged for
Fedora and actually Free Software?

Glassfish is free software (GPL with classpath exception) - but I
don't see it in Fedora repos.

Java 6 EE - well the text refers to the Java 6 EE spec, and what's
left unsaid is that openJDK is what is meeting the spec. However most
people assume that's java-1.6.0-sun when they see Java 6 EE.

JavaFX SDK appears to not be F/LOSS
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaFX#License)



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Use GnuPG with Firefox : http://getfiregpg.org (Version: 0.7.10)

iEYEARECAAYFAkuViqIACgkQkZOYj+cNI1fzKgCfRkXH8CxW+b Y4kTfr+66IZcDT
ZlgAn2tQySI1QhohjslecVpRWt/+23sv
=neXK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 03-08-2010, 11:21 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default Question on Java apps

On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 06:39:08PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Fedora_13_Talking_Points&diff=1557 54&oldid=155751
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > Good question you posted on the Talking points draft page on the
> > Fedora wiki. Unfortunately, we folks on the Marketing team are
> > writing these without specific domain knowledge about Java. Can you
> > provide some edits here that will help us better cover this particular
> > talking point, and why it's good for developers, without promoting
> > non-free software?
> >
>
> So for reference the question posed is:
> Are technologies like glassfish/java 6 ee, javafx, etc. packaged for
> Fedora and actually Free Software?
>
> Glassfish is free software (GPL with classpath exception) - but I
> don't see it in Fedora repos.

I know that Java packaging is not trivial given the differences
between the way Java devs tend to do it, and the requirements set out
for Fedora packaging.

> Java 6 EE - well the text refers to the Java 6 EE spec, and what's
> left unsaid is that openJDK is what is meeting the spec. However most
> people assume that's java-1.6.0-sun when they see Java 6 EE.

How would you recommend restating this? Can you edit that talking
point to make it so?

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Talking_Points#NetBeans_6.8_first_IDE_to _support_entire_Java_6_EE_spec

> JavaFX SDK appears to not be F/LOSS
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaFX#License)

Right, mjw was noting this as well. I'm sending a copy of this email
to victorv who's listed as the netbeans maintainer, to get him to edit
this wiki page so that we are promoting only free software.

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 03-09-2010, 02:14 AM
David Nalley
 
Default Question on Java apps

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:

>
>> Java 6 EE - well the text refers to the Java 6 EE spec, and what's
>> left unsaid is that openJDK is what is meeting the spec. However most
>> people assume that's java-1.6.0-sun when they see Java 6 EE.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Use GnuPG with Firefox : http://getfiregpg.org (Version: 0.7.10)

iEYEARECAAYFAkuVvSUACgkQkZOYj+cNI1enMQCdHDQ0ivcVE0 JPtLKJ6JvurACB
JcoAniBm7Jjzh1bp2A9idSZE+YK031TQ
=fIx3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>
> How would you recommend restating this? *Can you edit that talking
> point to make it so?
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Talking_Points#NetBeans_6.8_first_IDE_to _support_entire_Java_6_EE_spec

I hope your pointing to victorv with this question. I am only barely
on the fringes of the Java community, and only because I admin some
JBoss app servers and quite a few Java apps at $dayjob. And reading
over this talking point - I am not sure if it my earlier statement is
completely on topic - the talking point is referring to NetBeans, not
openjdk, though I think the same principle ('Java 6 EE spec' confusion
with java-1.6.0-sun)


>
>> JavaFX SDK appears to not be F/LOSS
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaFX#License)
>
> Right, mjw was noting this as well. *I'm sending a copy of this email
> to victorv who's listed as the netbeans maintainer, to get him to edit
> this wiki page so that we are promoting only free software.
>
> --
> Paul W. Frields * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *http://paul.frields.org/
> *gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 *5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
> *http://redhat.com/ * - *- *- *- * http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
> * * * * *Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
> --
> marketing mailing list
> marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
>
--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 03-09-2010, 07:32 AM
Mario Torre
 
Default Question on Java apps

Hi guys,

Just my 2 cents, but all the technology listed are FLOSS (JBoss,
Glassfish, NetBeans, OpenJDK etc...) but JavaFX.

There are some bits of JavaFX out there (i.e. the compiler), but the
runtime is not.

Cheers,
Mario

--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 03-10-2010, 05:35 PM
Andrew Overholt
 
Default Question on Java apps

* David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> [2010-03-08 18:39]:
> Java 6 EE - well the text refers to the Java 6 EE spec, and what's
> left unsaid is that openJDK is what is meeting the spec. However most
> people assume that's java-1.6.0-sun when they see Java 6 EE.

Java EE != Java SE:

http://java.sun.com/javase/

vs.

http://java.sun.com/javaee/

Andrew
--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:45 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org