this is probably a little touchy to ask...

[Joshua Isom]

On 9/14/2010 4:21 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>> "Jules" == Jules Gilbert<jules.stocks at gmail.com>  writes:
>
> Jules>  Now, if Oracle won't adjust their thinking, I intend to look at Java
> Jules>  sub-systems that are supplied and built by other people than Oracle.
> Jules>  (It's called Open Source.)
>
> And that's what I tried to say in my last few posts.  Given Oracle's
> apparent stance to own Java not by copyright but by patent, it doesn't
> *matter* that Java is "open source".  We'll have to wait until Oracle
> v. Google is decided, but unless Google can invalidate Oracle's
> *patents* on Java, Java is effectively dead, unless you want to sleep in
> Oracle's bed.
>

Google sort of shot themselves in the foot since it's like java enough 
that everyone not a lawyer can call it java, except it needs recompiled, 
and that Google ignored the patent grant by Sun since they made it a 
subset.  There's also the issue that Google's not paying licensing fees 
to say it's Java capable.  Google was intentionally weaseling out of a 
potential problem.  Sun being bought got Google in trouble.  Sun's 
patent grant could have protected Google, but Google refused it.

As to the original post, Java, a "portable" "write once run anywhere" 
language, doesn't work on FreeBSD, a "standard" type operating system 
that mainly runs on "standard" hardware, when used with Xorg, a widely 
used "standard," as a plug in for Firefox, a major and presumably the 
dominant *nix web browser.  Maybe the question should go to Oracle about 
why it doesn't work.  A java applet probably works on your Symbian smart 
phone running on ARM.