On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Patrick Lists
<fedora-list(a)puzzled.xs4all.nl> wrote:
You always jump in Oracle's defense when someone sticks it to
them and get
all wound up about it.
Of course, I support companies that support open source development. I
don´t support attempts to balkanize foss projects or wrestle control
of foss projects from the firm that is investing heavily in its
development, in the name of so-called freedom, which only leads to
forks and fragmentation and the ultimate loss of the main corporate
backer (as happened with OO.o, not to mention the loss of the
commercial product, StarOffice, which had made many inroads in - all
because a vocal minority rejected the dual-licensing and Sun
contributor agreements, see Shuttleworth´s words at this redirector
http://ho.io/libreoffice ).
Maybe you read about how Oracle fixed that dangerous Java bug the
other day
which they did not fix correctly? How is a proper fix done right the first
time not a good reason to switch? Transparency allows many eyeballs and
given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.
Are you saying that OpenJDK development is not open? because all bugs
seems to have been fixed on a timely manner, and bugfixes landed in
Open JDK which were incorporated into Icedtea builds hours later.
Patches are flowing, so what is all the fuzz and villifycation (sp?)
about?
RedHat along with IBM are investing in OpenJDK too, see this mid-2012
presentation:
http://www.redhat.com/summit/2012/pdf/2012-DevDay-OpenJDK-Bhole.pdf
But I guess you read too much FUD from interested parties echoed by
ZDNet and IDG, and amplified by the rest of the copy-paste IT press...
I will stop now because we´re drifting off-topic.
Last message from me on this thread.
FC