Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 01:27:23 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@jhome.DIALix.COM> To: Andreas Klemm <andreas@knobel.gun.de> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Linux Netscape 2.0b6a? Message-ID: <199601301727.BAA05108@jhome.DIALix.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 30 Jan 1996 17:48:59 %2B0100." <Pine.BSF.3.91.960130174710.296A-100000@knobel.gun.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601301727.BAA05108>