Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>
>
>>GCJ currently that has limited security. It is 2 years behind
>>mainstream in versions (they don't have Java 5 yet and their Java 1.4
>>support is not complete). It is not stable and the performance is
>>nowhere close to the commercial implementations.
>>
>>
>
>Frankly, that is all FUD.
>
No, that's all facts. At least with the release I'm using (4.0). The
security seems to come along well though. Classpath has all the security
packages fully implemented at this point so this whole discussion is
probably obsolete by the time GCJ does their next release.
> A lot of free software is limited or behind
>or claimed to be unstable in some way, but that has never stopped
>anyone from using it in the appropriate and expanding niches.
>
That's very true. But it doesn't make my statement FUD nevertheless.
>Well, we had a similar discussion about the time when the Python
>security support was decreed nonexistent by its author. Clearly,
>people still use Python, and people still use PL/Python. It's really
>easy to spread a panic by claiming that GCJ has "no security". That's
>clearly wrong because GCJ can be used safely in many useful situations.
>
>
We where discussing a very specific situation here. Not GCJ in general.
As you pointed out yourself (and that's what started this discussion),
GCJ cannot be used for a trusted Java implementation.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren