Slashdot Mirror
New IE Disables Netscape-style Plug-ins
Snibor Eoj writes: "In his latest column, Robert Cringely takes a look at Microsoft's motivation for disabling Netscape API plug-ins in IE. As always with Cringely, it's an interesting take on things. We'll see how this one turns out..." Among other things, this will disable Quicktime plugins.
It's perfect! MS will be slapped down by their ignorance, and the mass of netizens will flock back to Netscape because they can't be without the ability to load web pages!
Alright, we know from the article that Quicktime is out for sure.
:)
But won't removing also kill Flash, one of the few Internet-wide plugins that I can be pretty sure these days that the majority of the visitors to my website can see? If that happens, a whole lot of site designers will sure be peeved.
Course, that will include every media company and such.
However, it would help me get away from those cutesy webpages I see sometimes that keep on playing annoying loops of midi quality music and disable the controls too (and which takes it's own pleasant time to load on my 56k)
ActiveX controls run as the user on the system - there's no "sandbox" and the only security is that it'll only run digitally signed controls. And on the default permissions, it'll ask you first. That's it.
As a plugin framework, ActiveX - well, works. I personally do not enjoy trying to write ActiveX controls, but I've never really tried to other than a simple one that didn't work. It seems to work about as well as the Netscape plugin API for simple plugins. It's just as secure - both involve running native code as the user - and it's actually much easier to install new plugins with.
MS's entire browser technology is much more extensible than Netscape's ever will be, and ActiveX controls as plugins are one part of that. ActiveX controls as downloaded content are a security nightmare, but as plugins, it's just as secure as any Netscape plugin.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
No it isn't. It's Sun's. They refuse to let it go, refuse to let it be an open standard, and they never will allow it.
I'm afraid it is you who are wrong about a great many things...
In particular, it's finally time to lay to rest the false notion that Sun controlls Java. It is controlled by a standards body called the Java Community Process, plain and simple. IBM has a major VM as do other companies, and they are not letting Sun alone hold the reigns on Java. There are far too many corperations from all sides that have gone with Java to let Sun alone control things.
Furthermore, I would argue that not only is Java controlled by other groups besides Sun but in fact Java is the most open and interactive standard to ever come down the pike, and THAT is what has really made it popular with developers. All new aspects of Java (like generics support or new API's) come through the JCP, and along the way ANYONE can help shape the direction of things - I know as I've been on the KVM mailing list as well as the Java 2D mailing list before they were finished standards, and ideas from individuals were incorperated into final standards. That means everyone who wants to has a say in how the API works along with the giant corperations, who send reps to the ISO bodies you seem to think Java needs to be controlled by. I don't know about you but I like enhancements done out in the open with vigorous discussion from everyone rather than by some smoky-back-room process.
If Java really is closed, how can projects like Kaffe exists? (GNU JVM).
Ugh, this is getting so tired. XP CAN run Java. In fact, in can run the MS JVM if you download and install it. It can run any JVM you want that you download and install.
Well, that's great! So support then is on the same level as Perl, in that you can download and install that. What percentage of users do that again? I think right now I'd say that XP comes with better support for Code Red than Java.
I agreee though with the concept that XP really has shot itself in the foot by not including Java. This leaves the door open to say "well, they're going to have to download a VM anyway so we might as well use the Java plugin". Microsoft could have kept Applets mired in the old Java 1.1 world for quite some time, but now that the plugin is more of an ooption it can help further the use of Java. I know that discussion is happening right now at my own company, we're pretty sure to move on to using the Java Plugin for external applets to help provide a more standard applet environment.
Why do people insist on writing long comments trying to look smart, without actually bothering to know what they are talking about?
Why do most posters here insist on furthering group-think that's patently wrong? Who knows.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Java is no longer Sun's alone. Java is the industry's
No it isn't. It's Sun's. They refuse to let it go, refuse to let it be an open standard, and they never will allow it.
Although Java is technically still under the Sun umbrella, Java has grown too big for Sun to dictate its direction alone.
Danese Cooper a.k.a. Sun Microsystems's "Open Source Diva" and Manager of Sun's Open Source Program Office, recently quoted in an interview about the Reaction to OSCON's Microsoft-Red Hat Debate as saying:
Sun doesn't want Java to be their proprietary code, but until companies such as Microsoft learn they can't taint Java for their own ends Java is better under the watchful eye of Sun.
Do you seriously think that Microsoft wouldn't have gotten away with distorting Java without Sun there watchdogging them and suing them when they tried?
They can ditch whatever they want, period. Regardless of "monopoly" status, which can be debated here for ever, MS is still in control of thier product. MS has no monopoly in browsers, never has, and never will. Therefore they can create any browser any way they want forever, period. They can license it, give it away, kill off Netscape, DO ANYTHING they want to it. Its thier property, thier software, thier decision.
;)
Monopolies are regulated. Monopolies - regardless of your overwhelming adherance to capitalist-dogma - can occur with much less than %XY of marketshare. Any business with enough power to do as they will, with no effective opposition to check on technology, direction and price is a monopoly. Period. Corporations serve customers. When customers have no choice the corporation is a public service.
And btw, if MS ditched RFC 822 and did their own e-mail thing then yes, it would be their perrogative. They could do ANYTHING they want with THEIR software, and I will do ANYTHING I want with my computer.
Wrong, they would be doing exactly what it anti-monoply laws are meant to prevent (see above) - one major player cannot randomly force their clients to make a move - one that makes no sense, other than to cripple already limp competitiors - this is abuse of their monopoly position. If they *DIDNT* have a monopoly - would they arbitrarily switch to a non-open standard? NO, of course not, it would be suicide, unless their was a compelling reason (technology or price)... breaking the plugin API is almost the same as saying "we are a monopoly - watch us extinguish our only competitor and ram change down the throat of the plugin vendors.. try and stop us"... where do the vendors go? NOWHERE b/c m$ is a monopoly... see it coming round now?
Its important to remember that popularity and market share do not mean monopoly. Even if 99.99% of all computer users used IE it still wouldn't necessarily mean MS had a monopoly in browsers.
Most people, and the law disagree. It really matters how you define monopoly. In the US, if Microsoft isnt a monopoly - your laws need to be adjusted. M$ has been running rampant in the IS industry - UNCHALLENGED - for far too long.. the health of the IS industry is suffering, opportunity is non-existant, innovation has been stiffled.
If the DoJ dosnt win a reward with some teeth this wont be the end of Anti-Trust concerns for M$... there is always the EU
Microsoft thinks to itself ~if we change it these ways, and don't point out what we changed, lots of people won't notice they're writing "Java" that runs only on our systems~ (this is documented in the antitrust findings of fact)
Sun takes umbrage at M$ breaking their contract and trying to hijack their product. Sun takes M$ to court, and wins.
M$ then blames Sun for the fallout, and whines
-- I especially love the "real world compatibility" part: compatibility, that is, with Microsoft's trojans, designed to get their corrupted "Java" in.Lord, how I pity the honest people who work there.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
1) If IE stops supporting external plug ins, how many plug-in publishers will go out of business?
.NET.
2) If a plug-in maker goes out of business, I won't have future updates of that plug-in for my Linux based browser.
3) If a plug-in such as RealPlayer or Flash goes away, websites will change to a MS based technology to drive it's content.
4) If a websites require MS based technology that is not supported by my browser, the internet starts becoming much smaller for non-MS people.
5)By creating the perception that plug-in technology is a liability, the laywers start looking for other browser publishers who do use plug-ins and sue them. Hello Netscape, AOL, and maybe even desktop shells with integrated HTML support. Hello Gnome.
6) Without plug-in support it becomes damn near imposible for other OSs (Hello Linux) to utilize Microsoft's
7) This is a very clever way for MS to further the goal of "the browser is the operating system". Hello monopoly.
RXC says:
Goodbye indeed. See ya. Don't let the door hit you in the marketing department on the way out.
I, for one, won't miss the EMBED tag. I'd also be willing to go without IFRAME, MARQUEE, and BLINK.
Microsoft's getting rid of EMBED? Bully for them. It's about time.
NO NO NO NO
These are not "Netscape style plugins"
They are <EMBED>, yes Netscape probably
was the major force getting them into HTML
but they are legal HTML (3.2 I believe)
Now IE has dropped support for this tag and is breaking HTML 3.2 support (surprise
surprise).
What people are calling "IE style plugins"
are <OBJECT>which are part of HTML 4.0.
PS> All those filters and still doesn't translate HTML enitites in text-mode, gret code Slash!
Were that I say, pancakes?
... why people seem to think that IE and Netscape are the only choices for a decent browser out there when there's such wonderful browsers like Opera out there (not to mention Konqueror--but I digress). It's small (compared to MS and NS bloatware), fast, doesn't spy on you, and it's free (as in adware--oh well, three out of four ain't bad!). The ability to turn off images with the click of a button (or a single keystroke) does wonders for surfing sites with annoying graphics! Give it a whirl--you won't be sorry!
You can ditch MS and their crapware. All it takes it a little digging!
-- Shamus
Bleah!
They only took out the Quicktime plugin because it is a stable feature, and thus isn't compatible with any Microsoft products.
If Apple were willing to add some buggy code, I'm sure the Microsoft would be more than happy to allow the feature in Internet Explorer
YOU CAN RUN NETSCAPE AND USE THOSE PLUGINS. Netscape DOES run on windows!
I'm talking about this.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
What I'd really like to know is, while thinking this shit up, is Bill Gates petting a white cat in his lap?
This was the first time I'd heard of the Eolas patent. Sounds like another company that's looking to get rich off of patents instead of, you know, creating any sort of useful product. (If you go to their web site, it seems to be little more than information about their lawsuit.) If I were Microsoft, I'd probably do the same thing, just to piss them off. But I'm petty and vindictive that way.
"Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!"
Monopolies never give away something for free, unless it is to maintain market share. There is always one thing reflected in the actions of any monopoly: they will do anything legal, or illegal, even at a loss, to maintain that all important market share. Nothing is more important than market share. Even if you loose your shirt in the short term. Even if you are found guilty and have to pay fines. Once you have everyone bent over a barrel, you can make it up to them.
I doubt Microsoft really gives Solitare and Hearts away to further their monopolistic evil plot to conquer the universe.
Geeze... I really hope they don't start putting a Solitare icon on the desktop!
What's a sig?
An activex Java applet engine is silly, but that's what MS wants, so they can co-opt part of the Java developer base. Sun's Java plugin uses NS API. Most of Java is open enough that you can run Java code and code in Java without using anything Sun. Cool high-profile things are happening with Java, and the only thing funny about that is how prejudiced programmers are language bigoting themselves out of jobs. Java is the best thing the open source movement has going for it, the only winner if Java loses is MS.
AC's cheerfully ignored
If Microsoft is =selectively= crippling IE, to force users down a specific upgrade path, then that is a very serious problem. So serious, it may well come up in the DOJ vs Microsoft trial, during the re-evaluation.
Using a monopoly in one area to create a monopoly in another is a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law.
How is this relevent to plug-in technology? Actually, that's surprisingly simple. Dropping the API is not the important part. That's just the mechanism. The important part is that they are "conforming" to this patent only in part. That part being dropping compatiability, which is the entire point of a =world= wide web.
What is happening is that they are generating negative press for competitors, at the same time as making it difficult to impossible for users to use any products other than Microsoft's.
If it were a case of needing an API wrapper, to use Apple's, Netscape's or Sun's plug-ins, there would be no problem. No such wrapper exists, and I very much doubt that sufficient documentation exists for anybody to write such a wrapper.
If you remember, when Microsoft dropped Java support, people voiced the opinion that all people would have to do is download the Sun Java plug-in. It now turns out that Microsoft won't let you.
So. No 3rd-party plug-ins from ANY source Microsoft doesn't approve of. That's a monopoly. Or, to use "real english", that is a Feudal state. THIS is the "real issue", not whether the API is alive, dead, or both. Schrodinger's Cat it is not.
To sum up, the allegation reduces to this: Microsoft is running an operation bordering on the paramilitary, in an effort to conquer and plunder territory, in a manner that is more rememiscient of a feudal war-lord than a civilised corporation in the 21st century in a country based on freedoms and democratic principles.
I don't know about you, but I don't give a damn what runs in what. =I= don't want Napoleon Bonepart running the tech industry at gun-point.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This could go one of two ways:
The latter is the more likely situation, as marketers won't soon give up on their pretty animated crap.
Don't even get me started on all the ActiveX security holes we'll be able to exploit.
Here's the recipe to remedy this:
- Load a squadron of F/A-18s with cluster bombs and bunker busters.
- Set course for Redmond, WA
- Drop said munitions on the Micro$oft complex
- Repeat as necessary
Of course, we should make sure Gates and Ballmer are there."You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
Microsoft has exactly as much right as anyone else to promote a standard.
Actually, as a confirmed monopoly, they most definitely do not have the same rights as any other company. And until/unless the supreme court overturns the unanimous opinion of the circuit court, that's exactly what they are.
Nope, no sig
Obviously site specific, but only 18% of people use a browser that admits to being non-IE for google
Maybe this will make IE more stable. Personally I wish they'd get rid of the ActiveX plugins too. I'm so damn sick of it opening Word and PDF document IN the browser when I'd rather download them or at least spawn the actual application they were meant for.
I wonder if this means that the BackOrifice(tm) plugin won't work anymore?
-- Shamus
Bleah!
This change by Microsoft means that anyone who upgrades to Service Pack 2 for IE 5.5 breaks our product. And the best part is Microsoft's KB article describing the status as, "This behavior is by design."
True, and I know the Microsoft KB article says to switch to ActiveX, but Cringly said ActiveX infringes on the Patent, and I can't see where he's wrong on that point (without looking at the patent, and even then IANAL).
On the other hand, Cringly says .Net is the "solution", but I'm not sure .Net won't violate the patent, either. Well, .Net may not violate it, but .Net won't be able to "embed program objects or applets in the browser", or implement "dynamic, bi-directional communications between Web browsers and external applications" (i.e., .Net apps running on a server). I'm not sure how .Net is supposed to get around this patent.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
EVERYTHING that is happening in software engineering, everything new and bold and adventurous, is happening in Java
That is really funny.
Java is no longer Sun's alone. Java is the industry's
No it isn't. It's Sun's. They refuse to let it go, refuse to let it be an open standard, and they never will allow it.
By crippling XP so that it can't run Java
Ugh, this is getting so tired. XP CAN run Java. In fact, in can run the MS JVM if you download and install it. It can run any JVM you want that you download and install.
Why do people insist on writing long comments trying to look smart, without actually bothering to know what they are talking about?
It appears that the plug-in support has changed because Microsoft is wanting to use Active-X to handle content. In one way the change makes sense as they want IE to be more integrated with the desktop. In theory, with Active X any program can act as an embedded media viewer.
On the other hand wasn't active-x meant to be one of the gapping security holes in IE? I often find active-x allowing websites to install software on my computer without even asking me.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
- Netscape plug ins run on three platforms. (Unix, Mac, Windows)
- Many of the plug in's are important (Flash, QuickTime, RealOddeeo, etc.)
- Some major web sites use these plug ins
By changing these plugins to ActiveX, it increases the possibility that these plugins will stop being supported on non-Windows platforms.So non-windows platforms end up being second-class (or worse) citizens when it comes to the browser.
Since the only business model MS knows is the leverage and maintenance of monopoly power, it makes sense for MS to do everything they can to make IE the standard, and make it incompatible with everything else. This helps them effectively steal open standards and turn them into proprietary standards by leveraging their monopoly on the desktop. By making other browsers second-class, it helps them maintain their monopoloy on the desktop. Nobody wants to use a desktop with a second class browser.
Both leveraging and maintaining a monopoly is what got them in trouble in the first place.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
Microsoft is getting sued by Eolas for patent infringment. Microsoft (while also litigating with Eolas) is also removing the infringing code from their product. It just happens to be (according to the article) support for the APPLET and EMBED tags. So it seems that Quicktime needs EMBED tags to function. I'm sure someone will find a way to write a plug-in to fix that.
It's not like Microsoft was been bothered by Quicktime before and told Apple where they could stick it.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
By changing these plugins to ActiveX, it increases the possibility that these plugins will stop being supported on non-Windows platforms. [...] blah blah monopoly blah blah open standards blah blah
So what you're saying is that Microsoft should have to support someone else's proprietary standard (i.e., Netscape) rather than being able to use their own standard. That's absurd.
One again it must be said: Microsoft has exactly as much right as anyone else to promote a standard. If you are worried about other platforms, then put in support for ActiveX controls.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
This last sentence pretty much says it all.
The whole pissing match between Sun, MS, and every other fscking co. does nothing but insure that we all have software and hardware that sucks. Isn't about time that these a-holes start showing concern for their customers by working on making decent products instead of worrying about their stock prices, IP, and market dominance.
I digress....
/*drunk.. fix later*/
Looking at Eolas, on the one hand, it's kind of funny to see the degree to which Eolas is beating Microsoft in Court, and the ridiculous hoops that Microsoft has jumped though in the process (Microsoft attempt to claim inventorship of Eolas invention-pdf). But on the other hand Eolas patent is sort of the worst kind of patent-squatting - thinking of something, patenting it, and then hoping others will pay you to license it, because you don't plan on developing it.
If you look at Eolas's website you don't get the impression that they're generating too many "algorithms that implement dynamic, bi-directional communications between Web browsers and external applications," to quote Cringely. Granted they developed the first plugin - in 1993! - for Mosaic! but they don't seem to be doing much else these days, in the hey day of the interactive internet. In fact, as near as I can figure they don't generate anything except law suits (right now only against MS, but what's to stop them from going after Netscape, Mozilla, Sun, etc. should they decide to do so.)
You really have to wonder about how far this sort of thing will be taken in the future - that is how many people will patent ideas and not act on them until that fundamental idea has made many companies tremendously successful. After all what if Turing had pattened the idea of "stored information, which can be utilized to control an electronic machine in the preformance of actions determined by the information" - the stored program executable. Morris and Eckert would have had to pay him to write the code for the ENIAC and we'd be paying his heirs everytime we wrote an executable (assuming his heirs renewed the patent).
credo quia absurdum
Netscape plugins aren't proprietary; the API is fully documented.
Microsoft does not have a right to ditch support of a de facto, platform-neutral standard for one which only works on Windows machines. They lost that right when they were declared a monopoly.
If Microsoft ditched support for RFC 822 and started using their own email, would you argue that it's their perrogative?
Much of Cringeley's argument seems to be that Microsoft will soon issue a "real" rationale why they are removing support for the JVM and Netscape plugins. This seems unlikely to me, given the following release from Wagged PR, Microsoft's agency, recently distributed to some industry media outlets. I'm blanking out the names because I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a general-public release or not. But it states pretty plainly their reasons for dropping Java -- and in direct opposition to Cringely's theory, it pretty much amounts to "Sun made us do it":
.NET, where we have submitted the underlying specifications to
.NET supports over 20 languages from Microsoft and third parties
.NET
-------[cut here]-------
To: xxxxxx
From: xxxxxx@Wagged.com
Date: 08/16/2001 01:50 PM
Dear xxxxxx,
There is a considerable amount of confusion surrounding Microsoft position
regarding the virtual machine in Windows XP. Wanted to make sure you have
the most accurate information from Microsoft as to the events leading to and
the consequences resulting from this decision. From Microsoft's perspective,
Sun Microsystems has turned its marketing machine into high gear about
Windows XP, claiming that Microsoft has hurt Sun, Java and customers by not
including the Microsoft virtual machine in Windows XP.
It's time to set the facts straight.
First, this is unparalleled hypocrisy on Sun's part. Sun has taken every
step possible to prevent Microsoft from shipping its award winning Java
virtual machine. They spent several years suing to stop Microsoft from
shipping a high performance Java virtual machine that took advantage of
Windows. Rather than pursue a new licensing arrangement, Sun settled its
lawsuit with Microsoft by offering a phase out of Microsoft's Java
implementation. Since the settlement a Federal Appeals Courts has upheld
Microsoft's development of a high-performance, well-integrated virtual
machine for Windows as pro-competitive.
Moreover, when Microsoft and Sun settled their litigation earlier this year,
Sun was quick to pronounce the settlement a great victory. Sun's CEO said,
"It's pretty simple: This is a victory for our licensees and consumers. The
community wants one Java technology: one brand, one process and one great
platform. We've accomplished that, and this agreement further protects the
authenticity and value of Sun's Java technology."1 Sun got what they said
they wanted: the termination of the existing Java license and an agreement
that Microsoft would phase out its Java virtual machine. Now they are
either unhappy with what they got or simply being disingenuous. Analysts
such as Bob Sutherland with Technology Business Research say: "Sun can't
have it both ways. They don't want Microsoft to have monopolistic control,
but at the same time they want them to control their Java. No matter what
Microsoft does, Sun is going to try to demonize them."2
Sun is also being disingenuous about the impact on customers. Microsoft has
taken multiple steps to make its Java implementation available to Windows XP
customers while adhering to the settlement agreement and protecting Windows
users from any future litigation by Sun. While the Microsoft virtual
machine is not on the Windows XP CD, it is still an integrated part of the
product. Customers who upgrade to Windows XP from recent prior versions of
Windows can easily and automatically take advantage of their existing
virtual machine. Customers with new machines or who perform a clean
installation of Windows XP can automatically do a one-time download of the
virtual machine the first time they browse a web page containing a Java
applet. This download is then available for any subsequent applet a user
may encounter. Finally, Microsoft has made its virtual machine available to
any PC manufacturer to ship with new Windows XP systems so as to save
customers even the one-time download.
The Microsoft virtual machine has a long history of outperforming other
virtual machines and offers the best real world compatibility of any virtual
machine. It is also the only virtual machine that offers an integrated
applet browsing experience with Internet Explorer. But if desired, Windows
XP also runs other third party virtual machines.
Sun wraps itself in a mantle of openness and choice. The idea that Java is
open is laughable, particularly after Sun submitted Java to a standards body
and then broke its promise not just once but twice. Contrast this to
Microsoft
ECMA and are following through on our commitment. Moreover, Sun's idea of
choice is you can have any language you want, as long as it is Java.
Microsoft
and Java too will be supported as a full-fledged language for the
platform.
Breakfast served all day!
Last week I tried to look at the "Microsoft Bra" ad on adcritic. Even though I already have Quicktime installed, it wanted me to install it, again. I figured maybe my Quicktime was downlevel, so I got another.
Restarted Netscape, went back. Wants me to get Quicktime installed.
One of these days I'll look for the ad in mpeg, if I have spare time.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
How does this affect IE on the Mac? Internet Explorer isn't just Windows-reliant, you know.
Scary shit!
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
I guess it's a good thing you didn't pay a lot of money for MSIE, did you?
The reason IE was free all along was that it always was a tool to help cement Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop.
By giving away a browser on a monopoly platform, you make that browser the standard. Once that browser is the predominant standard, then you begin changing things so that everything else is incompatible, and therefore "non-standard". (i.e. Konqueror wants to use these "non-standard" netscape plugins to view Real Video.)
Once IE is utterly the uncontested king, and there are no other browsers to compete, you can bet it will not remain free. Someday it will be unbundled, amidst a bunch of marketing manure, stating how this provides the best value for customers and other such bullshit.
Monopolies never give away something for free, unless it is to maintain market share. There is always one thing reflected in the actions of any monopoly: they will do anything legal, or illegal, even at a loss, to maintain that all important market share. Nothing is more important than market share. Even if you loose your shirt in the short term. Even if you are found guilty and have to pay fines. Once you have everyone bent over a barrel, you can make it up to them.
Too bad MS probably never really expected the legal route to go so far as a breakup. Even if you are found guilty and pay a stiff fine -- you're still a monopoly!
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
You mean I won't be able to watch QuickTime videos with IE on Linux anymore?
Of course I'm kidding: I always immediately leave any site that *requires* a plugin of any kind. If you can't take a picture of it, write some words about it or (in a rare case) make a video of it in a format everybody can read, I'm not interested.
324006
Face it - Bill Gates is a white Persian cat and a monocle away from being a Bond villain. -- Dennis Miller
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
Microsoft leaving Java out of XP doesn't hurt Java.
;)
It hurts Microsoft.
EVERYTHING that is happening in software engineering, everything new and bold and adventurous, is happening in Java. From where I sit here in San Diego, Java is simply taking over. The problem is this: Java isn't just a web page scripting language any more. And because of its structure, it's very easy to write compiler tools for it. As a result, all kinds of nifty new extensions (such as AspectJ) are being applied to it. Even the hardware industry -- including the embedded hardware industry -- is going all over it.
The reason for the above craziness is simple -- Java has features people have been trying to put into languages for years, but unlike those languages, it actually had a marketing push behind it.
Java is no longer Sun's alone. Java is the industry's. And Microsoft's abandoning Java just means that Microsoft has further detached themselves from everything innovative happening in the industry.
Even Apple figured this out. Witness OS X.
By crippling XP so that it can't run Java, they're making the same mistake IBM made when they crippled the PS/2 so that it couldn't use ISA cards, or when GM installed "planned obsolesence" and got waxed by the Japanese in the 80's, or when DEC's president decided he'd rather fly his plane than talk to IBM execs about an OS for their new "PC" dealy-bopper.
DEC is gone. GM is still suffering (although the new attitude at Cadillac shows hope). IBM had to reinvent themselves.
Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot, and in the same way others have done in the past. They've forgotten that they only succeed as long as they serve their customers, and that their customers do not exist to serve them.
It's one of the classic blunders. Like trying to win a land war in Asia.
Netscape's plugin API is their equivelent to ActiveX on Microsoft's side. Why does anyone complain about this? If Microsoft should be forced to support Netscape APIs, should Netscape be forced to support ActiveX? Seriously, the plugin API is losing support. Why would a developer create a Netscape plugin on the Windows platform? Sure, it would make sense to develop as plugin for other platforms, but on Windows, it simply makes more sense to create an ActiveX control because not only could the object be used in a web page, but in any activeX container (very common on teh windows platform). And if you even mention security issues in regards to what I just discussed, you don't know what you are talking about: they are both running native code and have the same vulnerabilities, therefore you don't run either one from untrusted sources. I'm not trolling, I would like intelligent discussion on this, really!
Oh wait, Microsoft makes one.....go figure.
D
The first, last, and only tech news site on the net
The feeling I'm getting from Microsoft is something along the lines of "doesn't work or play well with others."
I mean, sure, "It's their product and they can limit it as much as they want... they can choose to not include Java support... ad nauseum" But if you view the Microsoft present in combination with their past, it's easy to make the conclusion that their purpose for dropping support for various APIs and languages (Java and more) is more motivated to damaging the ubiquity of the market than anything else.
So first, they earn market share by embracing the standards in a way that makes the consumer comfortable. Next, they kill the competition. finally, they drop the "standards" they used to attract people with in the first place! Now since they own the market (effectively removed consumer choice) they can drop support for the things people wanted most.
Following the time line from beginning to end shows the pattern clearly. So while it is "their choice" to support this feature or that, especially when it isn't theirs to begin with, I have to question the motivation behind it. Further, it would seem like a clear example of further monopoly power abuse. The move seems rather deliberate and further, it also feels as if Microsoft's "true" goals are coming to fruition.
"Microsoft Conspiracy?" Well, yeah, maybe...