On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 13:03, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> liberty young said:
> > I'm kinda leaning toward Sun's Java. The IDE (netbeans) is good, and the
> > install process of both the JSDK and the IDE are very painless. I
> > wouldn't want to install Sun's without offering and explaining the
> > alternative, but I stick to the 'official' java.
> 
> For Debian users installing Blackdown Java is as easy as apt-get install
> <package-name>.
> 
> > I'm going on a limb, but i'm assuming that all the classes at our
> > universities and community colleges are using Sun's. I'd rather show
> > people how the Linux OS offers people Choices, not just
> > ideology-compatible alternatives. The ability to take the  work from a a
> > Window's machine and gracefully transition to a Linux station is very
> > powerful.
> 
> This is faulty logic on two premises.
> 
> 1. I think the IBM Java Suites are problably more used than Sun's.
> 2. The universities generally use Borland or Microsoft C/C++ to teach C
> and C++.
> 
> The point behind number two is that it would be ludicrous to suggest using
> something other than gcc as the main compiler shipped with GNU/Linux. 
> Just because a university uses something doesn't mean it is what should be
> shipped on a GNU/Linux system.  FWIW: You could lump MSSQL, Oracle and DB2
> into that same category of university teaches, but we don't recommend.
> 
> The only difference is you seem to accept Java as its Free is in Price
> where as other items referenced in number 2 would require monetary
> transactions.
> 
You make a good point. What I was struggling to say was that it would be
impressive to offer them the choice to use Sun's JSDK on their Linux
machine, _along_with_other_javas. 

One common misconception of Linux is that you completely and utterly
give up everything one had when using Windows. You give up a some
things, but not everything. 

If someone burns onto a CD the JSDK, also print out some copies of their
license, so we also show them that the JSDK from Sun isn't totally Free
As In Speech. 

> > Which is why I love OpenOffice :)
> 
> I have to ask, why do you use OpenOffice instead of StarOffice?
> 
I liked StarOffice, but I didn't want to give it enough time to be come
familiar with it. It seemed to me, being a normal, low-use user of
MSOffice, that I would have to buy the StarOffice book and re-learn
everything. With OpenOffice.org, it wasn't that bad. When I looked for
something, it was where I expected it to be. It seemed the learning
curve for OpenOffice.org was the same as upgrading MSOffice to a newer
version. The learning curve for StarOffice, to me, seemed longer. Of
course, that's just me. YMMV. 

> -Derek
>