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!
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?
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
"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.
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.
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
don't buy it.
Why would cutting a deal with AOL cause Sun to lose money? If Sun paid AOL money to distribute Java with every AOL disk and update every AOL member's JVM, AOL could actually make a bit of money from that. I'm completely mystified as to why suggesting Sun should get off their ass and make a real effort to get Java into end user's hands should *not* be done because AOL/TW lose money.
creation science book
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.
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.
Neither Microsoft or Sun are convicted felons.
Anti-Trust is a matter of civil law, not criminal law.
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
You don't get it.
Sun's original lawsuit was not about the non-inclusion of the JRE in Windows. It was about Microsoft's "extension" of Java in their VM. Microsoft made their VM with Windows/Microsoft-specific "enhancements", and when programmers use these routines, they become broken on other platforms.
Sun had every right to say "Hey, you're breaking our language. Stop that crap right now, and do it the way we tell you."
When Microsoft first wanted to ship their VM, they told Sun "Sure sure, whatever you say." when Sun told them not to "extend" Java with their own bullshit. Remember Microsoft's track record with "Embrace and Extend"? Sun wanted to avoid that.
So Microsoft went ahead and created their modifications anyway, and Sun said "Okay. Stop. No more. We TOLD you not to pull that shit, and you did it anyway." Hence, the original lawsuit. Sun wins, and Microsoft says "Fuck you then.", and totally removes the VM.
THIS time, Sun is saying "Hey! Monopoly Abuse!", so Microsoft throws in this old, broken, shitty, outdated VM in a service pack so they can say "There, happy?"
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
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.
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.
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.