From owner-freebsd-current Tue Jan 30 09:27:49 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA09197 for current-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 09:27:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from jhome.DIALix.COM (root@jhome.DIALix.COM [192.203.228.69]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA09192 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 09:27:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.DIALix.oz.au (peter@localhost.DIALix.oz.au [127.0.0.1]) by jhome.DIALix.COM (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA05108; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 01:27:23 +0800 (WST) Message-Id: <199601301727.BAA05108@jhome.DIALix.COM> X-Authentication-Warning: jhome.DIALix.COM: Host peter@localhost.DIALix.oz.au [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: Andreas Klemm cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Linux Netscape 2.0b6a? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 30 Jan 1996 17:48:59 +0100." Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 01:27:23 +0800 From: Peter Wemm Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk >On Tue, 30 Jan 1996, Peter Wemm wrote: > >> I know the BSDI version of 2.0b6a works fine for me, but it doesn't have >> Java support in it. > >Does somebody know, why those people at mcom deceided not to include >Java support into the BSDI binary ? Beats me.. :-( They apparently said it was because we dont have a thread-safe libc, but that argument doesn't exactly hold water because the vintage of the Linux libc/libm that they are linking with does not appear to be thread-safe or reentrant either. As near as I can guess, either the re-entrant libc requirement is a smoke screen, or they are using wrappers around the linux libc stuff that they need. >Could it be the case that they have compilation trouble or such ? >Perhaps they should go and get a FreeBSD system ;-) > > Andreas /// If it were that simple.. :-) If they have a Linux fanatic in-house then he's probably brainwashed them into believing that we dont exist. The other thing I wonder about sometimes is the time that a Netscape employee slipped and said with a loose group like FreeBSD it was difficult to deal with. Reading in between the lines of that (and I've lost the posting), I wonder if people like BSDI have made a "strategic arrangement" to get a native version? Unfortunately, I dont think we're in a position to make Netscape an offer they can't refuse. :-( Cheers, -Peter