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?"
Yes, advertizing in Java is a poor choice, but we've already been through banner ads that didn't work, and there's nothing else except for Java and Flash that advertizers seem willing to try. I'm not sympathizing with the advertizers here, just trying to see it from their frame of mind, and this move by MS is very harmful to their bottom line (which has been dropping further and further over the years).
And yes, there are useful Java apps. Java games are highly popular (Bejeweled for example). I know many educators' web sites that use Java for interactive tutorials and demonstrations that could not be effectively done in large classes.
Java is not a bad technology; it's just a technology that was used badly that turned many people off of it.
"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.
----------
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.
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.
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.