Poor Microsoft Forced to Carry Java. So they now are looking to buy Macromedia

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: wje
WTF? If Microsoft buys Macromedia - then, I'll know our justice system is more screwed up than I ever imagined.

If Microsoft buys Macromedia, there is no hope for the computer industry. Adobe better run for cover at that point.

Microsoft is currently working on a competitor to the PDF file format to be included in future versions of Office. That would effectively wipe out that portion of Adobe's business.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: wje
WTF? If Microsoft buys Macromedia - then, I'll know our justice system is more screwed up than I ever imagined.

If Microsoft buys Macromedia, there is no hope for the computer industry. Adobe better run for cover at that point.

It depends. Microsoft sits in a delicate position where they can easily leverage their monopoly to create new ones. As long has microsoft does not bundle applications with the OS, they will probably get away with it without problems.

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: wje
WTF? If Microsoft buys Macromedia - then, I'll know our justice system is more screwed up than I ever imagined.

If Microsoft buys Macromedia, there is no hope for the computer industry. Adobe better run for cover at that point.

It depends. Microsoft sits in a delicate position where they can easily leverage their monopoly to create new ones. As long has microsoft does not bundle applications with the OS, they will probably get away with it without problems.

You are correct. All MS has to do is bundle it with their other monopoly, Office, and then nothing will be said or done.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: wje
WTF? If Microsoft buys Macromedia - then, I'll know our justice system is more screwed up than I ever imagined.

If Microsoft buys Macromedia, there is no hope for the computer industry. Adobe better run for cover at that point.

Microsoft is currently working on a competitor to the PDF file format to be included in future versions of Office. That would effectively wipe out that portion of Adobe's business.

It could. As long has adobe does not sit on their arse and whine, I am sure they will do fine. PDF has alot going for it. If it gets bundled with office or windows and is cross platform like pdf is, it would hurt adobe. If it just a free download like the pdf viewer is, abode will do fine.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: wje
WTF? If Microsoft buys Macromedia - then, I'll know our justice system is more screwed up than I ever imagined.

If Microsoft buys Macromedia, there is no hope for the computer industry. Adobe better run for cover at that point.

It depends. Microsoft sits in a delicate position where they can easily leverage their monopoly to create new ones. As long has microsoft does not bundle applications with the OS, they will probably get away with it without problems.

You are correct. All MS has to do is bundle it with their other monopoly, Office, and then nothing will be said or done.

If microsoft did this they would most likely be involation of anti-trust, levering one monopoly to earn another.
However if it is a give away, adobe has no room to cry foul, as pdf viewers are free.

 

[HendrixFan]

The viewers are free, but if you want serious control to create and edit PDF, you pay for it. And that type of functionality will be included in Office with the MS version of PDF.

If Adobe chooses to persue a lawsuit against MS, it will take years and it will be too late. We've seen it before.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: RichieZZZZ
I hate Sun Java 2 VM, all the machines in my school labs have it installed (various NT4, 2K Pro, and XP Pro boxes). AIM express never works right, and the machines often crash when going to pages that heavily use java. In my limited expereience the Sun Java VM is inferior

That is because MS corrupted Java, and applications written for MS java don't work well with regular Java. That was the whole reason for all these lawsuits.

Not exactly. THe microsoft VM offered features that a standard vm did not have. This kept applications writtin specefically for ms java only on a ms platform. Those applications written to java spec would still work anywhere even if J++ was used. Developers had the option of being compatable, or being able to use more features. I really dont see how this is different from many of the programming languages that exist today.

This would not be a problem if MS had Sun's permission to add these extentions to Java, which did not belong to MS.
Also, MS used Java logo until forced to remove it, conveying the impression that it complied with Java spec, and was cross-platform compatible.
You can't take other people's work, modify it the way that it was not intended without their concent, and then distribute it as compatible, all with intent to corrupt the idea of cross-platform compatibility, in bad faith. Not when you are anyone, but especially not if you are a convicted illegal monopolist.

c++
Microsoft has MFC
borland has Owl

neither are compatable, but both adhear to c++ language spec.

microsoft, oracle, sybase,<insert other db vender here> all have sql that ahears to the sql spec, but they all offer their own extras that are not comptable with other systems.

So what? MS J++ did not adhere to Java spec, which was set by its creator Sun, not Microsoft.

Sun has played the hokey pokey with java and microsoft.
First they complain because MS puts it in, then they complain when they take it out. Sun is getting their arse whooped right now. Sun would be better off if they fired all their lawyers and hired more designers and coders and started to make products that can compete.
And lastly, why has Sun not given java to standards committee so a java standard can be created.
Sun, meet kettle.

Sun complained when MS put corrupted Java in. Had MS put the real thing in, Sun would not have complained.
When MS took Java out, but left their ActiveX and .NET in, they left, they are using their OS monopoly to extend it to programming language market. That is illegal, and they got caught. Rules are different when you are a convicted illegal monopolist.

 

[Ameesh]

its amazing how many people here are talking out of their ass.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: RichieZZZZ
I hate Sun Java 2 VM, all the machines in my school labs have it installed (various NT4, 2K Pro, and XP Pro boxes). AIM express never works right, and the machines often crash when going to pages that heavily use java. In my limited expereience the Sun Java VM is inferior

That is because MS corrupted Java, and applications written for MS java don't work well with regular Java. That was the whole reason for all these lawsuits.

Not exactly. THe microsoft VM offered features that a standard vm did not have. This kept applications writtin specefically for ms java only on a ms platform. Those applications written to java spec would still work anywhere even if J++ was used. Developers had the option of being compatable, or being able to use more features. I really dont see how this is different from many of the programming languages that exist today.

This would not be a problem if MS had Sun's permission to add these extentions to Java, which did not belong to MS.
Also, MS used Java logo until forced to remove it, conveying the impression that it complied with Java spec, and was cross-platform compatible.
You can't take other people's work, modify it the way that it was not intended without their concent, and then distribute it as compatible, all with intent to corrupt the idea of cross-platform compatibility, in bad faith. Not when you are anyone, but especially not if you are a convicted illegal monopolist.

Did the Sun license forbid extensions? Or was that somethat upset sun after the fact? Microsofts jvm was compatable. J++ was compatable. However j++ developers had other options if portability was not a major issue.
Portability is rarely a major issue in developement. Even if portability was an issue J++ provided the best IDE to develope and debug java code at the time it was introduced.

c++
Microsoft has MFC
borland has Owl

neither are compatable, but both adhear to c++ language spec.

microsoft, oracle, sybase,<insert other db vender here> all have sql that ahears to the sql spec, but they all offer their own extras that are not comptable with other systems.

So what? MS J++ did not adhere to Java spec, which was set by its creator Sun, not Microsoft.

they comply with the java spec, they just extended it. I will agree the extensions would kill the portability that sun intended, but portabilith is rarely a key issue. At the same time, sun was not being honest either, they were holding the java spec without sending it language standard groups. Sun end game was to be the same monolopy you detest microsoft for being

Sun has played the hokey pokey with java and microsoft.
First they complain because MS puts it in, then they complain when they take it out. Sun is getting their arse whooped right now. Sun would be better off if they fired all their lawyers and hired more designers and coders and started to make products that can compete.
And lastly, why has Sun not given java to standards committee so a java standard can be created.
Sun, meet kettle.

Sun complained when MS put corrupted Java in. Had MS put the real thing in, Sun would not have complained.
When MS took Java out, but left their ActiveX and .NET in, they left, they are using their OS monopoly to extend it to programming language market. That is illegal, and they got caught. Rules are different when you are a convicted illegal monopolist.

ActiveX and .Net have nothing to do with a JVM. ActiveX appeared before java(some call it COM) and .Net appeared after java(java done right(IMHO). The microsoft JVM has remained compatable, being able to run any java and microsoft specefic ones. Sun complained about microsoft creating great java dev tools and one of the fastest most compliant jvms available. Sun and Microsoft could have done alot for java together, but sun only wished to take microsoft down with java.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Ameesh
its amazing how many people here are talking out of their ass.

Um yah, and your one liners contribute so much to the discussion

Anyways, why are you guys feeling sorry for Macromedia? I think my new business strategy is to design products that will be a thorn in M$'s side. Once I become a big enough nuisance, M$ will want to buy me out for big $$$$$$$$$. What's so wrong with that?

Chiz

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: RichieZZZZ
I hate Sun Java 2 VM, all the machines in my school labs have it installed (various NT4, 2K Pro, and XP Pro boxes). AIM express never works right, and the machines often crash when going to pages that heavily use java. In my limited expereience the Sun Java VM is inferior

That is because MS corrupted Java, and applications written for MS java don't work well with regular Java. That was the whole reason for all these lawsuits.

Not exactly. THe microsoft VM offered features that a standard vm did not have. This kept applications writtin specefically for ms java only on a ms platform. Those applications written to java spec would still work anywhere even if J++ was used. Developers had the option of being compatable, or being able to use more features. I really dont see how this is different from many of the programming languages that exist today.

This would not be a problem if MS had Sun's permission to add these extentions to Java, which did not belong to MS.
Also, MS used Java logo until forced to remove it, conveying the impression that it complied with Java spec, and was cross-platform compatible.
You can't take other people's work, modify it the way that it was not intended without their concent, and then distribute it as compatible, all with intent to corrupt the idea of cross-platform compatibility, in bad faith. Not when you are anyone, but especially not if you are a convicted illegal monopolist.

Did the Sun license forbid extensions? Or was that somethat upset sun after the fact? Microsofts jvm was compatable. J++ was compatable. However j++ developers had other options if portability was not a major issue.
Portability is rarely a major issue in developement. Even if portability was an issue J++ provided the best IDE to develope and debug java code at the time it was introduced.

c++
Microsoft has MFC
borland has Owl

neither are compatable, but both adhear to c++ language spec.

microsoft, oracle, sybase,<insert other db vender here> all have sql that ahears to the sql spec, but they all offer their own extras that are not comptable with other systems.

So what? MS J++ did not adhere to Java spec, which was set by its creator Sun, not Microsoft.

they comply with the java spec, they just extended it. I will agree the extensions would kill the portability that sun intended, but portabilith is rarely a key issue. At the same time, sun was not being honest either, they were holding the java spec without sending it language standard groups. Sun end game was to be the same monolopy you detest microsoft for being

Sun has played the hokey pokey with java and microsoft.
First they complain because MS puts it in, then they complain when they take it out. Sun is getting their arse whooped right now. Sun would be better off if they fired all their lawyers and hired more designers and coders and started to make products that can compete.
And lastly, why has Sun not given java to standards committee so a java standard can be created.
Sun, meet kettle.

Sun complained when MS put corrupted Java in. Had MS put the real thing in, Sun would not have complained.
When MS took Java out, but left their ActiveX and .NET in, they left, they are using their OS monopoly to extend it to programming language market. That is illegal, and they got caught. Rules are different when you are a convicted illegal monopolist.

ActiveX and .Net have nothing to do with a JVM. ActiveX appeared before java(some call it COM) and .Net appeared after java(java done right(IMHO). The microsoft JVM has remained compatable, being able to run any java and microsoft specefic ones. Sun complained about microsoft creating great java dev tools and one of the fastest most compliant jvms available. Sun and Microsoft could have done alot for java together, but sun only wished to take microsoft down with java.

Microsoft extended what was not theirs to extend, with intent to undermine Java. The idea behind Java is to run code written on any machine on any other machine. It was not made to have code written on MS J++ run only on Windows. If you want to use .NET fine, but don't corrupt a language that's not yours. I cannot just take someone else's book, then rewrite some chapters and sell it as the real thing.

 

[StormRider]

Why is everyone so against Microsoft and Bill Gates?

I love Bill Gates! He is my God. Because of him, I have a good paying job. He is a nerd/geek who made it in the real world. For the first time, a geek/nerd is the most powerful man in the world! All the jocks and popular kids in high school who made fun of him, now look up to him! And it's killing them! Now they all want to bring him down because they can't stand the thought that a geeky little kid like Bill Gates has more money than them. They can't stand the fact that girls notice him.

I support you Bill Gates! I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you! Together, the geeks will inherit the earth!!!!!

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: RichieZZZZ
I hate Sun Java 2 VM, all the machines in my school labs have it installed (various NT4, 2K Pro, and XP Pro boxes). AIM express never works right, and the machines often crash when going to pages that heavily use java. In my limited expereience the Sun Java VM is inferior

I asked java developers in the Software forum about MS vs Sun VMs since we might be doing a small java app at work. Apparently the MS VM is now years out of date and missing the user interface libraries needed for any serious work.

So it might be better for that one app (assuming the app would even run with the MS VM) but in general the MS VM is pretty much useless.

It's even worse than that though, which is why the injunction was granted (whether it's ultimately upheld and if Sun wins the lawsuit remains to be seen). Because Windows is 90% of the desktop OS market, MS essentially has implanted its outdated, non-compliant VM as the de facto standard. If I wanted to write a Java applet that works on most PCs in the world, I can't write one for Java2 (a 3-year old marketing term) because the MS VM is only a Java 1.1 VM.

So software developers are beholden to the monopoly OS position. Let me state once again that having a monopoly OS position is NOT illegal; what is illegal was leveraging that monopoly to stifle competition in other products and the Java lawsuit is based on one of the preeminent examples of a typical MS business strategy.

The reason MS is compelled to distribute Sun's Java2 VM (details remain to be worked out) is because they first tried to pollute the industry-standard Java brand to usurp control and weaken the threat to their OS monopoly. Once they failed to do so within legal bounds of their Java license, they decided to relinquish the license and drop support. However, based on their past actions in violation of the license, plus their continued distribution of an archaic VM, IN ADDITION to their distribution of the competing .NET Framework with all of their operating systems going forward (classic example of bundling), the judge correctly granted the injunction IMO. As of right now, .NET is only of interest to software developers but because MS holds a Windows OS monopoly, they are forcing it down the throats of all consumers because they CAN. This is the same strategy used to push IE and Media Player, except that .NET currently isn't of any interest to regular consumers (granted this will eventually change).

Finally, some people miss the point that MS violated the terms of the Java license agreement it signed, and eventually gave up the license. They not only shipped additional features in their VM, but they steadfastly refused to implement some standard Java features (namely JNI and RMI). If the argument was over shipping additional code libraries such as MFC or OWL, then they wouldn't have been violating their Java license. Rather, they attempted to come up with their own defiintion of what the Java platform is, when it wasn't their product to begin with.

While I would be inclined to agree with some MS supporters that .NET is "Java done right" so to speak, the bottom line is they were 5 years later than Sun (and its industry partners) to the managed runtime space but because of their monopoly OS position and unique distribution clout, they sure can make up that ground in an awful hurry.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: RichieZZZZ
I hate Sun Java 2 VM, all the machines in my school labs have it installed (various NT4, 2K Pro, and XP Pro boxes). AIM express never works right, and the machines often crash when going to pages that heavily use java. In my limited expereience the Sun Java VM is inferior

I asked java developers in the Software forum about MS vs Sun VMs since we might be doing a small java app at work. Apparently the MS VM is now years out of date and missing the user interface libraries needed for any serious work.

So it might be better for that one app (assuming the app would even run with the MS VM) but in general the MS VM is pretty much useless.

It's even worse than that though, which is why the injunction was granted (whether it's ultimately upheld and if Sun wins the lawsuit remains to be seen). Because Windows is 90% of the desktop OS market, MS essentially has implanted its outdated, non-compliant VM as the de facto standard. If I wanted to write a Java applet that works on most PCs in the world, I can't write one for Java2 (a 3-year old marketing term) because the MS VM is only a Java 1.1 VM.

So software developers are beholden to the monopoly OS position. Let me state once again that having a monopoly OS position is NOT illegal; what is illegal was leveraging that monopoly to stifle competition in other products and the Java lawsuit is based on one of the preeminent examples of a typical MS business strategy.

The reason MS is compelled to distribute Sun's Java2 VM (details remain to be worked out) is because they first tried to pollute the industry-standard Java brand to usurp control and weaken the threat to their OS monopoly. Once they failed to do so within legal bounds of their Java license, they decided to relinquish the license and drop support. However, based on their past actions in violation of the license, plus their continued distribution of an archaic VM, IN ADDITION to their distribution of the competing .NET Framework with all of their operating systems going forward (classic example of bundling), the judge correctly granted the injunction IMO. As of right now, .NET is only of interest to software developers but because MS holds a Windows OS monopoly, they are forcing it down the throats of all consumers because they CAN. This is the same strategy used to push IE and Media Player, except that .NET currently isn't of any interest to regular consumers (granted this will eventually change).

Finally, some people miss the point that MS violated the terms of the Java license agreement it signed, and eventually gave up the license. They not only shipped additional features in their VM, but they steadfastly refused to implement some standard Java features (namely JNI and RMI). If the argument was over shipping additional code libraries such as MFC or OWL, then they wouldn't have been violating their Java license. Rather, they attempted to come up with their own defiintion of what the Java platform is, when it wasn't their product to begin with.

While I would be inclined to agree with some MS supporters that .NET is "Java done right" so to speak, the bottom line is they were 5 years later than Sun (and its industry partners) to the managed runtime space but because of their monopoly OS position and unique distribution clout, they sure can make up that ground in an awful hurry.

I will agree with alot in this post, but a few details are left out. Developers are free to bundle any jvm with their java app as they see fit. They do not have to rely on microsofts outdate jvm and Ibm makes a fine jvm for windows.

Sun refused to give java to language standards bodys, as they were out to remove microsoft from power. Microsoft rightly acted in its own interests. Sun took on the biggest kid on the block and took an ass whooping in the process. Sun and java would have been far more sucessful if they would have worked with microsoft, rather than against them.


java and .net will never be of any interest to consumers, as consumers dont care how their application is developed.

Java for gui applications was broken from the start and still broken today. Sure swing has gotten faster, but it still pathetically slow and consumes a ton of memory just to run "hello world" There are large penalties for trying to run an OS ontop of another OS.

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: RichieZZZZ
I hate Sun Java 2 VM, all the machines in my school labs have it installed (various NT4, 2K Pro, and XP Pro boxes). AIM express never works right, and the machines often crash when going to pages that heavily use java. In my limited expereience the Sun Java VM is inferior

I asked java developers in the Software forum about MS vs Sun VMs since we might be doing a small java app at work. Apparently the MS VM is now years out of date and missing the user interface libraries needed for any serious work.

So it might be better for that one app (assuming the app would even run with the MS VM) but in general the MS VM is pretty much useless.

It's even worse than that though, which is why the injunction was granted (whether it's ultimately upheld and if Sun wins the lawsuit remains to be seen). Because Windows is 90% of the desktop OS market, MS essentially has implanted its outdated, non-compliant VM as the de facto standard. If I wanted to write a Java applet that works on most PCs in the world, I can't write one for Java2 (a 3-year old marketing term) because the MS VM is only a Java 1.1 VM.

So software developers are beholden to the monopoly OS position. Let me state once again that having a monopoly OS position is NOT illegal; what is illegal was leveraging that monopoly to stifle competition in other products and the Java lawsuit is based on one of the preeminent examples of a typical MS business strategy.

The reason MS is compelled to distribute Sun's Java2 VM (details remain to be worked out) is because they first tried to pollute the industry-standard Java brand to usurp control and weaken the threat to their OS monopoly. Once they failed to do so within legal bounds of their Java license, they decided to relinquish the license and drop support. However, based on their past actions in violation of the license, plus their continued distribution of an archaic VM, IN ADDITION to their distribution of the competing .NET Framework with all of their operating systems going forward (classic example of bundling), the judge correctly granted the injunction IMO. As of right now, .NET is only of interest to software developers but because MS holds a Windows OS monopoly, they are forcing it down the throats of all consumers because they CAN. This is the same strategy used to push IE and Media Player, except that .NET currently isn't of any interest to regular consumers (granted this will eventually change).

Finally, some people miss the point that MS violated the terms of the Java license agreement it signed, and eventually gave up the license. They not only shipped additional features in their VM, but they steadfastly refused to implement some standard Java features (namely JNI and RMI). If the argument was over shipping additional code libraries such as MFC or OWL, then they wouldn't have been violating their Java license. Rather, they attempted to come up with their own defiintion of what the Java platform is, when it wasn't their product to begin with.

While I would be inclined to agree with some MS supporters that .NET is "Java done right" so to speak, the bottom line is they were 5 years later than Sun (and its industry partners) to the managed runtime space but because of their monopoly OS position and unique distribution clout, they sure can make up that ground in an awful hurry.

I have to agree with you that MS VM a 3 year old 1.1 version, but .NET is light years ahead of Sun VM 1.4.1. I'm not a fan of MS, but what my brother could do in 3 hours in .NET would take his IBM senior developing team (4 coders) over 2 weeks to do in Java.

The only thing that Java ?supposedly? has over .NET is the ability to create applets that look exactly the same in all Java supported browser. If this feature is true then Java have a leg up over .NET that I?m going to find out in the next few weeks.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: compudog
Interesting. When will it end??? So if MS doesn't include Java, you go and get it from Sun. So what?

Because when you come to a webpage that uses Java, it points you to a MS page that says "Plugin not available" instead of pointing you to a page where you can download the plugin.
Why is asp and .net automatically installed while java is not? Why not have the users manually go to MS website to download .NET, instead of packaging it with Windows? Microsoft is an Illegal Monopoly, so they have to play by certain rules.

Last I checked, the .NET runtime is NOT automatically installed. It is in fact an optional download for 98+ systems. Of course, it is installed in .NET server, but that much should be obvious.

0wn3d

and even if it were, so what? if there is a such a rule, i don't agree with it. you should be able to do whatever you want with your own product.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: RichieZZZZ
I hate Sun Java 2 VM, all the machines in my school labs have it installed (various NT4, 2K Pro, and XP Pro boxes). AIM express never works right, and the machines often crash when going to pages that heavily use java. In my limited expereience the Sun Java VM is inferior

I asked java developers in the Software forum about MS vs Sun VMs since we might be doing a small java app at work. Apparently the MS VM is now years out of date and missing the user interface libraries needed for any serious work.

So it might be better for that one app (assuming the app would even run with the MS VM) but in general the MS VM is pretty much useless.

It's even worse than that though, which is why the injunction was granted (whether it's ultimately upheld and if Sun wins the lawsuit remains to be seen). Because Windows is 90% of the desktop OS market, MS essentially has implanted its outdated, non-compliant VM as the de facto standard. If I wanted to write a Java applet that works on most PCs in the world, I can't write one for Java2 (a 3-year old marketing term) because the MS VM is only a Java 1.1 VM.

So software developers are beholden to the monopoly OS position. Let me state once again that having a monopoly OS position is NOT illegal; what is illegal was leveraging that monopoly to stifle competition in other products and the Java lawsuit is based on one of the preeminent examples of a typical MS business strategy.

The reason MS is compelled to distribute Sun's Java2 VM (details remain to be worked out) is because they first tried to pollute the industry-standard Java brand to usurp control and weaken the threat to their OS monopoly. Once they failed to do so within legal bounds of their Java license, they decided to relinquish the license and drop support. However, based on their past actions in violation of the license, plus their continued distribution of an archaic VM, IN ADDITION to their distribution of the competing .NET Framework with all of their operating systems going forward (classic example of bundling), the judge correctly granted the injunction IMO. As of right now, .NET is only of interest to software developers but because MS holds a Windows OS monopoly, they are forcing it down the throats of all consumers because they CAN. This is the same strategy used to push IE and Media Player, except that .NET currently isn't of any interest to regular consumers (granted this will eventually change).

Finally, some people miss the point that MS violated the terms of the Java license agreement it signed, and eventually gave up the license. They not only shipped additional features in their VM, but they steadfastly refused to implement some standard Java features (namely JNI and RMI). If the argument was over shipping additional code libraries such as MFC or OWL, then they wouldn't have been violating their Java license. Rather, they attempted to come up with their own defiintion of what the Java platform is, when it wasn't their product to begin with.

While I would be inclined to agree with some MS supporters that .NET is "Java done right" so to speak, the bottom line is they were 5 years later than Sun (and its industry partners) to the managed runtime space but because of their monopoly OS position and unique distribution clout, they sure can make up that ground in an awful hurry.

I will agree with alot in this post, but a few details are left out. Developers are free to bundle any jvm with their java app as they see fit. They do not have to rely on microsofts outdate jvm and Ibm makes a fine jvm for windows.

Sun refused to give java to language standards bodys, as they were out to remove microsoft from power. Microsoft rightly acted in its own interests. Sun took on the biggest kid on the block and took an ass whooping in the process. Sun and java would have been far more sucessful if they would have worked with microsoft, rather than against them.


java and .net will never be of any interest to consumers, as consumers dont care how their application is developed.

Java for gui applications was broken from the start and still broken today. Sure swing has gotten faster, but it still pathetically slow and consumes a ton of memory just to run "hello world" There are large penalties for trying to run an OS ontop of another OS.

So what's the problem then? MS will include JVM, and their own .NET and developers will decide what they want to write in.
It's about choice. When JVM is not included, there is no choice.

 

[gopunk]

It's about choice. When JVM is not included, there is no choice.

i tried to read all the text, but i might have missed it, so forgive me if i did... but can't people just download it? sounds like a choice to me.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: gopunk

It's about choice. When JVM is not included, there is no choice.

i tried to read all the text, but i might have missed it, so forgive me if i did... but can't people just download it? sounds like a choice to me.

Does average Joe know where to find the Java plugin? He goes to a website, and it says, plugin not available. Now what?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: RichieZZZZ
I hate Sun Java 2 VM, all the machines in my school labs have it installed (various NT4, 2K Pro, and XP Pro boxes). AIM express never works right, and the machines often crash when going to pages that heavily use java. In my limited expereience the Sun Java VM is inferior

I asked java developers in the Software forum about MS vs Sun VMs since we might be doing a small java app at work. Apparently the MS VM is now years out of date and missing the user interface libraries needed for any serious work.

So it might be better for that one app (assuming the app would even run with the MS VM) but in general the MS VM is pretty much useless.

It's even worse than that though, which is why the injunction was granted (whether it's ultimately upheld and if Sun wins the lawsuit remains to be seen). Because Windows is 90% of the desktop OS market, MS essentially has implanted its outdated, non-compliant VM as the de facto standard. If I wanted to write a Java applet that works on most PCs in the world, I can't write one for Java2 (a 3-year old marketing term) because the MS VM is only a Java 1.1 VM.

So software developers are beholden to the monopoly OS position. Let me state once again that having a monopoly OS position is NOT illegal; what is illegal was leveraging that monopoly to stifle competition in other products and the Java lawsuit is based on one of the preeminent examples of a typical MS business strategy.

The reason MS is compelled to distribute Sun's Java2 VM (details remain to be worked out) is because they first tried to pollute the industry-standard Java brand to usurp control and weaken the threat to their OS monopoly. Once they failed to do so within legal bounds of their Java license, they decided to relinquish the license and drop support. However, based on their past actions in violation of the license, plus their continued distribution of an archaic VM, IN ADDITION to their distribution of the competing .NET Framework with all of their operating systems going forward (classic example of bundling), the judge correctly granted the injunction IMO. As of right now, .NET is only of interest to software developers but because MS holds a Windows OS monopoly, they are forcing it down the throats of all consumers because they CAN. This is the same strategy used to push IE and Media Player, except that .NET currently isn't of any interest to regular consumers (granted this will eventually change).

Finally, some people miss the point that MS violated the terms of the Java license agreement it signed, and eventually gave up the license. They not only shipped additional features in their VM, but they steadfastly refused to implement some standard Java features (namely JNI and RMI). If the argument was over shipping additional code libraries such as MFC or OWL, then they wouldn't have been violating their Java license. Rather, they attempted to come up with their own defiintion of what the Java platform is, when it wasn't their product to begin with.

While I would be inclined to agree with some MS supporters that .NET is "Java done right" so to speak, the bottom line is they were 5 years later than Sun (and its industry partners) to the managed runtime space but because of their monopoly OS position and unique distribution clout, they sure can make up that ground in an awful hurry.

I will agree with alot in this post, but a few details are left out. Developers are free to bundle any jvm with their java app as they see fit. They do not have to rely on microsofts outdate jvm and Ibm makes a fine jvm for windows.

Sun refused to give java to language standards bodys, as they were out to remove microsoft from power. Microsoft rightly acted in its own interests. Sun took on the biggest kid on the block and took an ass whooping in the process. Sun and java would have been far more sucessful if they would have worked with microsoft, rather than against them.


java and .net will never be of any interest to consumers, as consumers dont care how their application is developed.

Java for gui applications was broken from the start and still broken today. Sure swing has gotten faster, but it still pathetically slow and consumes a ton of memory just to run "hello world" There are large penalties for trying to run an OS ontop of another OS.

So what's the problem then? MS will include JVM, and their own .NET and developers will decide what they want to write in.
It's about choice. When JVM is not included, there is no choice.

So in order to level the playing field, what applications must MS be forced to preload and support?
If MS ships a JVM, it is doing SUN a huge favor. If it does not Sun is fscked. Surely Sun and Microsoft could have reached an agreement where both received benefit from it. But sun did not want ms to receive any benefit and this is where things went bad.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: RichieZZZZ
I hate Sun Java 2 VM, all the machines in my school labs have it installed (various NT4, 2K Pro, and XP Pro boxes). AIM express never works right, and the machines often crash when going to pages that heavily use java. In my limited expereience the Sun Java VM is inferior

I asked java developers in the Software forum about MS vs Sun VMs since we might be doing a small java app at work. Apparently the MS VM is now years out of date and missing the user interface libraries needed for any serious work.

So it might be better for that one app (assuming the app would even run with the MS VM) but in general the MS VM is pretty much useless.

It's even worse than that though, which is why the injunction was granted (whether it's ultimately upheld and if Sun wins the lawsuit remains to be seen). Because Windows is 90% of the desktop OS market, MS essentially has implanted its outdated, non-compliant VM as the de facto standard. If I wanted to write a Java applet that works on most PCs in the world, I can't write one for Java2 (a 3-year old marketing term) because the MS VM is only a Java 1.1 VM.

So software developers are beholden to the monopoly OS position. Let me state once again that having a monopoly OS position is NOT illegal; what is illegal was leveraging that monopoly to stifle competition in other products and the Java lawsuit is based on one of the preeminent examples of a typical MS business strategy.

The reason MS is compelled to distribute Sun's Java2 VM (details remain to be worked out) is because they first tried to pollute the industry-standard Java brand to usurp control and weaken the threat to their OS monopoly. Once they failed to do so within legal bounds of their Java license, they decided to relinquish the license and drop support. However, based on their past actions in violation of the license, plus their continued distribution of an archaic VM, IN ADDITION to their distribution of the competing .NET Framework with all of their operating systems going forward (classic example of bundling), the judge correctly granted the injunction IMO. As of right now, .NET is only of interest to software developers but because MS holds a Windows OS monopoly, they are forcing it down the throats of all consumers because they CAN. This is the same strategy used to push IE and Media Player, except that .NET currently isn't of any interest to regular consumers (granted this will eventually change).

Finally, some people miss the point that MS violated the terms of the Java license agreement it signed, and eventually gave up the license. They not only shipped additional features in their VM, but they steadfastly refused to implement some standard Java features (namely JNI and RMI). If the argument was over shipping additional code libraries such as MFC or OWL, then they wouldn't have been violating their Java license. Rather, they attempted to come up with their own defiintion of what the Java platform is, when it wasn't their product to begin with.

While I would be inclined to agree with some MS supporters that .NET is "Java done right" so to speak, the bottom line is they were 5 years later than Sun (and its industry partners) to the managed runtime space but because of their monopoly OS position and unique distribution clout, they sure can make up that ground in an awful hurry.

I will agree with alot in this post, but a few details are left out. Developers are free to bundle any jvm with their java app as they see fit. They do not have to rely on microsofts outdate jvm and Ibm makes a fine jvm for windows.

Sun refused to give java to language standards bodys, as they were out to remove microsoft from power. Microsoft rightly acted in its own interests. Sun took on the biggest kid on the block and took an ass whooping in the process. Sun and java would have been far more sucessful if they would have worked with microsoft, rather than against them.


java and .net will never be of any interest to consumers, as consumers dont care how their application is developed.

Java for gui applications was broken from the start and still broken today. Sure swing has gotten faster, but it still pathetically slow and consumes a ton of memory just to run "hello world" There are large penalties for trying to run an OS ontop of another OS.

So what's the problem then? MS will include JVM, and their own .NET and developers will decide what they want to write in.
It's about choice. When JVM is not included, there is no choice.

There is choice, the developer just has to include a jvm when the java package is installed. Next problem.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: gopunk

It's about choice. When JVM is not included, there is no choice.

i tried to read all the text, but i might have missed it, so forgive me if i did... but can't people just download it? sounds like a choice to me.

Does average Joe know where to find the Java plugin? He goes to a website, and it says, plugin not available. Now what?

well by now, the average joe has heard of google, yahoo, altavista, lycos... shall i continue? even if he hasn't, microsoft has conveniently provided a big ass button that says "SEARCH".

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: gopunk

It's about choice. When JVM is not included, there is no choice.

i tried to read all the text, but i might have missed it, so forgive me if i did... but can't people just download it? sounds like a choice to me.

Does average Joe know where to find the Java plugin? He goes to a website, and it says, plugin not available. Now what?

An application worth having with an installer that will include the proper jvm. Cheesy applets are really not worth having. That being said, there are few java applications worth having that need java 2.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: gopunk

It's about choice. When JVM is not included, there is no choice.

i tried to read all the text, but i might have missed it, so forgive me if i did... but can't people just download it? sounds like a choice to me.

Two reasons:
(a) MS is already using its Windows monopoly to push .NET by pre-loading it on XP as of SP1, so if the JVM isn't also preloaded it is at a disadvange, since having to download the JVM over dialup could keep people from using java apps and keep developers from writing them.

(b) The trial judge is trying to remedy Microsoft's past behavior, in distributing a corrupted JVM (violating their agreement with Sun) then refusing to distribute Sun's updated JVM.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

So in order to level the playing field, what applications must MS be forced to preload and support?
If MS ships a JVM, it is doing SUN a huge favor. If it does not Sun is fscked. Surely Sun and Microsoft could have reached an agreement where both received benefit from it. But sun did not want ms to receive any benefit and this is where things went bad.

MS is a monopoly. Therefore it has to offer a level playing field. If it bundles all it's products with its OS and then to use alternative products, consumers have to jump through hoops, then it's using it's OS monopoly to create a monopoly in other markets.
If .NET is better than Java, it should be able to compete on a level playing field, not by using monopolistic tricks to tilt the playing field in .NET's favor.