Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the do-we-use-the-Sun-icon-or-the-MS-icon dept.
djradon writes: "According to this link, Microsoft and Sun have settled the Java lawsuit. Looks like Microsoft won't be supporting Java in any way, anytime soon, which is too bad because I think the ability to write COM components in Java was the best development option for IIS."
MSFT Bashing in this case bogas...
by
djMaxM
·
· Score: 5
MSFT wrote the best and fastest compiler for Java hands down when Sun started this stupidity. RMI was a freakin' mess, Netscape caused half of it, and then Sun comes after MSFT. There are cases where MSFT does some annoying stuff, like forcing MSN bookmarks in IE, but this one I can't fault them for.
I give a big middle finger to Sun for blowing what Java could have been.
The reason Microsoft should be bashed...
by
Gendou
·
· Score: 5
We do not bash Microsoft because they deliver poor products. This is utterly untrue. Microsoft Office is the model of every other office suite out there. IE is the ideal browser. Windows has AMAZING hardware support (well, NT5+ does - the Win2000 driver model is genius). Microsoft devotes a VERY large sum of money to research.
Microsoft has many good things about them. But, they have a few critically bad things. These things should be the reasons we bash MS:
1. They monopolize the computer industry and stifle competition.
2. They do not open their source so that other developers can create software on an even playing field with them.
3. They are not responsive to fixing flaws in their systems that are discovered by the community at large.
4. They overcharge for their software and force their clients into a nasty, anti-competetive business relationship.
None of these are "bash Microsoft because their software sucks." Now, it's true that Windows is below par, but that's not the only thing they do.
Calm down. Poor quality software is the *worst* reason to bash a closed-source, inflexable, monopolizing corporation. Fundamental matters of principle carry a lot more weight.
Re:The reason Microsoft should be bashed...
by
Gendou
·
· Score: 5
I'm sorry, but most of your responses here are just too poorly informed to be remarked on. Grr... But I will make a few comments.
And I bet the Giant's offense won't just hand the ball over to Baltimore. What a bunch of bad guys they are.
This comment is ridiculous. Microsoft has a myriad of API's in Windows that they keep to themselves. This gives them a serious upperhand over other software developers and it's unfair because they are a monopoly. Not to mention that your analogy makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If they give the ball over, they no longer have the ball. And comparing the ball to source is also silly. I am not saying Microsoft give up Windows for free, I am saying that they document their API's so that other developers can use them to make better products. Sheesh. You must not have done well on the english section of your SATs.
Don't like the high price? Try to offer a similar product at a better price. That's what a free market is all about. There is nothing immoral about them charging as much as they like for an OS. You might counter that this takes money from the pockets of organizations like hospitals that offer lifesaving services. The counterpoint is that if they charged less it would reduce the quality of life of employees and stockholders, which can kill just as many people as bad health care (poverty is no better for your health than an x-ray machine that crashes, it just kills in a less dramatic fashion).
First of all, have you ever read any of the reasons the DOJ was going after Microsoft? Their OEM practices are deplorable. But I'll let you mill through archives for info on that. Yes, it is a very bad thing to over charge for an OS when you're monopolizing. Try a similar product? There is much to choose from, but you still have to support the mainstream. If Dell or Compaq suddenly decided that they cannot afford Microsoft's products, and go entirely with BSD, Linux, etc., they'd quickly run out of business because of the MS monopoly. In the medical business, you go to several different companies if you want to buy equipment. They quote you prices. You make your selection based on deals. You cannot do this with MS. The information to make a competing x-ray machine is open and available to everyone. It's in science journals. Designs are public knowledge. No one said "you cannot infringe upon our rights to make x-ray machines." However, Microsoft makes their design closed and unavailable so that no one can make an alternative (instead, we use clean room tactics to get as much as we can, hence WINE), therefore, there is no choice to try a similar product at a better price. If Microsoft turned open source, they'd still have a business. People would choose Microsoft as an authority on Windows, but other companies could make Windows-compatible alternatives that would be cheaper and perhaps even better (then again, the source is a mess).
Ugh. I should give up. People like you infuriate me so much that I can barely form a coherent arguement against your rebutal to my case of Microsoft's wrong-doings in their monopolizing, greedy, and certainly tyrannical business policies. I have nothing against capitalism, of course it's a great system. BUT, evolution cannot occur when there's only one way of doing things and no way to break out of it. And WHY must you go on with this clearly stupid view of OSS==socialism? Socialism is about everyone being equal and surviving equally regardless. OSS is about survival of the fittest! THINK!
What Java technology can do that C# and .NET can't
by
yerricde
·
· Score: 5
I dare you to find me an application that java can handle that C# cannot - TODAY.
Three things Java technology can do that C# and.NET can't today, January 23, 2001:
Run as an applet in web browsers on Macintosh computers.
Run as an applet in web browsers on GNU/Linux or Solaris systems.
This is actually a pretty good settlement for Sun
by
alexhmit01
·
· Score: 5
Microsoft settled for VERY intelligent reasons. They need to conserve their legal resources. They got embarassed in the anti-trust suit, and with the findings of fact, there was no way that they'd win this suit.
The injuction about the logo wasn't too big a deal. MS doesn't need it. However, this goes beyond the logo.
They can't use Sun's IP. That means that they can't produce a Java anything. They can keep their existing Java software on the market for 7 years, (very key, screwing with Visual Studio now would annoy them) but they can't make more.
This means that the JVM plug-ins can be used preventing MSIE broken Java. With the next version, the Java VM disappears. Now, it is questionable if a third-party can write a reasonably fast Windows JVM, but who knows.
Java is taught at MIT, it is taught at most schools. Except the "elite" CS schools that still teach whatever their developed version of LISP is, most schools are teaching Java starting from the intros. With the CS curriculum in HS switching, Java programmers will be prevalent.
This won't change. Java is a REALLY good teaching language. Yes, there are easier ones, but schools don't like teaching strange tech. They want to be able to be "real world" enough to interest students. C++ has been a nightmare, Pascal was long dead when it was given up, Java is a nice language. It is easy to teach CS principles in it.
Java will still run on Windows. However, it will be a Sun or IBM Java VM, not a MS one. This means that MS can't break compatibility. Sun won. MS settled because they'd lose everything in the case. Also, this is good for MS Spin because they "drop support" for Java. However, Java won't go away.
Java IDEs are getting better. They will replace VB for "stupid apps." Meaning, I can write my DB applications in Java (possibly for JSP deployment via web browser), and run them on Solaris, Linux, and Macintosh, plus Windows. Someone will have to write a good VM for Windows, but it can be done. Also, Win2K helps here.
Win2K makes it easy to deploy applications across the Enterprise (if you are big enough to waste the time to learn all the stuff for it). This means that big companies can deploy the new VM quickly. This will help Java.
MacOS X is going to help Java, Mac will probably be able to build up to 10-15% of the user base. Why? With the Internet, the local platform matters less, and MacOS X is intuitive and powerful. I expect Linux to grab about 5%-10% of the userbase as it becomes more easily used.
MS will maintain 75%-80%, but a unified front of MacOS/Linux (via Java and a shared UNIX/BSD background) will prevent the monopolization of the past as long as the anti-trust lawsuit stays around.
Expect MacOS X.1 or whatever they call it to support X natively, that will let open source apps run on it. Microsoft isn't going away, they aren't going under, they may not even shrink (the market is still expanding, albeit slowly), but their ability to force everyone out will be gone soon, and Java may do it.
This DOES justify Sun's keeping Java proprietary. That's why MS couldn't kill it with Embrace and Extend. Open Source can "win" in that nobody can destroy it, but it can't "win" in the legal game. Sun was able to fight off MS, even if they weren't as pure with their code as we'd like.
Slashdot Mirror
MSFT wrote the best and fastest compiler for Java hands down when Sun started this stupidity. RMI was a freakin' mess, Netscape caused half of it, and then Sun comes after MSFT. There are cases where MSFT does some annoying stuff, like forcing MSN bookmarks in IE, but this one I can't fault them for. I give a big middle finger to Sun for blowing what Java could have been.
Microsoft has many good things about them. But, they have a few critically bad things. These things should be the reasons we bash MS:
1. They monopolize the computer industry and stifle competition.
2. They do not open their source so that other developers can create software on an even playing field with them.
3. They are not responsive to fixing flaws in their systems that are discovered by the community at large.
4. They overcharge for their software and force their clients into a nasty, anti-competetive business relationship.
None of these are "bash Microsoft because their software sucks." Now, it's true that Windows is below par, but that's not the only thing they do.
Calm down. Poor quality software is the *worst* reason to bash a closed-source, inflexable, monopolizing corporation. Fundamental matters of principle carry a lot more weight.
I dare you to find me an application that java can handle that C# cannot - TODAY.
Three things Java technology can do that C# andLike Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Microsoft settled for VERY intelligent reasons. They need to conserve their legal resources. They got embarassed in the anti-trust suit, and with the findings of fact, there was no way that they'd win this suit.
The injuction about the logo wasn't too big a deal. MS doesn't need it. However, this goes beyond the logo.
They can't use Sun's IP. That means that they can't produce a Java anything. They can keep their existing Java software on the market for 7 years, (very key, screwing with Visual Studio now would annoy them) but they can't make more.
This means that the JVM plug-ins can be used preventing MSIE broken Java. With the next version, the Java VM disappears. Now, it is questionable if a third-party can write a reasonably fast Windows JVM, but who knows.
Java is taught at MIT, it is taught at most schools. Except the "elite" CS schools that still teach whatever their developed version of LISP is, most schools are teaching Java starting from the intros. With the CS curriculum in HS switching, Java programmers will be prevalent.
This won't change. Java is a REALLY good teaching language. Yes, there are easier ones, but schools don't like teaching strange tech. They want to be able to be "real world" enough to interest students. C++ has been a nightmare, Pascal was long dead when it was given up, Java is a nice language. It is easy to teach CS principles in it.
Java will still run on Windows. However, it will be a Sun or IBM Java VM, not a MS one. This means that MS can't break compatibility. Sun won. MS settled because they'd lose everything in the case. Also, this is good for MS Spin because they "drop support" for Java. However, Java won't go away.
Java IDEs are getting better. They will replace VB for "stupid apps." Meaning, I can write my DB applications in Java (possibly for JSP deployment via web browser), and run them on Solaris, Linux, and Macintosh, plus Windows. Someone will have to write a good VM for Windows, but it can be done. Also, Win2K helps here.
Win2K makes it easy to deploy applications across the Enterprise (if you are big enough to waste the time to learn all the stuff for it). This means that big companies can deploy the new VM quickly. This will help Java.
MacOS X is going to help Java, Mac will probably be able to build up to 10-15% of the user base. Why? With the Internet, the local platform matters less, and MacOS X is intuitive and powerful. I expect Linux to grab about 5%-10% of the userbase as it becomes more easily used.
MS will maintain 75%-80%, but a unified front of MacOS/Linux (via Java and a shared UNIX/BSD background) will prevent the monopolization of the past as long as the anti-trust lawsuit stays around.
Expect MacOS X.1 or whatever they call it to support X natively, that will let open source apps run on it. Microsoft isn't going away, they aren't going under, they may not even shrink (the market is still expanding, albeit slowly), but their ability to force everyone out will be gone soon, and Java may do it.
This DOES justify Sun's keeping Java proprietary. That's why MS couldn't kill it with Embrace and Extend. Open Source can "win" in that nobody can destroy it, but it can't "win" in the legal game. Sun was able to fight off MS, even if they weren't as pure with their code as we'd like.