classpath
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CORBA


From: Dalibor Topic
Subject: Re: CORBA
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:02:02 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041007 Debian/1.7.3-5

Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi,

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 08:37 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:

In my opinion, it's really up to customers that want such proof to do whatever it takes to obtain it, and not to the FSF, in general. While I've started the TCK dance with Sun as a 'qualified individual'


Thanks for doing that btw. Obviously GNU Classpath is just the core
libraries which are used as one of the building blocks for a full
development environment that might or might not pass the TCK as you
pointed out in your application. But we are positive that we want to
help you in any way to pass the TCK. And we will happily accept any code
changes that you think are necessary. Because I think we all feel that
clear interfaces, compatibility and unit testing are a good thing for
our users (in addition to the four freedoms).

Thanks for the great support and everyone's excellent work on GNU Classpath, that made it all possible, really. I'm very enthusiastic about working together with Sun on bridging the compatibility gap.

A badge is not important for free software, though, as the recepient can always peer under the hood and see if the software does what it claims to do. In particular if the software comes with its own extensive free software test suites, like mauve, jacks and all that.


I think badges are very useful actually. But I also think that users
should have the freedom to verify such claims. That is why Mauve is so
important. And why it is so good to see that Mauve is growing so fastly
these days.

Yeah :)

I like it very much how the w3c does the badge thing with the 'valid xhtml' logos. Once your web page validates correctly, you can put the w3c badge of honour on your web page, and then anyone stopping by can click on it, and it will take them to the validator page on w3c, so they can see that for example the FSF home page is right now not[1] valid XHTML, despite the 'valid xhtml' logo on it. And I think such easy, instant public conformance validation services are great, and the way things should evolve to in general.

cheers,
dalibor topic

[1] http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fsf.org%2F




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]