Slashdot Mirror
Java Thrown Back in Windows, For Now
darnellmc writes: "According to this News.com article, Microsoft has decided to include their JVM in the next Windows XP service pack. They are doing this in an attempt to avoid Sun's recent lawsuit against them for anti-trust violations. I wonder if the recent decision allowing the nine states' suit to continue had anything to do with this? Of course it did. MS plans not to have the JVM in future versions of Windows though."
Its a token gesture Java 1.1.3. Now they can say "See theres Java, yup its in Windows!" To bad that java is years old. Stale mb ;)
I have a shitty sig!
Plus, this is a perfect opportunity to break XP's compatibility with sun's JVM !! Anyone want to bet that sun will have to release an update to jdk 1.4 pretty soon after xp sp1?
Which dipshit customer requested the mandatory authentication in XP?
This is an old 1.1 VM that won't run any modern Java code. Now people won't want to download Java VMs because they "already have Java", frustrating Java developers just as much.
I'm sure i'll get modded down, but whatever.
.... up pops a window saying "you need a java VM - wanna download one?" Say yes --- it's downloaded from MS and life goes on. Same thing with flash or a bazillion other plugins.
If you've ever used XP things are pretty damn simple. Go to a site that uses java
Java was never 'blocked' or 'disabled'. They just didn't ship it on the CD's.
Christ -- don't we have anything REALLY important to report on?
In this case, yes.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Who is the winner here? It's certainly not developers. We're either going to have to code to an ancient, incompatible version of Java because it's the "default", or we're going to have to keep explaining to people the difference between the Sun JVM and the Microsoft JVM (and either including a JVM with our applications or forcing people to download yet another JVM, something our customers won't give a flying @%^$ about), or we're going to have to give up using Java completely.
And consumers aren't the winners either, because the version of Java that ships won't run very many newer Java applications, so they are still going to have to download a JVM when they want to do the latest Java stuff.
Sun certainly isn't the winner; they've spent far too much money on a battle that doesn't win them very much at all in terms of hard cash. (I mean, I don't see Macromedia complaining that Flash isn't built into Windows, and I don't see AOL wringing its arms about AIM and ICQ not being included with the OS -- why should Sun be any different?) Plus, Sun looks silly. They sued, they won, and they got what they wanted -- and then (as if they had never expected to win in the first place) they sued again to force Microsoft to do the opposite of what they had wanted Microsoft to do before.
The only (marginal) winner that I can see is Microsoft. Microsoft has managed to completely destroy any hopes of Java being a great client-side language -- by including an incompatible version of Java, then not including it, and then including that same ancient crappy version again. Java has been relegated to web services, where it's just barely holding its own against ASP and PHP. (PHP is on 24% of web servers now, BTW... many more than Java servlets or ASP.)
So, in the end, Sun spent a lot of money and lost; Microsoft spent a bit less money and lost; and we spent money on Windows and... well... we lost. Scott McNealy, I hope you're happy.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
Is it so far-fetched that Microsoft is actually trying to provide it's users with the features that they want?
Yes, it is, particularly since the java they're including is a horribly outdated version that won't run must of the java code on the net today.
It is a ploy designed to confuse the user, break as many existing java apps as possible, and spin the tale to place the blame on 'java' or Sun, rather than squarely on Microsoft where it belongs.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I doubt that there are many people clamouring for client side java. I have yet to visit a site that uses Java since I installed XP.
These days everything seems to be Macromedia Flash, only if someone would work out a way to block flash downloads I would do it in a flash as the abuse by advertisers is getting ridiculous. Unfortunately Microsoft didn't think to include the 'no I don't want to download that crap and don't ever, ever ask me again' option.
I suspect that this is simply Microsoft having demonstrated to Sun that its users are not demanding Java is now thinking it might sell a few more copies of J# if they distribute a VM again.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
We don't need some crappy out-dated version of Java on Windows. What would be great is for OEM's to start pre-installing Java 2 (including Java Web Start) before they ship the computers - like OSX!
"The best part about Microsoft's Java implementation is that the word 'java' is nowhere to be seen. It's the "Microsoft(TM) Virtual Machine." I think Microsoft were [sic] hoping that Java would go away if they simply don't ever speak the name."
... is permanently prohibited from using 'Java compatible' trademarks on its products." So it's not Microsoft that is doing this; it's Sun -- and for good reason. Sun doesn't want its name associated with the hunk o' junk that is the Microsoft virtual machine.
;)
I know this was modded as "funny", but I thought I should explain why Microsoft can't say "Java".
According to the settlement terms, "Microsoft
By the way, you've made a mistake I see all the time. I don't know where people got the impression that a company is plural, but it's not. A company is a single entity. Your sentence should be phrased, "I think Microsoft was hoping..."
Hope that clears some things up for you. Also, I agree that the "Java should not be used in life-or-death situations" disclaimer is pretty classic.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
Java promised "write once, run anywhere," and gave us "write once, debug everywhere." It's also nice to see that the Parrot folks are concentrating on making Parrot small and fast.
People are complaining a lot about how MS is only supporting a really old version of Java. Well, it's not just MS. For instance, Apple got way behind the curve with Java for a period of several years. The sheer size of Java made it difficult for people to implement, and then reimplement, and then re-reimplement, ... The nice thing about Parrot is that all the other bits besides the VM are nice and mature. (OK, Perl 6 is a prtty drastic rewrite, but Perl 6 is going to be able to run Perl 5 code, and there will also be an automatic translator.) Java has always been too much of a moving target for my taste.
Find free books.
If M$ hadn't been greedy and tried to "embrace and extend" Java in violation of its license from Sun, then it wouldn't have been sued by Sun and wouldn't have LOST that lawsuit. THAT is the reason why they are shipping an old version of the JVM.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
Um, 100 miles away? Have you ever experienced a Windows crash... when it crashes, it crashes hard, and geez, what crashes. If I knew of a nuclear reactor that operated under Windows, I would move to a different continent. I just hope there aren't six or more reactors operating under Windows, else I would have to move to Antarctica probably.
What a load of crap. They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. Why should they support Java - Sun has a JVM, a plugin, etc... Sun whined when they tried to extend Java, now they whine that they didn't include a JVM. Microsoft could _only_ distribute an old version according to their contractual/legal obligations, genius.
I was installing some game the other day (I think it was Dungeon Siege) and within the EULA was the standard Java disclaimer about not running it on a nuclear reactor or air traffic control system. It made me chuckle. It also makes me wonder why MS doesn't include the same sort of liability disclaimer for their products. Because if the nuclear reactor is running Windows, I am moving at least 100 miles away.
Iirc, it does.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
MS plans not to have the JVM in future versions of Windows though
This will make Sun more focusing on backend Java, an area where Microsoft has lost a lot of grounds.
If they'd really want to hurt Sun, they could just make a version of JVM which is hardly up-to-date and sometime incompatible with Sun's, like they did before. Come to think of it, this plan is doing good to the industry!
In this article on SFGate, the MS spokesman said today that they won't support Java after 2004, and here is what he had to say:
"The decision to remove Microsoft's Java implementation was made because of Sun's strategy of using the legal system to compete with Microsoft," [Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan]
I guess M$ really does like illegal competition....
-Sean
Huh? It was my understanding the reason WinXP didn't ship with Java is cause Sun complained! Sun wanted people to go out and download their own JVM, that's why. Well, knowing Windows users, that never happened for 95% of the userbase, so now they're putting it back in and everyone is like "it's Microsoft't fault." Well, if it wasn't for Sun bitching, this never would have happened.
Aw, fuck it. Let's go bowling. - The Big Lebowski
to have every AOL CD on the planet contain then-current JVMs which get installed with AOL. Sun could have AOL do incremental upgrades while people are chatting with AIM - they'd probably not notice a few K here and there being chewed up to bring new JVM upgrades. Everyone would have latest JVM. Java advocates would have *nothing* to complain about - if people didn't run Java apps it would be because they suck, not because of some evil ploy to keep Java out of the hands of people. MS manages to get people to upgrade whole operating systems - and they make it relatively painless. Sun can't seem to get a 20meg binary in people's hands, nor can they seem to make an installer system so I don't have to mess with command line crap to run a Java application. WebStart is half-assed, but it's a step in the right direction. Why don't they associate ".class" files with the java binary when it gets installed? This would make it so much easier to distribute apps - here, put this disc in and click 'myapp.class'. Nope - nothing's that simple with Sun, but they BITCH to high heaven about how bad MS is treating them. If they took half the money they spend on bitching and lawsuits and channeled it into getting Java into people's hands, making worthwhile *consumer* apps in Java, the Java mindshare would go through the roof.
Let's see:
Java was meant for TVs and coffee makers.
Whoops, no, Java will replace the OS on clients.
Whoops, no, sorry, "java applets suck" and all us Java advocates *really* meant that Java was really meant to run on the server all along.
Which 'whoops!' is going to come next? When Sun manages to lose whatever foothold they have in the server arena, we'll be hearing "yeah, well, servers suck - Java will *really* kill everyone in PDAs".
creation science book
standard Java disclaimer about not running it on a nuclear reactor or air traffic control system
I would imagine that Sun does make software intended for such use. The disclaimer is a notice that this particular software (Java) is not that kind of software despite the Sun brand. At this kind of level, failure modes become important. Which way it fails is more important than being correct. Not easy and not cheap.
You might want to reconsider that proposed alliance of yours since AOL has been hemorrhaging cash lately-- To the tune of $45,000,000,000 dollars. Just a thought.
It's probably the most evil, legal thing Microsoft can do is turn 3rd party products into native support. It's their ace in the hole, making their clone product easier to get to than the competitions. Winamp is probably the most noteworthy exception I can think of at the moment cuz it beats the pants off WMP time and time again...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
don't buy it.
I imagine the main reason they're including the JVM is because they'll also be including the .NET runtime in SP1. They lawyers probably told them that it wouldn't look so bad if they were to also bundle a version of a competitor's runtime in with the upgrade. When people turn round and say 'hey you're bundling .NET, too' they can shrug it off because they're uncluding Java support as well.
"Why would cutting a deal with AOL cause Sun to lose money?"
Actually, I was suggesting that Sun might want to do business with somebody more finacially stable than AOL. $45b is a damn big hole that a company can't simply overlook when looking for business partners.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
That's anti-competitive (unless it's not vaporware and you do have a product release immenent).
In this case, MSFT is pre-warning corporate America that Windows may be Java inhospitable in future versions (blocking Java apps "for security reasons").
Corporate America may be cowed, as they were by vaporware announcements, into believing MSFTs real or not so real version of the future.
MSFT doesn't want to totally remove Java now because they know a lot of their customers would be pissed (IT departments installing VMs en masse).
This way, MSFT preps the cow before it hits it over the head in 2004.
A beginners' guide to Portland, OR?
Honestly, who cares?!?! Now that FreeBSD has Java, who needs Windows anymore? In my opinion, the operating systems of the future are the free UNIX ones. Linux is supported by a great many companies. The BSDs form a good group of friendly competition. There are a whole bunch of fringe operating systems out there. Sooner or later, already the laughing stock of the industry, Microsoft is just going to lose the market, regardless of whether the government does anything to screw them over. Microsoft has abused its customers time and again, promising change and delivering crap each time. Think a memo about reliability is going to change anything? It'll take Microsoft years to solve the problems in their software, because it contains so much code, and even more so because it's a moving target: Microsoft can't afford to simply stop development and concentrate on reliability. They have to implement new features and stay on top of the constantly changing market.
Although Microsoft does have a shitload of money, I believe they made a fundamental mistake, and their high rate of success is only going to make them fall much harder when the time comes. That mistake was simply trying to accomplish too much. Regardless of their size and resources, they simply can't manufacture the rigorous quality that's becoming ever more important in our world. Their software is defective to the core, and it shows.
What Microsoft tried to do was become the empire. Like Rome or something. Rome took over about a quarter of the world, probably in hopes of gaining complete control over everything. Furthermore, the rich people donated a lot of money to the empire for various things. Everyone who donated wanted their name to go down in history, so they donated money to build extravagant things like colosseums and whatnot. Nobody wanted to support the maintainence of roads or other boring stuff. As a result of this negligence and many "management" mistakes, the empire declined until it fell apart completely. Microsoft tried the same thing: They either bought out or put out of business just about every profitable software company out there, in hopes of gaining complete control over the software industry. Furthermore, instead of concentrating on reliability, they concentrated on extravagant things like features nobody uses and talking paperclips. This practice has resulted in millions upon millions of lines of code, and probably 3000% duplication of effort, of which probably a good one fourth is defective, and this is hidden by hasty workarounds and kludges in order to meet shipping schedules.
I believe Microsoft would have been much better off if they didn't produce any software at all! Instead, they would be a software publisher, a packaging and marketing company of sorts. Microsoft would form alliances with companies in the markets they wished to enter. To begin with, they would offer a shitload of money to these companies, up-front, as an investment. The companies would produce the software, which must meet Microsoft's would-be rigorous software testing and auditing requirements. No known bugs would be released, and Microsoft would throw whatever was required into ironing out all but the most obscure and unknown bugs. For the release, Microsoft would print fancy documentation, put the software in fancy boxes, and spend a shitload on marketing. (The software would be sold as, for example, Microsoft C++, Presented by Borland International, or something like that, in much the same way as some science fiction books are sold as Isaac Asimov Presents whatever by whomever.) Then, Microsoft and the software producer would equally split the profits and share a few truckloads of Negra Modelo while they're at it. Everyone wins.
As time passed, and the Microsoft name was found on more and more products, companies would run to Microsoft, desperately trying to get Microsoft's name on their products. Instead of Microsoft blackmailing companies to give in, "Sell out to us or we'll crush you," everyone would run to Microsoft, in an effort to make Microsoft ditch one product for another. (Of course, the vast superiority of a product would have to be demonstrated in order for Microsoft to make such a move.) To make a long story short, there would be no anti-trust trial and software would be extremely reliable.
But then reality sets in, and all the free software out there has a giant advantage over Microsoft. That advantage is simply time. Linux, for example, had about 7 or 8 good years to simply develop without market pressure or competition. That allowed a good, solid foundation to be built and a lot of experience to be gained. Regardless of their resources, Microsoft did not have that kind of time to research and develop Windows, because the reality of the market forced them to continually make releases and add features. So I go back to what I said at the beginning of this unnecessarily long post, and that is that free software is going to replace commercial software, at least in the operating systems market.
Is this going to be one of those Installs from Hell, where everything you buy from Microsoft forcibly installs a new IE, thereby deleting a useful Java engine and replacing it with Microsoft's old 1.1 engine?
With the ever growing popularity of Yahoo Games I've seen a lot of non-technical people with pretty up to date JRE's, 1.3+. It seems people are willing to take the time to download JRE's if there is something worth the wait. I still like the idea mentioned here of a partnership with AOL. If AOL install CD's put the JRE on by default, Sun could bypass M$ all together.
So... wait... Microsoft gets in trouble for bundling IE, but they get yelled at for not bundling Java? WTF?
Have you ever experienced a Linux kernel panic? When it crashes, it crashes hard, and geez what crashes.
Hello? Foolio? If your OS crashes, no matter what OS it is, you're fucked, period. You could make a case that Windows crashes more than Linux except you'd be making shit up...Its not 1999 anymore, Windows 2000/XP are just as, if not more, stable than any other OS available for x86 processors.
Wake up, you're living in the past!
Of course you've got
But I like Java, it has come a long way since I first saw a clock on a web page! Fully developed applications, it has become part of the system on all good desktops.
Right now, you can't be without Java. Maybe Microsoft doesn't have to bend for Sun but it sure would good if they acted like they were playing nice. Then they can try to come out with their "Java Killer", until then I'm happy.
Of course more Java development would help keep it in place.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Neither Microsoft or Sun are convicted felons.
Anti-Trust is a matter of civil law, not criminal law.
I just don't understand this entire JVM issue. The argument seems to go something like this:
1 - Microsoft didn't include a JVM in Windows.
2 - Getting a JVM is confusing and not ReallyEasy(tm) for grandma
3 - Microsoft had damn well better put a JVM in Windows!
OK now...let's see what happens when we abstractify this argument.
1 - Company A won't include competing company B's part in its machine
2 - Putting Company B's part in isn't easy!
3 - Company A should help its competition by including said part.
Seems kinda silly doesn't it? Now I am in no way saying MS is sparklin' clean, or that they haven't participated in intensely overbearing and monopolistic practices. They're no angel at all. But this SPECIFIC issue seems really silly to me. Do we honestly expect a company to willingly compete against itself? One might ask the philosophical question of: Seeing the necessary end-result of capitalism and being so displeased with it, how can we at the same time so enthusiastically support the system?
While I'm not going to argue Microsoft's innocence I will say that Sun shares significant amount of blame for the situation at hand. They are easily guilty of many of the things that MS has done as far as predatory business practices and yet they are the first to condemn MS.
The original issue with Sun vs. MS and Java was that MS was shipping the VM with proprietary code. By itself a controllable issue but the secondary problem arose when MS began to ship IDE's that leveraged that proprietary code making it easy for developers to create java apps that could be dependent on MS and their VM to run properly (NOTE: NOT ABSOLUTELY but COULD BE, just like with VC++ you could write MS independent and standard code).
Sun then sued based on breach of contract and misuse of the Java trademark. It eventually won but majorly screwed that up.
The end agreement stated that MS "COULD" ship the Java VM but that that VM had to conform to Java's compatibility checks. It barred MS from using the Java trademark (to infinity and beyond!) hence the reason you see Microsoft(tm) VM instead of Java(tm) VM, MS cannot legally use Java in the product name. The end agreement said nothing about MS being FORCED to ship the Sun JVM nor did it state that the VM had to keep up with the updates to the changes in the language, nor did it state that MS had to ship any VM at all. The agreement simply stated that if MS CHOSE to ship a JVM that it had to conform to the compatability tests for the JRE it supported.
MS decided to take it's ball and go home. It stopped keeping up with the updates to the language and resigned to keeping the JVM to the compatability set at the time of the original agreement (all nice and legal). Eventually they realized that the people really making use of the JVM were developers who in the end downloaded the JVM and JDK from SUN or from IBM and that sending a JVM out to support 5% of their user base plus having to field the additional support calls was just not financially feasible. They announced well before hand that Windows would be losing the JVM because of the lack of updates and incompatability with current Java version.
This would have been the prime opportunity for SUN to step forward and play "let's make a deal" by buying a place for Java in Windows, like so many other software makers do. The truth is though that for the most part Java on the clientside is DEAD. SUN's profits come from the developers developing server side code that helps SUN to get a foot in to sell high priced servers, license products, and write out lucrative service contracts.
So instead of shelling out some cash and looking like a hypocrit considering their stance with the anti-trust allegations, they decided to go the "easy" route and claim yet another breach of contract by stating that MS was not living up to the original agreement previously set. They claimed that the agreement forced MS to include the VM (the outdated one). It was a win win situation for SUN - they knew most people would be too lazy or ignorant to check the facts of the original case and others would be so blinded by their hate for all things MS that it wouldn't matter. They also knew that MS wanted to avoid any further legal entanglements no matter how frivolous and so threatening MS would get them to reintroduce the tired old VM into Windows. In the end having the VM does little for SUN except in the fact that it sticks it to MS just a little more. Most people falsely assume that MS is making the move to thwart SUN and Java - that's the other part of the win for SUN in that they make MS look like the ogre again - "shipping an outdated VM, HOW DARE THEY! Come on over to java.sun.com we'll set you straight. Everything will be alright."
So there you have a long summation of MS's crimes against Java. I consider them SUN's crimes but oh well.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
Sun created a site targeted to end users, this is the Get Java site. It features an automatic install of Java 1.3 for XP users, and a download for other platforms. There are Java demos too.
I'm not a big fan on 2k, since it has all sorts of serious Win3.1 bugs and IE bugs kicking around in it. I have managed to wedge it a few times. You see, the kernel should be fixed by now, but there's still other parts of it that play up, such as the loosing IE interface, and the dozens of different ways to open a program bugs.
Not sure about XP, but it's a 0.01 downgrade on 2K (ie WinXP = NT 5.01, 2K = NT 5.00).
On the other hand, I have had systems crash, and not crash the fs. Even DOS and Win98.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
WebStart was designed so that shared libraries wouldn't need to be redownloaded, programs automatically install, and programs are up to date. If you want a program an your computer that will run when you double click it, take a look at the executable jar format. It's been around for years, and .jar's are associated with javaw -jar (I search down the registry entries to add -client to make my programs start almost instantly). Linux has had this functionality for a long time, and there are a bazillion how-to's.
.Net with Windows and that will be another plus for companies debating which to use. It's the same case as Netscape vs Microsoft, and they'll win if MS doesn't include Java. They only included their own insecure and buggy v1.1.4. I wished they would remove it and force people to get a real jvm.
:) Compare that to 20M .Net upgrade.
:/ (but you have to register... click tools and products on the left side and go to IBM Developer Kit)
:)
Correctly written programs in java are almost impossible to distinguish from their counterparts. Take a look at eclipse or open/star office.
Java is prospering in cellphones, pda's, desktop apps, as well as the server. Cellphones and pda's because no two use the same hardware, but it costs more money to rewrite the apps than to just run them. No one knows about the desktop apps they have that were written with java (Limewire gnutella client for one). The main reason java hasn't taken off before is because it had that stigma of being slow. It is less slower than C than C is slower than assembler. That's little to pay for not having to port apps and not having to rewrite code over and over vs reuse of code that is given in the API and your own object oriented code.
I think it's pretty obvious why SUN really wants this lawsuit. MS is going to bundle
Just don't go bitching about SUN when the real problem seems to be the programs written in java that you've got. If anyone wants, I'll email them a 10K jar file that will run when you double click it. If you want to create your own, create a text file with Main-Class: a.class(be sure you press enter after the line). type jar -cfm my.jar file_with_main_class_in_it a.class. That's all it takes. Hell, you can include all your libraries in that one file and all will be fine. In fact, I can give you one jar file that you can copy into the deploy directory of jboss, and it will deploy both the website and the ejbs. Then you can take that same file and double click it to run the client side app. Java supports it just fine, but all the apps you've seen are appearantly written by a crackpot that thinks he knows java after compiling his hello world program.
BTW, it's only a 9.3 meg file that you can get from java.sun.com just click the j2se button on the right and get the jre 1.4.0_01
If you want a faster VM, try these free VM's
http://jrockit.com (email verification, but free)
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/java
There are already talks about java running multiple programs in one VM. There are a few programs out there that do it for you, but they aren't there yet. Once this is in place java programs will start instantly after the first one. The reason why java appears to be slow to people is that it takes longer to start than other programs because of the git and vm load. The -client setting skips jit on startup and there is a JSR proposal on it's way for keeping the VM live. Java has come a long way and has had years of testing. It's not going to leave the servers any time soon! Especially now that we have JBoss 3.0 stable with EJB 2.0 support.
Want to see a java app done right? Try limewire.com
Karma Clown
I develop Java software in my spare time.
When I started programming in Java a couple of years ago,
I thought that maybe I could make applications and applets that people would actually use.
Granted that my crappy applet isn't the best one around, but when you see that your site got 30000 hits, and only 5000 played your game, you start thinking that maybe this isn't all your fault.
I don't know how many times I've explained to people how they go about to download the newest JRE.
Today, I would say that there are extremely few shareware/freeware utility applications written in Java especially in light of it's wide use in the industry, and the main reason for this is that they basically require a Java programmer to install them.
No JVM is better than a crappy old one, because then people will have to download the newest JRE the first time they come across an applet; this way, maybe we Java programmers can start utilizing the 1.2+ API instead of restricting ourselves to the 1.1 API for compatibility (which is really insane, because the 1.2 has been around since 1998 and is ten times better).
Whatever the cause, the Java language has definitely suffered from the lack of standardized and widespread VM software.
SUNs JVM is very much compatible even with the old 1.0.2 and 1.1 jvms. It is just that the MS implementation never was compatible (this is MS'fault) and that people wrote applets for that non compliant JVM and forgot to properly test their stuff with compliant JVMs. Sad, but you can't blame SUN for that. They certainly did everything to make MS comply with the standard they licensed.
I'm running jdk1.4.0 and it runs most applets I encounter just fine in internet explorer and mozilla. If a particular applet doesn't work that means that its developer hasn't bothered to update the code in years and doesn't care about non IE/MS JVM users. That should make you wonder whether you actually want to run such old, obsolete, abandoned code. I couldn't care less.
Jilles
Sorry you are spreading MS FUD.
Microsoft can not use the Java name for MS own crappy JVM since it does not follow the Java standard.
If Microsoft made a JVM that follows the standard they can still use the Java trademark.
This is the same requirement that Sun has on all that uses thier code - it can only be named Java if it follows the standard.
Thats is the only way to make sure that develop once run everywhere works.
Just saying it like it are.
Nowaday we can still hear the echo of screaming of my colleagues when they ran Perl 5 codes on Perl 6. :)
Since to my knowledge they haven't even released a development version of Perl 6 yet. It's really no wonder that it didn't work.
Perl 4 on Perl 5 works rather well BTW.
I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
Microsoft does not provide a "JVM". They provide the Microsoft Virtual Machine or Microsoft VM. This may or may not be compatible with any given version of valid Java object code: Microsoft doesn't make that claim any more.
Further, Microsoft VM object code compiled with Microsoft J++ is definitely not guaranteed to work with any version of the Sun JVM. Further further, Microsoft VM object code compiled for any given version of the Microsoft VM is not guaranteed to - and sometimes does not - work with newer versions of the Microsoft VM.
Let me give you an example of what this means in practice. My employer uses the web based Rational ClearQuest for bug tracking. It used java-like applets, and works with all versions of Microsoft IE on 9x/NT/2K/XP platforms using the Microsoft VM that we've tried it with, but with no versions of the Sun JVM in IE, or indeed with any browser other than IE.
It gets worse. Our actual product uses java-like applets, built using Microsoft J++. They work with IE 5.5 under Windows 9x/NT/2K using the supplied VM. And nothing else, which exactly fulfills the specification given to the developers. Our tools don't work with any other browser, nor with the Sun JVM, nor (and this is where it gets silly) nor with XP and IE 6 using the latest downloaded Microsoft VM. Yes, our code is "write once, run once" in the worst sense. By tying ourselves to the Microsoft platform, Microsoft browsers and Microsoft VM, we've even managed to build in obsolescence and ensure non-forwards compatibility on our chosen platform.
The scary part for me isn't that the java-like "experts" in my company don't care, but that so many of them don't even understand what I'm talking about. As far as they're concerned, IE running java-like applets using the Microsoft VM on Windows is Java. They don't even seem to know about other platforms or VM's or appletviewers or applications, or that they're creating java-like object code rather than correct Java.
As a hobbyist Java programmer (using the Sun JVM on multiple platforms) this both pisses me off, and makes me very sad indeed. I greatly fear that Microsoft has succeeded in assimilating and killing Java. I worry that Java has already been dealt the fatal blow, but it's still staggering on under its own momentum, shedding limbs and slowly dissolving. When it finally expires, the beast that will erupt from its tattered corpse won't even be J++, but C#
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Just one more reason why AOL should make the switch !
Pul-eeze. And there's never been a software package out there that can't read old files/programs? Try to run Ultima VII on Windows 98. Can't do it? Oh, duh, that's right, it uses really fucking old system calls taht nobody uses any more. Try and run some old OS 8 programs under the Macintosh - some will work, others won't (my daughters Preschool software won't).
The point? Even the best designed system has to break backwards compatibility to have better software.
Or, simply: duh.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
What strikes me as interesting is that Cullinan implicitly refers to Java as a "risk," when the software projects he manages have placed far more computers at risk of data loss, hacking, virus threats, etc... than Java ever has. Does Jim Cullinan actually use Windows? How can he be so clueless as to imply that Java places customers at risk when his own software has cost companies billions of dollars in downtime?
Oh, wait, I get it. Microsoft's Virtual Machine places customers at risk. No wonder he's going to stop shipping it in the future!
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Why, you ask? "The decision to remove Microsoft's Java implementation was made because of Sun's strategy of using the legal system to compete with Microsoft," Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan said in a statement. Cullinan said the company will temporarily support Java "to minimize any potential disruption among our customers."
But is Microsoft admitting that they are punitively trying to harm Java and Sun? No, of course not. Microsoft claims that the settlement they signed when they were found to have created Java tools to intentionally fool programmers into writing incompatible code forces them to drop Java support.
How, you ask? "The settlement agreement between the companies prevents Microsoft from making any changes -- including any security fixes -- to our Java implementation after January 1, 2004," Cullinan said. "We will not put our customers or Windows at risk so you can anticipate that there will be no Java in Windows from that point forward."
One of the antitrust penalties proposed by the states would force Microsoft to carry support for Java. Now why do you suppose they would have suggested that?
Read all about it here (free registration required).
Um, correct me if I'm wrong but if you are developing client side java for an in-house system, this matters not. You just distribute your JVM in the usual manner.
v eloper_guide/using_tags.html on how to do that.
If you are developing for the internet, why not use the OBJECT tag and automatically download the required JVM from sun?
Check out http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4/docs/guide/plugin/de
--
hecubas
Hecubas
And my XP Pro box crashes if I try to play a music CD in it.
It's a "new" problem though, it didn't appear in the beginning. (And I'm not trying to play protected CDs.)
A problem with reading a CD should never be able to crash the entire system. Good sign that something is seriously wrong.
Ok, now you're saying something else. Maybe you've discovered a bug in the JDK or something that maybe affects one or two applets. That is something else than claiming that thousands of applets suddenly stop working.
Jilles
That's the Microsoft propoganda, but it's all lies (well at least VERY missleading). What Sun did was to get a court order saying that after a certain date Microsoft couldn't ship their bastardized JVM and keep calling it Java when it was non-compliant (Ever heard the term Embrace-and-Extend?). Microsoft could have included any Java compliant JVM and been fine (except for the fact that Java is a threat to the Windows monopoly).
Instead, they issued a press release making it sound like they were dropping support for java because they were forced to by Sun, when in reality Sun was only forcing them to be standards compliant.
Sun did the Right Thing(tm) IMHO, in using their legal rights to keep Microsoft from coopting and breaking the Java standard as they have with so many other protocols.
*sigh* The parent was complaining about WINDOWS stability issues, and you throw a Linux assault at me.
I have no problems with Linux either. Runs fine on my system. My gripe is with AMD crap. Intel hardware is NOT that much more expensive for much more quality.
I never said YOU can't run Linux. I was merely saying the parent, who apparently has at least one copy of Windows running to bitch about, should upgrade to Windows 2000 or higher if he/she wants stability.
Windows 2K has a number of Windows NT 3.1 bugs in the command prompt.
eg passing parameters to a script in the form works, but closes the window.
rexx mycalc.cmd 2+2 fails
mycalc.cmd 2+2 works
Running a pipe under cmd.exe usually closes the session window. This is documented in technet under NT 3.1. Pipes work as expected under the DOS session.
The DOS session looks like it's about to crash+burn. This gives a similar appreciation to Windows NT in general.
You can run OS/2 1.3 rexx under NT, either under 4OS2 2.50 or OS/2 1.3 cmd.exe.
I'm aware that NT derives from OS/2. What no-one says is that it's version 1.3, ie 16-bit stuff. OS/2 is up to version 4.5.1 now. Like Posix, the OS2 subsystem is hopelessly crippled tick-list feature [yes we run OS/2 and Posix programs]. Most OS/2 stuff is 32-bit stuff, not the 16-bit stuff.
Windows 2K does not support multiboot with non-MS operating systems, unless service pack 2, (and its series of bugs) is installed.
4NT reports WinXP as 5.01, not 5.1. That a vendor can put a different version on the box is not supprising. PCDOS 6.10 reports itself as 6.00.
Any version of Windows is legacy software in the making. It's only because of people's reaction and the antitrust thing that Microsoft's plan for NT4 were brought to heal.
IBM continue to support vers 3, 4 and 4.5, vers 3 is up to fix-pack 43, and still benefits from driver extentions. v 4.0 fixpack brings it up to the 4.5 codebase.
MS should have forked NTFS into a new partition type, instead of pretending it's HPFS. Don't these guys have *any* imagination???
I've had NT systems locked up from scrambled passwords as well.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.