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 User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-28-2007, 09:58 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Java problem

Craig White wrote:

On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 23:39 +0200, eng.waleed wrote:

Hi
I installed the jre from the file jre-6u3-linux-i586-rpm.bin and it
give me done with no prob , but there is no java file in /usr/bin/ ,
can any one suggest some thing about that ?

----
look in /usr/java

if you know what you want, you can create a symbolic link in /usr/bin
but that should never be necessary.


It's too bad that RedHat and Sun can't agree on where java should live.
For earlier versions of fedora, jpackage.org had a way to fix this
breakage, but they seem to have stopped at FC6.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-28-2007, 10:02 PM
Craig White
 
Default Java problem

On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 16:58 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Craig White wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 23:39 +0200, eng.waleed wrote:
> >> Hi
> >> I installed the jre from the file jre-6u3-linux-i586-rpm.bin and it
> >> give me done with no prob , but there is no java file in /usr/bin/ ,
> >> can any one suggest some thing about that ?
> > ----
> > look in /usr/java
> >
> > if you know what you want, you can create a symbolic link in /usr/bin
> > but that should never be necessary.
>
> It's too bad that RedHat and Sun can't agree on where java should live.
> For earlier versions of fedora, jpackage.org had a way to fix this
> breakage, but they seem to have stopped at FC6.
----
patience...

They are finally getting around to licensing it under GPL, things are
finally stabilizing.

Craig

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-28-2007, 10:42 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Java problem

Craig White wrote:


I installed the jre from the file jre-6u3-linux-i586-rpm.bin and it
give me done with no prob , but there is no java file in /usr/bin/ ,
can any one suggest some thing about that ?

----
look in /usr/java

if you know what you want, you can create a symbolic link in /usr/bin
but that should never be necessary.
It's too bad that RedHat and Sun can't agree on where java should live.
For earlier versions of fedora, jpackage.org had a way to fix this
breakage, but they seem to have stopped at FC6.

----
patience...

They are finally getting around to licensing it under GPL, things are
finally stabilizing.


Having everyone do things their own way is your idea of stabilizing?
Who would it have hurt for either RH to make a system where Sun's
packaging would drop in and run or for Sun to package it to match RH's
arbitrary locations? I never quite got the point of an RPM package that
didn't work.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-28-2007, 10:57 PM
Craig White
 
Default Java problem

On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 17:42 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Craig White wrote:
>
> >>>> I installed the jre from the file jre-6u3-linux-i586-rpm.bin and it
> >>>> give me done with no prob , but there is no java file in /usr/bin/ ,
> >>>> can any one suggest some thing about that ?
> >>> ----
> >>> look in /usr/java
> >>>
> >>> if you know what you want, you can create a symbolic link in /usr/bin
> >>> but that should never be necessary.
> >> It's too bad that RedHat and Sun can't agree on where java should live.
> >> For earlier versions of fedora, jpackage.org had a way to fix this
> >> breakage, but they seem to have stopped at FC6.
> > ----
> > patience...
> >
> > They are finally getting around to licensing it under GPL, things are
> > finally stabilizing.
>
> Having everyone do things their own way is your idea of stabilizing?
> Who would it have hurt for either RH to make a system where Sun's
> packaging would drop in and run or for Sun to package it to match RH's
> arbitrary locations? I never quite got the point of an RPM package that
> didn't work.
----
as you know, the typical methodology is to install finished software
packages in /opt

That is what most major software vendors will, as they do if you install
the rpms from openoffice.org

Obviously, Sun could do the same with java...but they don't

They install in /usr

Obviously Sun has to take responsibility for their install since the
package isn't provided by Fedora.

The integration bits (and there are many) are finessed because while Sun
has historically had a restrictive license, development went on with GCJ
version of java and now everything is wired in, from Tomcat to Docbook
to OpenOffice to Eclipse...it all works without Sun's java.

I applaud the development efforts that try to allow interchangeability
so that Sun's version can be installed and the notion that it should
just work is laudable...and it probably will be realized soon. Fedora is
community driven and unless someone steps up and works it all out, it's
left to Red Hat people who are probably are tasked with higher
priorities than making Sun software work.

Craig

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-29-2007, 12:28 AM
Cameron Simpson
 
Default Java problem

On 28Dec2007 16:58, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:
> Craig White wrote:
>> On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 23:39 +0200, eng.waleed wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> I installed the jre from the file jre-6u3-linux-i586-rpm.bin and it
>>> give me done with no prob , but there is no java file in /usr/bin/ ,
>>> can any one suggest some thing about that ?
>> ----
>> look in /usr/java
>>
>> if you know what you want, you can create a symbolic link in /usr/bin
>> but that should never be necessary.
>
> It's too bad that RedHat and Sun can't agree on where java should live.

It's a third party RPM!
Of course it should install out of the way!
That way you can use Sun's RPM or another RPM, or both!

> For earlier versions of fedora, jpackage.org had a way to fix this
> breakage, but they seem to have stopped at FC6.

Maybe there should be something in /etc/alternatives...
--
Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/

I could make tons of mispellings, punctuation errors, and grammatical errors
and still write more understandable English because I do it in the same
manner as Americans who were born in the USA and have lived here for many
years. - Audio Engineer <acoustic@world.std.com>

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-29-2007, 01:30 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Java problem

Cameron Simpson wrote:


Hi
I installed the jre from the file jre-6u3-linux-i586-rpm.bin and it
give me done with no prob , but there is no java file in /usr/bin/ ,
can any one suggest some thing about that ?

----
look in /usr/java

if you know what you want, you can create a symbolic link in /usr/bin
but that should never be necessary.
It's too bad that RedHat and Sun can't agree on where java should live.


It's a third party RPM!
Of course it should install out of the way!
That way you can use Sun's RPM or another RPM, or both!

For earlier versions of fedora, jpackage.org had a way to fix this
breakage, but they seem to have stopped at FC6.


Maybe there should be something in /etc/alternatives...


Or maybe no one should have ever shipped an imitation java that doesn't
meet the spec and called it java in the first place.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-29-2007, 01:37 AM
Gene Heskett
 
Default Java problem

On Friday 28 December 2007, Les Mikesell wrote:
>Cameron Simpson wrote:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>> I installed the jre from the file jre-6u3-linux-i586-rpm.bin and it
>>>>> give me done with no prob , but there is no java file in /usr/bin/ ,
>>>>> can any one suggest some thing about that ?
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> look in /usr/java
>>>>
>>>> if you know what you want, you can create a symbolic link in /usr/bin
>>>> but that should never be necessary.
>>>
>>> It's too bad that RedHat and Sun can't agree on where java should live.
>>
>> It's a third party RPM!
>> Of course it should install out of the way!
>> That way you can use Sun's RPM or another RPM, or both!
>>
>>> For earlier versions of fedora, jpackage.org had a way to fix this
>>> breakage, but they seem to have stopped at FC6.
>>
>> Maybe there should be something in /etc/alternatives...
>
>Or maybe no one should have ever shipped an imitation java that doesn't
>meet the spec and called it java in the first place.

+5 at least, Les.

--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
For a man to truly understand rejection, he must first be ignored by a cat.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-29-2007, 02:15 AM
Craig White
 
Default Java problem

On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 21:37 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 28 December 2007, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >Cameron Simpson wrote:
> >>>>> Hi
> >>>>> I installed the jre from the file jre-6u3-linux-i586-rpm.bin and it
> >>>>> give me done with no prob , but there is no java file in /usr/bin/ ,
> >>>>> can any one suggest some thing about that ?
> >>>>
> >>>> ----
> >>>> look in /usr/java
> >>>>
> >>>> if you know what you want, you can create a symbolic link in /usr/bin
> >>>> but that should never be necessary.
> >>>
> >>> It's too bad that RedHat and Sun can't agree on where java should live.
> >>
> >> It's a third party RPM!
> >> Of course it should install out of the way!
> >> That way you can use Sun's RPM or another RPM, or both!
> >>
> >>> For earlier versions of fedora, jpackage.org had a way to fix this
> >>> breakage, but they seem to have stopped at FC6.
> >>
> >> Maybe there should be something in /etc/alternatives...
> >
> >Or maybe no one should have ever shipped an imitation java that doesn't
> >meet the spec and called it java in the first place.
>
> +5 at least, Les.
----
I can't see any reason why you should have more than 1 vote

Of course the issue is and has always been Sun's restrictive licensing
and if it weren't for the 'imitation java' as you call it, Sun might
never have decided to migrate Java to GPL...but they still aren't
there...

from my installation of jdk-1.6.0.0.3 under LICENSE...

3. RESTRICTIONS. Software is confidential and copyrighted.
Title to Software and all associated intellectual property
rights is retained by Sun and/or its licensors. Unless
enforcement is prohibited by applicable law, you may not
modify, decompile, or reverse engineer Software. You
acknowledge that Licensed Software is not designed or
intended for use in the design, construction, operation or
maintenance of any nuclear facility. Sun Microsystems, Inc.
disclaims any express or implied warranty of fitness for
such uses. No right, title or interest in or to any
trademark, service mark, logo or trade name of Sun or its
licensors is granted under this Agreement. Additional
restrictions for developers and/or publishers licenses are
set forth in the Supplemental License Terms.

Thus with those restrictions, there is no way that Fedora or Red Hat
would ever distribute it. Thus without the 'imitation java' (as you call
it), there wouldn't be a fully functioning OpenOffice.org, and no
Docbook XSL, no Tomcat, no Eclipse, etc.

Thus with your logic, people would logically go to another distro that
either embraces restrictive licensed software or pisses on restrictive
licensing.

So while it may feel useful to bemoan the 'imitation java' aka, GCJ
version, it provides most of the functionality...and last I checked,
even the Sun Java '64' couldn't run applets.

Craig

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-29-2007, 02:43 AM
Gene Heskett
 
Default Java problem

On Friday 28 December 2007, Craig White wrote:
>On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 21:37 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Friday 28 December 2007, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> >Cameron Simpson wrote:
>> >>>>> Hi
>> >>>>> I installed the jre from the file jre-6u3-linux-i586-rpm.bin and it
>> >>>>> give me done with no prob , but there is no java file in /usr/bin/ ,
>> >>>>> can any one suggest some thing about that ?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ----
>> >>>> look in /usr/java
>> >>>>
>> >>>> if you know what you want, you can create a symbolic link in /usr/bin
>> >>>> but that should never be necessary.
>> >>>
>> >>> It's too bad that RedHat and Sun can't agree on where java should
>> >>> live.
>> >>
>> >> It's a third party RPM!
>> >> Of course it should install out of the way!
>> >> That way you can use Sun's RPM or another RPM, or both!
>> >>
>> >>> For earlier versions of fedora, jpackage.org had a way to fix this
>> >>> breakage, but they seem to have stopped at FC6.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe there should be something in /etc/alternatives...
>> >
>> >Or maybe no one should have ever shipped an imitation java that doesn't
>> >meet the spec and called it java in the first place.
>>
>> +5 at least, Les.
>
>----
>I can't see any reason why you should have more than 1 vote

Which you usually discount anyway, based on my Senior Citizen discount status
or whatever.. So I vote early and often to compensate.

>Of course the issue is and has always been Sun's restrictive licensing
>and if it weren't for the 'imitation java' as you call it, Sun might
>never have decided to migrate Java to GPL...but they still aren't
>there...
>
>from my installation of jdk-1.6.0.0.3 under LICENSE...
>
>3. RESTRICTIONS. Software is confidential and copyrighted.
>Title to Software and all associated intellectual property
>rights is retained by Sun and/or its licensors. Unless
>enforcement is prohibited by applicable law, you may not
>modify, decompile, or reverse engineer Software. You
>acknowledge that Licensed Software is not designed or
>intended for use in the design, construction, operation or
>maintenance of any nuclear facility. Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>disclaims any express or implied warranty of fitness for
>such uses. No right, title or interest in or to any
>trademark, service mark, logo or trade name of Sun or its
>licensors is granted under this Agreement. Additional
>restrictions for developers and/or publishers licenses are
>set forth in the Supplemental License Terms.
>
>Thus with those restrictions, there is no way that Fedora or Red Hat
>would ever distribute it. Thus without the 'imitation java' (as you call
>it), there wouldn't be a fully functioning OpenOffice.org, and no
>Docbook XSL, no Tomcat, no Eclipse, etc.
>
>Thus with your logic, people would logically go to another distro that
>either embraces restrictive licensed software or pisses on restrictive
>licensing.
>
>So while it may feel useful to bemoan the 'imitation java' aka, GCJ
>version, it provides most of the functionality...and last I checked,
>even the Sun Java '64' couldn't run applets.
>
>Craig

You should know by now that I'm pro open src, and have been since forever it
seems. But, if the people who write this stuff can use it in good
conscience, then it doesn't bither me a bot to go download java from the real
source. It used to be blackdowns version that was the defacto std but it
appears Sun has elbowed them out of the picture, mainly I believe by way of
the free OpenOffice.org offering, the camels nose in the tent if you will.

In this case, its a whatever works reliably, we'll use it. Without feeling
like I should go and have my mouth warshed out with some of Grandma's good
old Lye soap.

If IcedTea or whatever they want to call it, could do what was requested, then
more power to the coders that adapted it. But it more often than not
doesn't, and rather than filing bz's by the hundreds, we just go get what
works, its far easier than filing a bz in terms of effort required. Given
the time & effort to go get the real thing, that should send the message that
bz is still, although its gotten easier, a PITA to use.

--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
What is research but a blind date with knowledge?
-- Will Harvey

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-29-2007, 03:03 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Java problem

Craig White wrote:


Maybe there should be something in /etc/alternatives...

Or maybe no one should have ever shipped an imitation java that doesn't
meet the spec and called it java in the first place.



Of course the issue is and has always been Sun's restrictive licensing
and if it weren't for the 'imitation java' as you call it, Sun might
never have decided to migrate Java to GPL...but they still aren't
there...


Why is the license an issue? The distribution doesn't have to include
everything to work with it.



Thus with those restrictions, there is no way that Fedora or Red Hat
would ever distribute it.


OK, there's this thing called the internet, where you can get things
from other places - places that are willing to distribute them.



Thus without the 'imitation java' (as you call
it), there wouldn't be a fully functioning OpenOffice.org, and no
Docbook XSL, no Tomcat, no Eclipse, etc.


OK, I could live with those not working until I install a java that
meets the official spec.



Thus with your logic, people would logically go to another distro that
either embraces restrictive licensed software or pisses on restrictive
licensing.


How about one that respects both other companies licenses and their own
users? As in making Sun java work when installed?



So while it may feel useful to bemoan the 'imitation java' aka, GCJ
version, it provides most of the functionality...and last I checked,
even the Sun Java '64' couldn't run applets.


I'm bemoaning calling it java. If you don't ship a fully conforming
java, don't execute it with the name java. And isn't the 64-bit applet
problem specific to Linux, not java?


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:30 PM.

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