Linked by snydeq on Tue 10th Jan 2012 19:12 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 502747
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Sorry, but I do not like the quality of this "news"
by Alfman on Tue 10th Jan 2012 21:45
in reply to "Sorry, but I do not like the quality of this "news""
sukru,
"Yet, I understand it's still news (not sensational, but still important). Nevertheless, the editor feels the need to include Canonical not being able to re-distribute Java -- which was already discussed here"
Are you complaining that an author from infoworld is talking about something already discussed on osnews? I for one don't mind the inclusion of the licensing facts in the article, but what are you proposing osnews do about it?
"Please mark opinion and news articles properly."
That seems to be more trouble than it's worth, it would cause debate over something not worth debating. Just take all articles for what they are, the view of the author.
RE: Sorry, but I do not like the quality of this "news"
by ephracis on Tue 10th Jan 2012 22:59
in reply to "Sorry, but I do not like the quality of this "news""
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of Oracle's management of Java, however this news article reads more "propaganda" than journalism.
Introduction of vendor projects conflicting with established open source ones happen all the time... even in Java (NetBeans/Eclipse, Glassfish/JBoss, etc).
Yet, I understand it's still news (not sensational, but still important). Nevertheless, the editor feels the need to include Canonical not being able to re-distribute Java -- which was already discussed here. And F-Spot's comment, neither having any relation whatsoever to modularization in Java.
Please mark opinion and news articles properly.
Introduction of vendor projects conflicting with established open source ones happen all the time... even in Java (NetBeans/Eclipse, Glassfish/JBoss, etc).
Yet, I understand it's still news (not sensational, but still important). Nevertheless, the editor feels the need to include Canonical not being able to re-distribute Java -- which was already discussed here. And F-Spot's comment, neither having any relation whatsoever to modularization in Java.
Please mark opinion and news articles properly.
It's a quote from the original article.
RE[2]: Sorry, but I do not like the quality of this "news"
by JAlexoid on Wed 11th Jan 2012 12:28
in reply to "RE: Sorry, but I do not like the quality of this "news""





Member since:
2006-11-19
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of Oracle's management of Java, however this news article reads more "propaganda" than journalism.
Introduction of vendor projects conflicting with established open source ones happen all the time... even in Java (NetBeans/Eclipse, Glassfish/JBoss, etc).
Yet, I understand it's still news (not sensational, but still important). Nevertheless, the editor feels the need to include Canonical not being able to re-distribute Java -- which was already discussed here. And F-Spot's comment, neither having any relation whatsoever to modularization in Java.
Please mark opinion and news articles properly.