Another non-answer that avoids the question. > Defend it, or don't, but stop trying to pivot the conversation while pretending that changing the subject is a valid answer answer to the thing that was asked.
There is no confusion on this end. You're ignoring the question that I'm asking, because the answer is unpleasant, and you're instead responding with non-answers, because looking like you're saying something when you're…
Once again, you have avoided the question (although you've spiced it up this time with some additional condescension). You listed OpenJDK as a viable "free" option. Defend it, or don't, but stop trying to pivot the…
That's still not an answer. You're avoiding the question and... I don't know, answering some other question that no one asked, it looks like. If a company has the option between OpenJDK and its "free" license or paying…
... what? That's a non-answer.
Another non-answer that avoids the question. > Defend it, or don't, but stop trying to pivot the conversation while pretending that changing the subject is a valid answer answer to the thing that was asked.
There is no confusion on this end. You're ignoring the question that I'm asking, because the answer is unpleasant, and you're instead responding with non-answers, because looking like you're saying something when you're…
Once again, you have avoided the question (although you've spiced it up this time with some additional condescension). You listed OpenJDK as a viable "free" option. Defend it, or don't, but stop trying to pivot the…
That's still not an answer. You're avoiding the question and... I don't know, answering some other question that no one asked, it looks like. If a company has the option between OpenJDK and its "free" license or paying…
... what? That's a non-answer.