Slashdot Mirror
MS XP Drops Java Support
Indicating this ZDnet article, an Anonymous Coward writes: "Something I haven't seen mentioned before; XP will apparently
drop Java support, not only for Java apps, but in the browser
as well. XP users can still download and install Java
seperately, but of course, how many will choose to do so?"
Apparently, Microsoft execs have not surfed the web recent; it's hard to find a mainstream site which at some point doesn't use Java-based ads. I wonder if this move may entice some web advertizers to take issue with MS for removing a key component for viewing their ads.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Okay...pretty much everytime I have something that needs Java, trying to run it in IE, unless it's a bouncing ball, is a pain. So, you download the JRE and you're set.
/. - we're sick of hearing about it too.
But saying they're doing it for security reasons is just a joke. IIRC, Java applets can only connect back to the server they came from. IIRC, Java doesn't have the Win32 API and can't open your address book and make MAPI calls to spam everyone you know.
Sure, there may be a 1% chance that some hack will be twarted because of them removing Java, but as little as I try to bash MS, until they fix Outlook/Outlook express and the security problem with html/attachments, it's not going to matter.
It seems like every other week there is a new hack via Outlook...I don't even think the most recent one made it on
...well, no it isn't. But most users think it is. And that's all that matters, because they act on what they perceive, not what is real. Stupid? You bet. But it's the way things are.
Honestly: the average user is outright afraid to change anything on their computer. It's a "magic box" that will break if they do anything to it. You have no idea how many times I've seen this with users. They don't want to upgrade if they can possibly avoid it, and installing new software is even more to be avoided. I know one guy who got so mad when a beta release of some software he was using expired that he now boycotts that company because ""they released it for download, so it must have been ready for general use."
This is the fact Microsoft is banking on: computer-wise, the average user is a technophobe. Those of us who actually stay current are very much the exception. And because of this, anything Microsoft adds or removes is immediately crippled in the marketplace; users do not want it if they have to do anything whatsoever to get it.
----------
But as a programmer, I have to say your assumption is wrong. I had a job where I needed to install stuff all the time for my own programming purposes, and wasn't permitted to. I had to scream my way up to VPs to get permission to install stuff. I HAD to, it was my job. And the lame-ass IT staff wouldn't do it, because it was "unsupported software". The funny thing was, I never, ever once called them for anything unless it was something they screwed up. So it cuts both ways.
Programmers should fix their own machines. Period. For one thing, it gives them sympathy with users when it "doesn't work". For another, if they can't, they probably can't program well, either.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Microsoft has been accused of an "embrace and extend" attack on Java for years and has even lost a lawsuit on those grounds. Now they have rolled over and played dead - not shipping Java with the OS anymore and requiring users to go out and download the JVM they want.
Sun's got what they wanted and suddenly it doesn't look so good. Be careful what you ask for - you just might get it.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
But will they also screen all your emails to make sure they don't contain any of that nasty GPL virus?
Stop spreading FUD! That's GPL cancer , mister!
Java right now is still a moving target with a new verison coming out every half a year or so, and I don't think that bundling a JVM with an OS would have been beneficial to the language's development, as it would force developers to only use the XP version for fear of losing audience.
Ñ'
Java used the client side applets to gain prominence, but that was mostly a gimmick. Where Java really comes into its own is on the server, where the developer can control the JVM version, and doesn't have to use Java 1.0 for compatibility's sake.
Since server based Java never relied on the MS JVM, it remains unefective and just as viable as it ever was.
Ñ'
It's time for Sun to make a smart move.
They can benefit from this situation and make Java (recent version like 1.3) more present on the desktop.
Now that MS allows OEM to modify the Windows Setup with far less restriction than before, Sun can work with OEM (like Dell, Compact and others) to bundle the Java Plug-In in new PCs.
Unfortunatly, I doubt that Sun will take this course of action. They are to much focus on the server to actually do this.
M$ is probably pushing things to ActiveX, .NET, ASP
.NET. Can .NET run a program such as an applet without giving that program full control over the user's system?
Java: cross-platform. Loading a Java applet from a web page doesn't require granting any privileges to the web page. A Java applet can draw in the space it's given, take keyboard input when it has focus, and open new windows, just like a web page can, but it can't do much else.
ActiveX: Windows-only, and installing an ActiveX applet is equivalent security-wise to installing and running a native program, and then allowing the web page to interact with that program.
ASP: server-side, so it doesn't even try to do the same thing that Java did.
I guess that leaves us with
The shareholder is always right.
And the reason we're worried is that dotNET will enable intranets using Microsoft products (a very large number) more than ever before. JSP is a thing of the past. PHP will continue to be used by houses that don't rely on MS technologies, but for those who do, ASP.NET is by far the way to go.
I just migrated to ASP.NET last night on a pre-public server for the hell of it. I learned in the process the language's potential. Before, ASP was very limited (CDONTS, woo) and PHP + nix was vastly more powerful. And while PHP is more flexible (anything nix is more flexible than an MS product), at least MS has caught up in functionality. And that's all that most companies will have been waiting for.
From the average user POV, IE7 will most probably be the only browser many developers will target, since NS is out the door and not updating now. If you're writing a webpage for a user running IE7, would you rather write it in ASP.NET, JSP, or PHP? The answer is ASP.NET because you will get functionality and predictability.
This actually bodes poorly for people running nix houses. nix + Oracle or mySQL + PHP is an excellent solution nowadays. But what happens when in order to interface with that backend all your users will be using IE7? There will be pressure to migrate.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Ah, I'm starting to understand your position now. :) I still disagree completely with your first statement-- I use Java programs on a regular basis that run on 1.1. Stock stuff, game applets, homestead.com, etc.. MS's VM still kicks enough ass to support. Do I wish they'd been able to make a 1.2VM? Sure, if they had removed all of the WFC bullshit. Do I think they would have ever done that? Hell, no.
Here I'm talking about the new language features Microsoft added to Java back in 97/98. These are delegates, multicast delegates and J/Direct. These WERE good LANGUAGE EXTENSIONS for Java.
Mmmmmm, J/Direct. Unfortunately, it's really not very cross-platform. Now, sure, you're going to be calling into native code, so your app won't be "write once, run anywhere" regardless. But at least if I use RNI (Sun's is RNI, right, not JNI? Not that it matters.), I don't have to modify my Java for the Linux version. Still, I will admit to a bit of a love affair with J/Direct. Or at least a lack of hate affair, after dealing with those other ridiculous kludges.
Like any other plugin (e.g. flash), IE will prompt you to download the VM if you do happen to find a site that still uses Java.
A 10 meg inclusion with a 1 gig install is no big deal. Over a 56K modem, it's enough of a deterrent that major commercial sites won't take the risk of losing a potential viewer.
The real root of this issue isn't theoretical for me. I'm working on a very large Java app. I want it to be cross-platform, and it needs to have minimal barrier to use-- that means, in most cases, no VM download. So regardless of what court cases went on, or whose extensions were easier to use, etc. etc., one thing is very obvious with this announcement: Microsoft just made my job a whole lot harder. They didn't have to do it, and they really pissed me off.
The reason there's no JVM included with Windows XP is due to terms of a settlement between Microsoft and Sun Microsystems. Basically, Sun told them not to do it.
This is horseshit flamebait, and you know it (and I know it, and I'm responding-- sigh). As pretty much everyone here knows, MS first attempted to kill Java by adding a lot of proprietary, Windows-only extensions. They hoped that by turning it into a platform-specific language, it would either become useless, or another Windows-only option. Sun sued MS, telling them to cut that shit out. They won, but MS can continue to distribute the VM for another 7 years or so. Additionally, they can bundle other VMs with their OS.
Now that MS's first attempt to kill Java has failed, they're coming in with another two-pronged attack. They're introducing C#, which is pitched to be just like Java, only easier, better, faster, and makes toast. And they're removing Java, meaning that anyone distributing a Java app needs to distribute instructions on how to waste half an hour downloading the latest VM.
MS even admits it's for "business reasons", which is the last resort after finding absolutely no way to say this is good for the consumer. If they want to bundle a Java VM with their OS, they have many options.
OK, I'll download the latest JVM, starting at the Java webpage. I have to go though five pages to get to the final Download page, and that's via a menu on the left. However, both mainstream browsers (IE and Netscape) support specifying the download location, although IE supports automatically downloading and installing the ActiveX control that is the IE plugin.
The JRE itself (JUST the JVM and associated libraries) comes in at 5,364,696 bytes for the Windows platform, on a 56K modem, an average user should be able to get about 3KB/s download speed. At that speed, it will take about a half-hour to download the runtime. (Specifically, 1746.32 seconds, or about 29 minutes, 6 seconds.)
At this point, most users would say "screw this" and just abandon the page requiring the applet.
--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
What they need to do is find a way to associate an icon with a JAR file in a way that windows explorer and the desktop will recognize it and display that icon instead of the generic executable JAR icon. It's reasonable to assume they will get no help from Microsoft to this end.
Another problem with desktop Java on windows is associated file types. Without using some sort of installer, I don't know of a way to tell windows that every time I double-click on a file with a .txt, .html, or .java extension, I want it to open in my Java text editor, instead of notepad.exe.
The problem with OEMs packaging the JRE is that it would make Microsoft mad. Antitrust lawsuits or no, Microsoft would make it hard on that OEM, if it's not already forbidden by the MS licensing. (Wasn't there a slashdot story about MS supposedly letting up on this, but not really?).
Another possible problem - and I don't know how big a deal it is - but Compaq, Dell, and whoever else probably sell NT servers. Why "help out" Sun installing JREs on their PCs when Sun competes with their server business?
wishus
---
Mozilla also ships without a JVM, and the first time you try to access a site that needs Java it'll tell you about that and ask if you want to download.
.NET, ASP or any other proprietary crap they have, I just hope they set a warning that you need a plugin to run Java, or this can backfire on them when DOJ adds this to the list of evidence on the proccess.
M$ is probably pushing things to ActiveX,
--
What ? Me, worry ?
The point is not whether it is hard to download a JVM. The point is that Java support won't be available without an extra step. This means that MS-sponsored technologies will be the default.
The article quotes someone who points out that if businesses want broad visiblity to their web sites, they might want to think about dropping Java in favor of .NET. That's the real impact here.
Think about what's happening to Real Networks, Kodak, and others who are seeing MS put their own technologies as "integral" parts of Windows to replace the products these companies are selling.
Tightening Java security
In a separate move affecting Java, Microsoft is tightening security settings in its new Windows and Office programs that in some cases will also disable Java programs. Microsoft's new products will now screen out Java as a possible carrier of computer viruses in e-mail and, under high-security settings, in Web-browsing software. This move, first signaled in a software "security patch" distributed last year, is part of a broader effort by Microsoft to help stamp out the spread of computer viruses.
Finally, Microsoft is doing something to combat those horrible java-based email viruses! But will they also screen all your emails to make sure they don't contain any of that nasty GPL virus?
The JVM that IE has isn't exactly the best of breed. (Although I understand that it used to be), so making the users get it on their own is not a devestating blow to Java.
Not to mention that Java's promise as a desktop application language have flopped big time.
Java is now a server-centric language, applets are at a distant second place. I can't recall the last time I've seen a Java applet, for that matter, except for maybe that annoying "hit the monkey" ads, and I won't miss those.
Beside, considerring how trendy web developers are, *what is the big deal*?
Already, if you use many things, you require your user to download a plug-in to do it. And in many cases, this can be fully automated process.
In any case, this is not very threatening to Java.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Explain to me again why we're worried? Windows XP also doesn't have support for RealVideo (Windows never has) so that involved me downloading a 5 minute download from Real. The Java download was completely and utterly automatic (similar to downloading Shockwave for Windows).
This is another fine example of people making mountains out of Microsoft molehills.