|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 02:27 PM EDT |
I have been trying to register. "Sorry, creation of new accounts has been
temporarily disabled" Any help? The first 2 groups (4.18, 4.20) are
unreadable. Sure you have enough bandwidth to do this?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 04:37 PM EDT |
0623.101.pdf is F:i586 zip src unzippedjavalangMath.java
DaveN[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Chromatix on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 07:00 PM EDT |
| Probably just list them, too much text for one man. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 01:31 PM EDT |
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf3/OraGoogletrialexhibits/2012-04-24/1002.pdf
<p>
From: Tim Lindholm.
Sent: 11/24/2008 9:05 PM.<br />
To: [ - ] Andy Rubin.<br />
Cc: [ - ] .<br />
Bcc: [ - ] .<br />
Subject: Re: Android and JavaOne.<br />
</p>
<p>
Well, the answer might very well be a quick no. But if
it's discrete I think it should at least be safe to ask.
</p>
<p>
-- Tim
</p>
<p>
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Andy Rubin
<arubin@spies.com> wrote:
</p>
<p>
Happy to try if you feel strongly about this.
</p>
<p>
On Nov 24, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Tim Lindholm wrote:
</p>
<p>
I knew about the toolbar situation and think Sun already
had a shamefully lucrative deal with us compared to other
money they were making off Java. But money is going to
talk very loudly at Sun right about now. If it came down
to
trying to outspend MSFT that probably is the wrong game
for us. The Android licensing/JCP stuff is pretty clearly
a
non-starter, at least unless someone had some thinking way
more creative than we have done internally. Sun's
standard approach to resolving the situation that would
poison the ecosystem we've tried to create with little to
compensate (at least scoped to Android).
</p>
<p>
Still, I guess I can't blame them for trying both of those
things, and think they mostly reflect core business
concerns
rather than anything nefarious.
</p>
<p>
But with no toolbar deal they have even fewer reasons to
think of us as friends, and might have MSFT out there
egging them on to hurt us. I worry that it's madness over
there now, and with Rich Green gone insaner heads might
prevail. So I think more than ever we'd rather try to find
cheap, philosophically consistent ways to work with them
rather than reduce the coupling and risk being blindsided.
This JavaOne thing isn't the only or best one, but it's
easy
to try.
</p>
<p>
-- Tim
</p>
<p>
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Andy Rubin
<arubin@spies.com> wrote:
</p>
<p>
Sun recently came to us to renew the toolbar deal (or
which we distribute 24% of our clients) and requested two
things: double the guaranty (from $50M to $100M) and for
us to certify Android through the Java process and
become licensees of Java. We made the decision to say no,
greatly affecting our search business, and Sun gave the
distribution deal to MSFT.
</p>
<p>
What would you do?
</p>
<p>
On Nov 24, 2008, at 7:01 PM, Tim Lindholm wrote:
</p>
<p>
Hi Andy,
</p>
<p>
[Dan B might have pinged you on this already:]
</p>
<p>
The question has come up whether to try to submit Android
talks to JavaOne. There are mixed opinions of whether
this is worth peoples' time to do so for the sake of the
exposure and developer relations alone.
</p>
<p>
But some of us have also considered possible longer-term
calming effects should we be allowed to participate. It
seems likely that Sun, in turmoil anyhow due to its
internal problems, will feel especially pressed to have
cool or
positive things to talk about at JavaOne. If on the
balance Android would serve that need Sun might conclude
it's
worth having it in the tent rather than kept uneasily
outside.
</p>
<p>
The timing is also interesting given that Sun has
disclosed (confidentially for now) an architectural
relaxation that
would make the Java platform more subsettable. That could
provide a road to reconciliation between Android and
the standard platforms without Android having to get
sucked into the JCP. Google (not Android) has already made
positive noises privately, and will probably come out in
favor of this proposal publicly assuming Sun actually
releases
it.
</p>
<p>
Of course they might just say blanket no about JavaOne.
Rather than have a bunch of people waste time writing
talks that might be rejected, we could send a feeler to a
known Marketing VP in the JavaOne loop at Sun asking
whether Android submissions would be considered.
</p>
<p>
Do you think it's worth just this discreet question?
</p>
<p>
-- Tim
</p>
<p>
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY
Oracle America v. Google, 3:10-cv-03561-WHA
GOOGLE-01-00031205
</p>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 03:00 PM EDT |
0047.24.pdf Source code for Test_newarray.java from gingerbread23 (3 pages)
0047.25.pdf Source code for Test_iastore.java from gingerbread23 (4 pages)
1001.pdf E-mail from Dan Bornstein to Patrick Brady about testing "the
actual
Dx tool for CTS" (2 pages)
1094.pdf E-mail thread involving David Turner, Ben Cheng and Kant Kang
about some issues with DexOpt and long boot times (2 pages)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
