Les Mikesell wrote: > On 1/28/2010 12:58 PM, Robert Heller wrote: > >>>> http://wiki.centos.org/TipsAndTricks/PluginsFor64BitFirefox >>>> >>>> [rhetorical] Why does this mailing list insist on reinventing the wheel >>>> rather than perform a simple search of existing documentation first? >>>> >>> You sort-of expect end users to do that. A more relevant question is >>> why is it shipped broken in the first place? Is it just Red Hat trying >>> to maintain their reputation for making java as hard to use as possible? >>> >> Java is an odd case: *Sun* has weird / non-compatible license issues, so >> RH (or CentOS) cannot just re-distribute the Sun JDK and appearently the >> openjdk does not include a web browser plug in (nothing RH or CentOS can >> do about that). >> > > Netscape was once an odd case and RH managed to deal with it in a usable > way instead of shipping something different and broken with the same > name. The jpackage folks had a perfectly usable way to handle the parts > that weren't redistributable, back when they weren't redistributable but > instead of staying compatible with their repository, RH copied parts and > change them in ways that broke the rest. When the license changed on the > Sun sdk to make it redistributable and debian incorporated it in their > main repostiory, RH only added it to the subscription update stream and > CentOS ignored it completely. None of this makes any sense to me. > > >> And it appears that Sun decided to change the name and location of the >> 64-bit plugin, which is what threw me, esp. since in the *32-bit* Sun >> JDK (6u18) the *old* plugin library is just where I expected it to be. >> Why did Sun do *that*? You would have thought that they would have >> included a README there to explain what they did. >> >> > > Sun engineers are from some other planet? Since they were so > cooperative in open-sourcing the codebase when someone asked, I wonder > if anyone from Red Hat ever explained the expected locations for things > to land and asked them to build a compatible rpm package the users could > install? Having an rpm that doesn't drop into the right places on RH > doesn't make any sense to me either. > > Especially when rpm is RedHat Package manager - they created it, one would expect that all users would ensure it works with the creator's structure and way of working. I guess there are deeper issues here that are best not exposed. At least Sun's java is now under an open source license!! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rkampen.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 121 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20100128/4773aae3/attachment-0005.vcf>