Slashdot Mirror
Sun Files Suit Against Microsoft for Anti-Trust Violations
Herve writes "Sun Microsystems announced it has filed a private antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation. The suit, filed March 8, 2002 in the United States District Court in San Jose, CA., seeks remedies for the harm inflicted by Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior with respect to the Java[tm] platform and for damages resulting from Microsoft's illegal efforts to maintain and expand its monopoly power. In June 2001, the Federal Court of Appeals found Microsoft guilty of illegally abusing its monopoly power with respect to Sun and the Java platform. Sun's suit seeks to redress the competitive and economic harm caused by Microsoft's illegal acts."
...the combined political payoffs of Microsoft's enemies will become greater than that of MS itself.
What a nice little thought.
Given the government spearheaded antitrust suits of the past (Ma Bell springs to mind) I'd say about 5-10 years. At which point the decision, one way or the other, will no longer matter.
El riesgo vive siempre!
Companies like Netscape and AOL and now Sun are just now all sueing MS simply because they have lost faith in the Justice Dept to hand down stiff penalties on Microsoft, so companies harmed by Microsoft are now seeking to send down their own penalties (as in most of these lawsuits will end in MS paying off the plaintiff).
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
We all knew they were going to sue. Sun's lawyers just wanted to know what they were up against from a legal standpoint. Sun should be careful. Legal disclosure can harm both parties.
Okay...we all know that there are some beefs with MS and their way of doing things. I can even see the Sun whining about the fragmentation of Java (not that Sun isn't doing that well enough on its own - Java 2 version 1.x - yeah that makes sense.)
But why oh why should MS have to include anything of Sun's in their OS? Okay...XP pulled out Java support. And now it really looks like Sun is complaining that the only way they can get Java everywhere is if MS is forced to include it.
Still sounds like whining to me.
Just because code is buried in the OS instead of the application (like it should be) doesn't mean that it isn't part of the application. I beleive that you will also find Office code buried in the OS. Does that mean that Word is part of Windows? I believe that (currently) M$ still says it isn't.
Check the mozilla source code for what's required for a browser... Even after you remove things that are more than just the browser (mail, news, etc), there is still quite a bit of work on top of an HTML renderer.
:)
The net layer stuff for communication with servers, bookmarks, history, security, etc...
If the 'HTML component' does all of this, then I would argue its a part of IE.
PS: let's just consider the fact that everyone is already familiar with the 'mozilla bloat' jokes/comments and we don't need to rehash them
At yesterday's conference call, Sun admitted that its sales are falling below expected "linearity". In other words, Sun is having trouble in exceeding last quarter's revenue.
Sun is losing market share. Read " IBM claims win in bruising server battle" As Sun's finances continue to sink, Sun will increasingly pursue lawsuits to boost its finances.
As another sign of desperation, Sun recently announced that it, too, will sell Intel-based servers running Linux. To understand the level of desperation, we note that Sun has been touting itself as the SPARC-only shop for the last 15 years. Sun claimed that it would never resort to selling Intel-based servers.
but linking to a page when the entire contents are in the article seems a little goofy.
It's called citing your sources. Otherwise, not only do you have zero credibility, but you're also plagiarizing the original article. (Plagiarism and copyright infringement are considered separate offences.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
--quote--
...the suit is also seeking access to the APIs used by Microsoft software and the IE source code.
Would be interesting to see if there are "hidden interfaces" exposed in the Windows API.
--/quote--
1) IEXPLORE.EXE is just a few UI components with the core HTML browser control dropped onto the form. If you want the Windows HTML renderer, you'll have to dig a bit deeper.
2) Thousands of people already have the source code. This include Universities, developers, and large companies. I have access to the source code if I want it. I honestly don't see what the BFD this is; the source is already out there.
This is just another attempt for a loser to try and cash in. If you can't beat them at their own game, file suit.
I don't see anyone bemoaning Byan vines' loss of marketshare when Microsoft started shipping WFW/NT4. No one seems to miss Trumpet Winsock (or any of the other TCP/IP stacks you had to pay for) when Microsoft shipped TCP/IP standard on NT4/Win9x.
Yet when Microsoft beats Netscape into the ground by putting their browser to shame and making IE one of the best browsers in the world, everyone is up in arms.
:rolleyes:
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
"Microsft's Java virtual machine is an obvious attempt to leverage their monopoly power to stifle a product that is at the core of Sun's business model..."
Absolutely ridiculous. While Sun is responsible for much of the initial work that went into Java, I can't imagine that it is the 'core of their business'. And I though the idea was that it was to be a universal language? MS is a big target, and Sun is just trying to grab a chunk of them for themselves.
Cunning linguists
MS's attitude was that there was no way they were going to allow Java to take over the Windows programming market in a way that might make Windows irrelevant underneath. They succeeded.
Sun's attitude was that there was no way they were going to allow Java to become "just a better way to write Windows apps." They succeeded.
As a result, Java is virtually irrelevant to Windows client app development, and since Windows is the vast majority of all "computer-scale" clients, Java is irrelevant for almost all client programming. Go team!
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
I used to think that splitting them would be as a good idea as well, but unless there was some deal between the two( or three) new miniMS's to allow the "free" sharing of code the whole business, OS/Apps/everythign would collapse. And since MAC is the only other viable destop solution for the masses, the PC market would actually collapse shorty there after. (Sure niches like linux woulse exist and the old software and hardware would be there but nothing new would happen for years.)
I think forcing microsoft to release all current source code prior to win2k (including prior NT) to public, and requireing thm to fully document any new API's and file formats as public RFCs for a few years is a better idea.
1) forcing the release of "old" code would not hurt XP as much since it would be a year before any "emulator" would be ready. Plus since MS touts Win2K and XP as rewrites there should be no complaints.
2) forcing the release of APIs and file formats would allow current alternative OS's to keep up software compatability until the industry stabilizes.
Course these are just my though, and I have a 512bit random number generator installed in my head.
I sig therefore I am...
I just hope this whole issue shines a bright light on yet another reason why open source is superior to closed source. There is a hell of a lot less litigation in the open source world. Hell, the most we can come up with is two companies taking the same database and claiming ownership.... pfft.
M$ has actually done a pretty good job of manipulating the whole Java thing. They new initially that IE would ide unless they included Java. But, the couldn't help themslves, and had to add proprietary M$ extensions.
Then they jumped on the bandwagon of people trying to get Sun to release a standard for Java (and release control if it). But they weren't doing this because they felt that it would be good for consumers/customers. They wanted it standardized so that they could manipulate the statndard. Since Sun knew this, (and they don't have a monopoly) Sun had to do something to keep some control over Java so that M$ couldn't destroy it thru manipulation of the standard.
(M$ C# doesn't have they problem, so M$ "standardized it". When will the first M$ only exstension appear? Since M$ holds a monopoly and can create a new defacto standard if anyone else comes close to competing they aren't worried. I'd love to see someone like Sun propose a change to the "standard" just to see M$ either use it's weight to block it, ignore the new standard, or what ever.
Anyway, now M$ is trying to play all innocent and portray Sun as evil. But, in reality, M$ was successful in killing Java in the browser and are now trying to replace it with C#. Just trying to copy^h^h^h^hinnovate great technology.
On January 23, 2001 Microsoft and Sun settled on the lawsuit about Microsoft shipping non-standard versions of Java. Part of the settlement was the following: "Sun has agreed to grant Microsoft a limited license to continue to distribute its current version of the software, provided that all future versions of such products pass Sun's compatibility tests. This part of the agreement lasts seven years. Beyond that date, Microsoft can not distribute Java technology or use any of Sun's intellectual property."
Ok, so Microsoft can't distribute any Java after 2008. But Microsoft decided not to included the Java VM with Windows XP, kind of saying we don't need your stinking POS. Now, on this new lawsuit Sun asks among other things for: "Preliminary injunctions prior to trial requiring Microsoft to: Distribute Sun's current, binary implementation of Java Plug-in as part of Windows XP and Internet Explorer." Why don't they make up their fucking mind?
It seems to me Sun is just looking for some money to pad their lackluster balance sheet. If you think Sun is doing any of this for the good of the public you should stop watching the Teletubbies.
Has anyone actually compiled and md5 summed the binaries of the source code given for comparison? How does anyone know that this is the real source code if it can not be verified openly?
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
I agree with you, and my deep apologies that you were moderated as a `troll' by the naive introverted folks that control such score on Slashdot. If I had moderation points, you'd be granted score as "Insightful". Is it not true that Internet Explorer is infact a far better browser than Netscape? Yes. Microsoft just happens to own Windows, and they can include whatever product they develop into it if they want. I don't use Internet Explorer because it comes with Windows (earlier versions of Internet Explorer actually made me switch to Netscape, but the fact is-- I had the option. No window popped up and said "Wouldn't you prefer Internet Explorer? Internet Explorer is better!". It installed and worked perfectly. All I care for is the option. As soon as Internet Explorer expanded to become a superior product to Netscape, I used it. I could have just as easily downloaded and setup Netscape in ~1-3 minutes, but I preferred using Internet Explorer.
What is anti-competitive about having a superior product? There's a question for you.
What crimes?
This is, as others below me have pointed out, another example of Microsoft's competitors taking the easy way out and ligitgating their way into success, rather than earning it and convincing a larger share of the public to buy their products. No matter how you frame it, the consumer has the ultimate choice in the matter...to buy or not to buy. If the majority of consumers cared about this, they'd change their buying habits.
Dismiss my opinions as you will, but please give this article some thought. Antitrust laws are unobjective and arbitrary, punishing successful companies for the "crime" of being better than their competitors.
"All mankind is at the mercy of a handful of neurotics". - Norman Douglas
This is an even bigger crock then I had first imagined. Sun is claiming all kinds of ridiculous things.
.NET runtime for *BSD if I remember correctly.
First, they claim that Microsoft has effectively monopolized (through illegal actions) the OS market for Intel machines, the web browser market, and the Office suite market.
While they may have engaged in questionable activities regarding the OS, the web browser is a core part of the computing experience today, just like a graphical user interface, TCP/IP and network connectivity, etc (all of which were separately purchased products at one point in the x86 history.)
Sun is also claiming that they tried to monopolize (using illegal tactics) the workgroup server OS market. This one is absolutely silly and absurd. Until some recent blunders by Novell, Microsoft did have hefty competition. However, I doubt anyone can argue that there is anything which is better than Microsoft's solutions for the workgroup and small business market. Maybe some products that offer the same functionality (open source or not), but certainly nothing that is head-over-heels "better".
Next, Sun claims they illegally tied IE to the operating system. As noted above, web browsing is now an essential part of the PC expierence; it only follows naturally that it should be included as part of the OS.
Now, here is where Sun really flies off the deep end and displays the true motivation behind the suit, which is Larry's obession with trying to beat Bill Gates and his highly successful company.
Sun claims that Microsoft broke the law by illegally tying their client OSes to their Server OSes. (I.e. somehow they tied it up so that Windows XP Pro only works with Windows XP Server and that such a situation is illegal and unfair.)
That's funny... SAMBA and Novell seemed to get along just fine. What did Sun expect? should Microsoft have gone with the awful NFS and NIS forever, abandoning any notions of directory services? What about the impact that would have had on existing installations of SMB? Besides; as I mentioned above, SAMBA does fairly well.
I won't deny that Win2K Pro and WinXP Pro are "tied" into Microsoft's Active Directory and so on, but what else did they expect? There is nothing here that hurts consumers; just the opposite in fact. A Win2K server with all Win2K clients is an excellent network to administer with Active Directory and Group Policy objects. Once again, we have the issue of what is really essential? I would argue that this kind of functionality is in fact essential to Operating Systems in general.
Sun also claims that Microsoft has illegally tied IIS into its server OSes. This one strikes me as really odd, because IIS isn't installed by default, it is simply included on the CD. In fact, for NT 4.0, you had to get a separate CD or download to install it; it wasn't even part of the standard distribution.
I've saved the most absurd for last... they are claiming that Microsoft illegally tied the ".NET framework to its PC and workgroup operating systems." Hilarious. Simply hilarious. What I find funny is that Microsoft is developing the
Of course they are probably just mad that Microsoft isn't shipping a Java runtime in Windows XP; well, what did they expect? They sued Microsoft (the maker of the world's best Java runtime at that point) and forced them to stop distributing their runtime with the OS or developing any new versions.
In doing so, they shot themselves in the foot. You cannot honestly ask any company to ship their competitor's product with their own. That is an absurd idea at best.
The bottom line is that this just seems like more sour grapes from Sun and a cheap attempt to try and cash in on the bandwagon. Sun has been milking political sources behind the scenes throughout this whole antitrust situation for their own benefit. What scares me the most though is the idea that they might be successful. I would dred to live in a world where Sun controlled the desktop and server.
If living in a Microsoft world is bad, then living in Sun's vision of the same world must be HELL.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
Sun sells a good many enterprise infrastructure related applications and services that are centered around the Java technology. I can imagine that they will explain to the courts that MS used its monopoly status and anti-competitive behavior to marginalize the value of these Java based services, development tools and enterprise components. There are some pretty hefty enterprise systems out there based on Java that come with an equally hefty price tag. If MS used its monopoly status to get more corporations to use a purely MS based solution (ASP, IIS, MS SQL, etc.) then Sun could argue extensive damages from lost business. This could extend into a variety of arenas including hardware, since Sun's custom enterprise solutions would certainly include their servers running Solaris. Once you get into the enterprise arena, if Sun can show that because of MS, it lost significantly large contracts (millions of $$, easily) and extrapolate from there, they could be looking at significant damages, if the court decides to award them.
Never mind the various factors that would be affected by the J++ fiasco.
May I suggest that the shameful thing is that their browser didn't follow standards? In typical MS fashion they "extended" the standard. And they supplied HTML tools that generated non-standard pages too. Thus, with their market clout lots and lots of pages didn't work properly with browsers that did conform to standards.
To the naive user this made it look like all the conforming browsers were broken.
I'd call that shameful.
Yes, I know netscape retaliated in kind.
Actually, I'm considering suing Sun for forcing Microsoft to include a Java VM, when I don't want or need one.
The harm: excessive anxiety over the amount of diskspace taken up by Sun's VM and worry about compatibility issues.
The remedy: about $250 in real damages, and $500 million in mental anguish, lost time, depression etc.
The terms of this suit are way more reasonable than Sun's wishy-washy attitude on shipping their VM. The thing is available for download if you need it, and if you don't, then you don't have to download it.
This is the equivalent of suing every Linux release for not including Jahshaka (a Linux-based video editing/effects package).
It's stupid and it sucks.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
It's amazing that Sun's (or any other non-M$) VM could approach the M$ VM perf considering the proprietary hooks and low-level tricks M$ used to get that kind of performance.
That's the basic sin of M$ that hurts the consumer: They ensure their monopoly of apps because they don't disclose the available APIs to get the best performance. They save those goodies only for themselves, then point fingers at how slow the other guy's app runs. NO KIDDING!! If I was able to pre-load all of my piece-of-junk apps so they open quickly then use tricks no one else can access to speed them up, I'd be doing well, too! No wonder that non-M$ apps stay slow...they only get the leftovers of the resources M$ apps hog!
No matter how you frame it, the consumer has the ultimate choice in the matter...to buy or not to buy. If the majority of consumers cared about this, they'd change their buying habits.
at the danger of being accused of being 'dismissive', and of feeding a troll..
have you even looked up the definition of a monopoly? exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action. basically that means the monopolist has such leverage in the market, individuals no longer CAN choose an alternative. that is the point.
Antitrust laws are unobjective and arbitrary, punishing successful companies for the "crime" of being better than their competitors.
Far from it. It is fine if Microsoft is so much better than their competitors that they control most of the desktop operating system market. That is fine and good, a monopoly is not in and of itself an evil thing. But, if a monopoly uses that monopoly position to: (1) artificially inflate prices of a necessity (such as a desktop OS); (2) tie their products in other markets to their monopoly position in the desktop OS market (such as a web browser); or (3) use illegal 'blocking' means to prevent and/or stifle competition (such as agreements with computer vendors to bundle Windows and only Windows or pay the consequences).
note that i'm not trying to 'dismiss' you, just point out that maybe you don't realise that people do NOT have the choices you claim they do.
-rp
Seriously, if you MS spies or whatever you call yourselves are going to come onto slashdot and post up pro MS drivel in the face of criticism, the least you an do is try to mask it a little bit. Good Lord. That entire post is possibly the most ignorant, Microsoft Certified Shit Comment I've ever read.
I realize that I should not attack your post with only insults, so I'll give an example, but only one since I don't have much time.
You cannot honestly ask any company to ship their competitor's product with their own. That is an absurd idea at best.
The problem is not that MS Windows doesn't come with Netscape or Java or any other competition. The problem is that Microsoft makes contracts with resellers that say if they're going to sell Microsoft Crap.X version of the OS then they have to include certain things, and they have to leave out certain things (like netscape and java.) Therefore, the illegal action is not leaving the competition off their CDs, but forcing the computer sellers to only have MS crap on their machines. That's mafia-esque and just as illegal.
~ now you know
Not to mention that having the Mac become a dominant player in the market would not be a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination. OS X appears to be quite secure, it even has much of Free/NetBSDs firewalling code in it, though apparently a GUI to configure it isn't available yet (look for it shortly, I imagine). It has an OSS base, its not Linux, but that's OK, too. Unless you're a hard core kernel junky, there's really nothing all too different between the open source BSDs and Linux (ignoring the license differences which again should only affect kernel junkies).
:). For Linux zealots who can't or don't WANT to leave KDE/GNOME/Windowmaker/Enlightenment/etc. - don't fret. It runs fine in OS X. When I first installed it, I got the latest beta for E to run without any hitches, no sweat. There are even window managers that integrate your X apps seamlessly with OS X apps - sweet!
OS X is an amazingly feature-rich system to use, Apple's push to make their desktop systems the center of 'your digital world' isn't JUST marketing hype - I've been using iTunes and iPhoto pretty extensively and I must say, neither app is lacking in anything that I've needed yet. My Rio500 hooks up perfectly with iTunes and my Olympus C-2100 UltraZoom hooks up perfectly with iPhoto. My efforts with Linux+gphoto were less than successful, I'm afraid, never mind the not-so-nice interfaces built for gphoto.
Now, don't go flaming me right away. I love Linux - I have 4 PCs running some variant of Linux including my laptop which has been running Linux + VMware for the past 3 years. I just think as a desktop OS, OS X is very, very nice. Its stable (I've experienced exactly one kernel panic which I haven't been able to reproduce) and it has some kick-ass apps written for it already with more on the way.
With Office v.X out for OS X, why couldn't the consumer live w/o Windows? I prefer quicktime to windows media player, OS X plays nicer on heterogeneous corporate networks than Windows does and not to put too fine a point on it, OS X is a whole lot easier to learn and a good bit more difficult to screw up than Windows has ever been. System files are protected so without consciously entering a system level authorization, you can't muck anything up too bad. For Windows gluttons who love all the shareware they can grab from C|Net, there's just as much written for OS 9/X that you can download from the 'Mac' category. The quality is just as dubious, so you should feel right at home
I would truly like to see more Open Source folks jump on the OS X bandwagon. This is a great OS - don't abandon Linux by any means, but don't diss OS X - support Apple as you would support RedHat. They've got a great thing going here, I really believe that.
Umm...didn't Sun sign an agreement that stipulated that Microsoft would not license any new Java technology?
They are now suing because they want Java included?
Guys....I am a Microsft programmer, and we all know that programming in java is a dead end on Windows. It has been a dead end on Windows for the last 5 years.
This lawsuit will never change the attitude among Microsoft programmers....and that attitude is this. Sun sells hardware to make money. MS sells software. Who do you trust when it comes to software? A hardware?! manufacturer! Nope.
Steve
I'm still working on a clever footer.
it seems like again and again, that companies are, like rabid animals, attacking Microsoft for personal reasons while the real issues of end users being continuously screwed are being overlooked and ignored. The really sad part is that (and this can definitely be witnessed on /. ) many people with such a seething baseless hatred for MS support this simply because it attacks MS. They are so blinded by their emotionally driven knee-jerk reactive behavior that they fail to understand how this will only hurt the end user (consumer) and if MS falls it will merely be replaced by another just like it (SUN) who refuses to play nicely with others and is more interested in lawyering and trickery (marketing and FUD) than producing quality products and providing adequate service (which of course includes gathering and incorporating requests/fixes of services).
Note that by baseless that I used above, I refer to the fact that many of these fools are blind sheep (by choice) that care little or nothing about the actual results of their support and action, but just want to 'strike out' against MS. This goes hand in hand with the self destructive nature of the 'protesting for protest's sake' mentality people that just jumped on the latest 'attack the man' bandwagon. Companies like AOL/TImewarner/etc/etc/etc and SUN will benefit while the end user whom is always named as the one being fought over, yet never is the one who benefits... this is much like the feudal wars of old.
IANAL, but it looks as if they are alledging that Microsoft built the CLR off of their "illegal" Java VM. I have to say, it *was* the first thing that entered my mind when I heard how the CLR functioned. Proving that they are one and the same (with many many many additions and modifications along the way) could be the thrust of this whole lawsuit - carefully buried in item #184 all the way at the end of the document.
I'm a 2000 man.
With Microsoft, you can't just walk away from them. It doesn't work. Nobody will associate with you. Just try not using Microsoft and do business with a large set of people? I use Linux on my desktop. I use StarOffice. I don't have any MS products installed anywhere on any machines that are my personal workstations. However, I have to produce and interact with MS products all the time. Microsoft goes out of there way to make it hard not allow you to use 3rd party tools with there tools. They have just as much authority and power as a King in most IT departments. You can't just ignore microsoft and have them go away. There are too many people who believe. Monopolies are bad just like Monarchies are bad. After a while, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
On a side point, it isn't illegal to be a Monopoly (at least not in the US). You can be a monopoly all you want. What is illegal is that monopolies get absolute power in there area. When they start to abuse the authority they have that is when they get into trouble.
Ah, one last point, with Microsoft in a lot of ways there is no choice for the consumer. If the OEM signs up to pay for a windows license for all the machines they buy, I can't change that short of finding that out and buying from somebody else. The problem is MS use to line that deal up with all the OEM's for something like 60-90% of all computers sold in the USA. There is a reason people jokingly refer to it as the MS tax. You don't get many choices on sales tax either now do you?
Don't get me wrong. Microsoft has done a tremendous amount of good for the computing world. They have impowered literally 100's of millions of people in the world. Their original goals they had were incredibly good for society. I appreciate what they have done for me. I truly do.
However, I think in a lot of ways, I would appreciate it if they did things that allowed somebody besides microsoft to do good things. I'd like it if they would publish the API's so little guys can interact with the OS well. I would like it if they would publish specifications on how Office documents work, so somebody could write reliable filters so I can vote with my dollars and use another office program. I can't vote for that with my dollars. Its not possible. The government can make it happen.
If microsoft truely is the best at what they do, they have nothing to fear from publishing information on how to interact with the software. They have nothing to fear from allowing OEM's to bundle any software they want. If they are the best, people will vote with their dollars. If microsoft blew the doors off of all the other products, its what I'd use. Microsoft does a lot of things that don't involve being better for the consumer and that is how they are winning.
Yes I.E. is a better brower. Wasn't at the beginning but it is now. Media player wasn't better then Real Audio. Microsoft didn't/doesn't allow an OEM to bundle software that is better then theirs to be bundled onto the base install which is in fact bad for the consumer. Microsoft didn't compete and beat people in an open market. Instead they do things to make it hard if not impossible for another competitor to work as well as microsoft.
The crap they do with auto-executing extensions and other nonesense makes it much harder to use programs they don't want you to. They aren't beating people with better products. They are leveraging the control from the OS market to run people out of every other market there is. That is bad. It is bad for the consumer. They do make good products. But if MS doesn't fell like implementing a feature I want, or feels like telling me I must register all my products and have them phone home that is hard to do. It just like the phone company dictating that you can't use anybody's phone but theirs on a phone network. It isn't hard to produce a good phone, but it is a real bitch to laydown a nationwide network just to make a good phone and sell it. For similar reasoning it is bad for the OS makers to be able to make it nearly impossible for software to interact well with the desktop. It isn't economically sound to develop an entire OS because you can make a better windows widget. It'd be nice if I knew how to make a good widget that I wouldn't have to create an entire OS and all the supporting superstructure just so I could see my widget. It's bad for the consumer, if you can't see that, you don't want to.
I think they want to check to see if the CLR is based on the "illegal" Java VM they sued to have MS stop developing. I'd be surprised if the CLR and their JVM *didn't* share some code.
I'm a 2000 man.
It's amazing that Sun's (or any other non-M$) VM could approach the M$ VM perf considering the proprietary hooks and low-level tricks M$ used to get that kind of performance.
Let's ignore for a moment the fact that Sun's 1.1 JVM had comparable performance with Microsoft's - how do you explain then that the JVMs Sun makes for Linux (open source, no hidden hooks or APIs) and Solaris (their own platform) aren't any faster? How do you explain the fact that IBM has consistently released JVMs that run faster than Sun's? How do you explain bugs like Integer division and modulo operations are 10 times slower on Hotspot?
It's amazing that Sun's (or any other non-M$) VM could approach the M$ VM perf considering the proprietary hooks and low-level tricks M$ used to get that kind of performance.
You know what most of those proprietary hooks and low-level tricks are?
Not using fopen and malloc to handle all of your memory management and file i/o.
That's it. End of story.
Use VirtualAlloc for memory management, and you'll get better perf.
Use CreateFile with overlapped I/O or completion ports, and you'll get better perf.
Basically, Sun writes their code to be ported, and MS writes it directly to their platform. Portable code = sucky performance. Live with it -- don't blame Microsoft because Sun don't tune their code.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Sun want's to be a monopolist (or at least a market leader).
Microsoft IS a monopolist.
So behaviour in one company can be considered being competitive. In another anti-competitive.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Sun is fighting MS now for several years, but not on the front of great software, but on the front of lawsuits and mudthrowing. Sun filed a complaint with the EU, Sun filed several lawsuits over Java (while other companies like HP were left untouched, while they committed the same 'crimes') against MS, it's a fanatic backer of the states that are still in the anti-trust case...
I don't know, but isnt't here a USA saying "Deeds do talk a hell of a lot louder than words" ? Sun: put your money where your mouth is and create kick ass software that knocks out MS and WILL win the majority of DEVELOPERS in this world. That's right, with this crap going on in courts, developers will not trust you for being 'THE company that is at the top BECAUSE the software is great'.
But perhaps it's just me...
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
So Sun are whining because Microsoft didn't bundle one of their creations in Windows XP?
Last year people were complaining because Microsoft bundled their browser+java.
Yawn.
Seems that any company nowadays is willing to try and climb into Microsoft's wallet.
After reading through these replies I have seen a few that are striking similar in grammer, context and expression and also very very Pro-Microsoft. I won't name any names, but I wonder if there are some people on the take for Microsoft. It wouldn't be the first time they have used false tactics like this (can we say OS/2 and Linux, etc etc). Just upsets me that they have infiltrated Slashdot.
In my honest opinion I think Microsoft cheats, breaks the law and stifles technology for the sake of profit. The Justice Department has not really done anything other then give them a slap on the wrist so what are companies who want to play fairly left to do?
The ugly part is when I start loading in large amounts of data, rather than empty out all that unused code, it starts paging it. Beautiful. Way to manage memory. It's fun to load about 180Meg of data into memory, when you have 512Meg and then get messages that you now have insufficient memory to open new application windows.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar