"MS Killed Java" (on the Client) JL Founder

jgeelan writes "In a commentary titled "Microsoft Killed Java" the founder of JavaLobby, Rick Ross, revisits the 'death' of Java on the client. "Five years ago, almost to the day," Ross declares, "Microsoft shipped IE4 with a JVM that was intentionally engineered to provide leverage to corrupt and pollute Java compatibility standards." According to an Associated Press report, Microsoft Corp has until only October 4 to respond to Sun Microsystems' request for a federal court injunction requiring Microsoft to integrate Java into Windows."

Comments

Missed the point

[Bodrius]

The typical argument for "MS Killed Java" is not that Java died because it was not included in Windows, but rather because it was included in a crippled way that misrepresented the language.

It would be the equivalent of Microsoft giving away a Linux distribution "MS Linux" that crashes often, doesn't run most of the GNU programs (gcc included), has a different set of C libraries with their own quirks, and uses a really old version of Gnome as a fixed, non-configurable GUI.

Then everyone would say "I tried Linux, it came with Windows, but it sucks" and it would take a lengthy, unwanted explanation to let them know that their "free Linux" was crippled. Even then most will never try it again.

It's not clear that MS killed Java on the client. In my opinion, Java was not ready for the client and therefore it killed itself with the Applet hype.

But that doesn't mean shooting a man dying of cancer is not a crime.

Re:Missed the point

[IGnatius T Foobar]

It would be the equivalent of Microsoft giving away a Linux distribution "MS Linux" that crashes often, doesn't run most of the GNU programs (gcc included), has a different set of C libraries with their own quirks, and uses a really old version of Gnome as a fixed, non-configurable GUI.

Then everyone would say "I tried Linux, it came with Windows, but it sucks" and it would take a lengthy, unwanted explanation to let them know that their "free Linux" was crippled. Even then most will never try it again.

That's quite true. By that description, one might wonder if Lindows is secretly a Microsoft plot to discredit Linux from the inside?

Go ahead and mod this as 'Funny' if you want, but think about it: no, I'm not suggesting that it's actually true, but one thing that the Lindows people seem to be really good at is establishing relationships with OEM's and generally getting the product out there. They seem to be doing better at communicating with the preload universe than any other Linux distributor seems to have been able to do so far.

One thing they don't do well, unfortunately, is build a good version of Linux. That means that a lot of people are going to be seeing Linux for the first time in the form of Lindows. They're going to see a crappy version of Linux, complete with a $99 service that lets them spend hours on a modem downloading packages that everyone else supplies for free on the CD, and they're going to think: "Damn, this sucks. I'm going back to Windows."

As the cliche goes -- you never have a second chance to make a first impression. Look at how MS used this to their advantage to turn people off to Java. Lindows may inadvertently do the same to turn people off to Linux.

Re:HUH, what about "free" and "freedom"???

[ryanvm]

It was Sun's responsiblity to make Java an important, dominating technology, NOT Microsoft. [...] You want to "beat" Microsoft? Do it with better software.

You're missing the point. Microsoft, because of their desktop OS monopoly, was/is in a position to make or break anybody's desktop software. No matter how excellent Java (on the desktop) could have been, Microsoft could (and arguably did) keep it from becoming a success.

When the operating system you distribute gets put on 95% of the computers out there, if you don't want something to exist on it - it won't. Microsoft wasn't allowed to embrace-and-extend Java, so they dropped it completely. And since most computer users haven't the slightest idea about how to install it, Java on the desktop has died a pathetic, twitching death.

Netscape fucked it up worse.

[autopr0n]

Actually, I think Netscape did more harm to java in the early days then Microsoft's. I actually read one of the affidavits in the case by a technical expert, who outlined the incompatibilities. They were tiny. *TINY*. And yet, Netscape was still shipping only the java 1.0 API. People couldn't write code for the newer, more robust 1.1 API and have it work with Netscape. They could write the code to work in IE, however. And if they avoided Microsoft documentation that might mix the incompatible stuff with the regular stuff they would have been fine.

Did MS purposely taint the API: almost certainly, there was no reason for them to put their functions and code in the Java.* packages. Did it really matter: not as much as Netscape sticking with 1.0.

Microsoft might have made stuff worse over time, but who knows. But anyway, microsoft probably wanted to kill Java and in a way, they succeded.

A good example of Sun�s screw-ups.

[jbolden]

If you take a look at Apple's system architecture:
OSX you can see that Apple is putting the JAVA API at a coequal level with the Classic, Carbon and Cocoa APIs - all the others being Apple products. This is exactly the kind of treatment Sun has always wanted; Sun's Java being setup as a major part of the system architecture allowing it to run cross platform with the same capacity as native apps.

Now where is Sun supporting Apple in this? Apple offers a standard set of development tools as part of the OS - why isn't Sun writing or co-writing tie-ins for interface builder and Swing? Why aren't they optimizing the JAVA Apple API for Darwin? Why when you click on Java at Sun do you see absolutely virtually nothing about the Mac OSX platform? Why doesn't Java include routines to handle files with resource forks better?

If this isn't proof that Sun has no intention against standing behind Java implementation with real resources and real money I don't know what would be.