Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Ordered to Carry Java
An anonymous reader was the 17,232th person to submit that "Microsoft has been ordered to include Sun's Java runtime in Windows. Coverage from AP (via Yahoo), Reuters (via news.com), and, let's say, the BBC."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Simple: By not including Java, Microsoft abuses its monopoly power to push ActiveX.
I really don't get this. Why is MSFT forced to include a piece of software written by their competitor into their Operating System ? I know that having a monopoly places restrictions on what you can and can't do, but I was not aware they can go THAT far.
So much potential (and it still is an absolutely great platform) but it got such a kick in the ribs from MS and this decision is typically late in prescribing a remedy.
why run from Vincenzo?
Who says that every such order will be to the benefit of Windows and the user?
Let's just say that all the Linuxophiles' gripes about windows were made moot and the software became what it could be - a truly universal effective program intelligible to most humans.
This happened because of the courts forcing it to do so.
Alternative OSes would not prosper in such an environment. Indeed, they would be dropped as everyone but diehard iconoclasts switched to new, improved Windows.
At this level of dependence, people would be as vulnerable to a bad decision by the courts as they would be to a bad decision by bill gates.
Now, don't get me wrong, I hate MS as much as the next guy in the open source community, but doesn't this open up a slippery slope? Where does it stop?
--sdem
I'll tell you what unnecessary government intrusion is. Unnecessary government intrusion is the DMCA legislating away our right to think critically and speak freely. Unnecessary government intrusion is the "War on Terror", a war on a verb, mind you, which can only be won by injecting drugs into every American which prevents fear regardless of stimulus. Unncessary government intrusion is the Office of Total Information Awareness, a Poindexter-led database of our SSN cross indexed to our freaking chest X-rays to our cell phone locations.
No, this is not "unncessary government intrusion". This is just a court trying to restore our basic unalienable right to a software language that isn't owned by a giant corporation like Microsoft.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
Nice. Java is a good concept. Slow, mind you, but good, since what runs on Windows (written in Java) will run on Linux will run on Mac OS X. It makes the OS world a better place.
I made a virtual machine in college. It is based on an LL1 type language and the language is compiled into an intermediate byte code, and then executed on a virtual machine that is platform specific. It's a little buggy, and it crashes the machine occasionally, (hey, I only had one semester in my compilers class to finish it!) Maybe I can force Microsoft to carry it....after all it is a competing technology.
-ted
I think what he's getting at is that it shouldn't be Microsoft's responsibility to make sure Java is there. I don't understand how Sun managed to create a product and then demand that it be included with it's competitor's product.
That's just nuts, if you ask me (which you didn't).
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Because: .NET initiative.
a) 99% of people will never download it
b) Fair punishment for Microsoft purposesly distributing a broken version of Java based on 1.1 (From 1997!) for 5 years, because it wanted to cripple the competition for it's
Listen, if my Television was manufactured by NBC, they should not have the power to not carry CBS, ABC, PBS, etc. They should be forced to carry all stations, within reason, that fit the standards.
Or millions of geeks going "Dammit! Where's the Slashdot discussion, so I can whine publicly!"
Joe
http://www.joegrossberg.com
Those posters who suggest that the courts getting involved might not be good have missed the point: MS is operating an (illegal) monopoly. 98% of the world's computer users are using their software. If MS don't like you, you get screwed, so the courts' intervention can only be a good thing. In a future world where we using all sorts of different OSes and relying on standards to interact then maybe court intervention might be problematic. But we aren't there and we aren't geoing to there for many, many, years to come.
If Microsoft bundles its own add-ons into its OS, that's monopolistic and bad; but if Microsoft bundles someone else's add-ons into its OS, that's competitive and good?
So now instead of one gigantic corporation controlling what's on your computer, there will be two. Ah, so much better.
Can they include it and then set it defaulted to "off" for "security" reasons?
Joe
http://www.joegrossberg.com
> and the software became what it could be - a truly universal effective program intelligible to most humans. You just discribed Windows as it is now; intelligible to most people. and effective. Not nearly as effective as it could be, but it is effective.
Microsoft ordered by court to set my face as default background. Microsoft was found to be ilegally leveraging its monopoly of the operating system market to marginalize my pretty face.
This is just ludicrous. Courts on crack.
Why should Windows carry Java? Every other software vendor has to sell and distribute their own software, not rely on court-orders. Why should Sun be any different? If Windows users want Java they can buy it from Sun or download it.
Seriously, considering the history of this trial, Sun should be able to integrate a ham sandwich with Microsoft's OS if they want to.
I do hope this is the beginning of a "death of a thousand paper cuts". Microsoft truely does deserves it. From the looks of it, there's already other lawsuits in line for early January.
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
If this is a real number... or an exaggeration. The editors must really have a tough time of it sometimes, if they get this many articles. No wonder we get dupe posts etc.
/. in a day lately, if this many are actually posting submissions.
I've had a question submission in pending since last week, they're probably really busy (or, hopefully, saving mine for a slow day).
17,232 on a Microsoft court ruling... I wonder how many post when the next distro of brand-X linux comes out. Also wonder how many people are visiting
Also wonder if they chose the AC just so that the other 17,231 people didn't have a name to cry foul upon when theirs was not the chosen submission.
We get basic inalienable rights regarding software?!? When the hell did this happen?
Oh, and last time I checked, Sun is a giant corporation. They've got big buildings and leather executive chairs and everything. They've even got lawyers with big nasty teeth. Don't paint them like they're Sun's Software and TV Repair.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
An anonymous reader was the 17,232th person to submit...
17,232th? What the hell? No, no, no... you see this is the reason that Microsoft didn't want java included in the first place... stupid syntactical errors like the above can be generated quite easily using java, but asp libraries prevent such mistakes, and would have genereated '17,232nd' as the proper response.
Well, unless of course a human wrote that... in which case, shame on you... proof read dang it!
But on a serious note (to help save my karma), putting aside that this is microsoft, and they are evil, doesn't imposing the will of SUN onto microsoft violate something? or at the very least lower them to the same level? Microsoft wasn't preventing java from running on their os, they simple did not BUNDLE a competing product. What the hell? I don't see the problem. What next? DVD manufacturers have to bundle competing (free) DVD player software with their drives? I think not! Although MS deserves it... as a whole, this is not the right thing to do.
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
This is the logical extension of "Airbag Politics". Despite the fact that airbags kill more children than school shootings, the government continues to legislate guns out of existence and airbags into existence. So too shall the government legislate Microsoft out of existence and Sun into a monopoly. Arbitrary conclusions fueled by non-facts are costing hard working enterprises their very existence.
Poppycock!
Dr. Joseph Hairston
Superintendent, CCBC
There's something I never actually expected to read, given the prior settlement of the giant MS lawsuit and the way things were going.
Next up on the list of things to piss off the giant behemoth - making Microsoft include Netscape as its default browser.
MS is being forced to carry and install software they don't want and won't use. They've been doing that to us for years, now let's see how much they like it!
How are other Java vendors supposed to compete when Sun's VM is going to be bundled with Windows. What about IBM?
The ruling is screwed.
Yes, this is a good decision. Many places were pulling Java applets from their sites and switching to Javascript where they could or -- gasp! -- ActiveX. And everyone not running IE missed out on functionality and options.
Since Javascript is usually only programmed to look good (or work) in IE and ActiveX is insecure and MS-centric, it's nice to see Java back by default. Until someone comes along with a better idea, and one that works on as many platforms as Java does, we're much better off with it.
Yes, but have they been ordered to make it work properly in Windows???
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
It's interesting to guess whether others are submitting a given story. I guess this was a no-brainer.
... until you get back to that monopoly abuse.
Coercion: the power to require Microsoft to include Java is the same that allows the gov't, or any successful antitrust plaintiff, to force them to do anything different. Because of their market power, which puts them on nearly every desktop in America, their default config has a lot of promotional influence. Up to now, that influence has entirely favored Microsoft, which sounds appropriate
Whether THIS particular coercion is a good idea, we'll see. Whether coercion is never the right thing, well that's much broader.
A partial analogy would be Microsoft owning the default Yellow Pages distributed to everyone's door and selecting who can be in it -- say, virtually everyone but "Sun." Now, anyone can go get one of the other free directories, but will they? Advantage: Microsoft.
Also, Java isn't exactly a competitor's product; it's also an attempt at an industry-wide open standard that Microsoft wants to subvert, dominate, and exploit. Hey, they already tried.
It's a difficult problem to set things right in the wake of antitrust problems. Market forces generally do a decent job of figuring these things out (the "invisible hand"). But when some clever party makes the market its own, and then abuses it, the rules have to change, and gov't regulation, or a breakup, are the most common remedies.
If you don't think MS should have been sued in the first place, you will not believe any of these rationales, and probably not that antitrust is necessary in the first place. Many think some market failures need correction, but not everyone.
to remove or at least fix up outlook.
Worms spread thanks to outlook have caused the world millions of dollars in damage
Stanley Feinbaum, professional journalist and master debater! God bless the USA!
This is more or less a good thing, but I don't like the precedent.
Why should Sun get special treatment? Does this mean that every Joe, Dick, and Harry, gets to include his platform independant runtime with windows?
And how is Java different from, say, Mozilla or Phoenix? It's simply another application that Microsoft is using its monopoly powers to crush.
With the conditions as they are, all Sun is doing is grabbing onto the coat-tails of Microsoft's monopoly. The only way this is good, is if Microsoft is Sun's only competitor. Otherwise you have just created a second monopoly where there was only one at first.
If this isn't overturned, get ready for about 1,000,000 lawsuits from software makers clambering to get their product included with Windows. Worst case, I can imagine a future where the government decides which software companies survive and which don't, all by deciding who gets to be included on the common platform.
I can't believe the court ordered Microsoft to include Java in their OS. That's just plain ludicrous.
.Net framework.
While I do think it's evil to "sabotage" Java working in the Windows environment, how is there any justification to be obligated to include a competitor's piece of software in your environment? Perhaps we should start forcing Linux/*nix to come packaged with the
If anything, Microsoft should be punished for unfair practices but they shouldn't be forced to make another company's piece of software more visible.
In the end, this all means nothing. All it really means is that Microsoft will find another way of making Java not work with their OS. So I hardly call this a victory for Sun.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
It seems to me if the judgement doesn't specify, MS will choose the latter.
like everything else on windows, it's probably broken to begin with.
user's would either have to fix it themselves, or never know it's there.
and of course, it will surely break again with every new service pack.
"Unnecessary government intrusion is the "War on Terror", a war on a verb, mind you"
To terror or not to terror...hmm? Can't resist urge to nitpick......sorry.
It's not a question of stopping, it's a question of starting. They didn't start slipping down any slope until they refused to play nice and got slapped with the Monopoly sticker. Now, they don't get to play like the other kids do. They have to serve detention, and will be singled out for discipline when things go wrong that nobody else can be blamed for. Didn't you spend any time playing on the playground?
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
Is it just me, or is this thread boiling over with ignorance?
.NET *cough*
This is *exactly* what MS did to Netscape a few years back, and a court found them guilty. They bundled their own technology and made it inconvienient to use competing products. *cough*
It seems to me that this judge is basically just upholding that ruling and *not* allowing MS to do the same thing to Sun.
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
it's because there are no good precedents for the computer industry, especially as far as operating systems go. Where does the operating system and the programs/runtimes/etc. begin and end? where does an OS become unethical and/or abusive? where is the line that must be crossed before an operating system is. With the courts trying to prevent this abuse, the problem is that there is no good line. Due to the existing monopoly, there's no way to do anything that won't totally screw Microsoft unjustly that will make a real dent in their power to abuse their position. The best they can hope for is to preserve competition outside the operating system market itself, and to keep the path clear for Java and any of dozens of other things that aren't standard on Windows without allowing them to be negated by Microsoft products that clone them and won't allow the original to be even realized by the user, much less the original creator have any power over their creation. So, since the only true answer is making it all free as in beer (since otherwise, it'll always be a fight for profit rather than just credit), all we can do is pray that they don't screw too many things up with court precedents.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Of course, in some people's eyes, Microsoft can do anything it wants because it is above the law and are therefore the corporate heros of a 'free society'. Under those circumstances, the only one who is 'free' is Microsoft and them alone.
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
The Judge's opinion is available as a PDF obtained via the C|Net article.
A lot of posters have gone on about the pros and cons of this as a victory for sun. But remember, Sun will benefit very little from this. In the Java software space, they're nowhere. They don't sell the language. They have next to nothing to offer for development tools at a price. About all they get is bragging rights.
It's IBM who's probably tipping the bubbly right now. And, a lot of Java developers.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Let's face it, they stole it from Apple. When will they be forced to use their own interface? Sheesh, even free projects like KDE and Gnome have been able to come up with their own look and feel. How hard could it be for a commercial software company with full time programmers?
And when does Apple get paid reparations for this theft of look and feel? I just think that if Sun gets theirs, Apple should be able to, too.
--sdem
Microsoft has been ordered by the court to ship Java with their OS(s) as a remedy for their past performance.
Remember: Microsoft contracted with Sun to ship untainted and current versions of Java with their OS products. Microsoft then corrupted their version of Java in order to make it no longer cross-platform compliant. Then they quit updating their version. The result was that many, who think that Microsoft keeps them up to date with the latest and best, came to regard Java as buggy, incompatible with other platforms, and out of date.
Sun sued Microsoft for breach of contract for developing the corrupt version and then stopping updates. Microsoft retaliated by pulling Java completely.
Sun is suing Microsoft to live by the terms of the contract. The court has ordered Microsoft to do so as the legal process continues.
If it is, this is going to do more to hurt Java than anything else. I had to install Sun's a while ago when MS pulled theirs from Windows Update. It's the most obscenely slow piece of software I've ever run. I mean, like, quicktime video flicker on a 486 slow. It was like this on every single machine I ran it on, so I don't think it was just a fluke.
Then Java will be hyper-optimised for WinLand and fade off the radar for good.
High level protocols are the future not P/B/X/J/JS* crap.
Thbbbb!
* Pcode, VBasic, ActiveX, Java, MoMetaBetta, Com Dom It's all crap!
But be sure that some idiot will introduce a new one seconds from now.
Here's how I understand it:
Sun is suing MS in a civil case, saying that Microsoft used their monopoly(1) on desktop operating systems to illegally compete with Sun's Java, in the form of a browser plugin. MS used their OS to hinder Sun by including an out-of-date and broken JVM version for many years, despite better software available (for free) from Sun.
The judge agreed that this was likely an illegal use of their monopoly(2). MS already attempted to say that browsers (and their plugins, which Java is in this case) are part of the operating system, but that was already rejected in the DOJ case. Because of this precedent, the case looks very strong for Sun, so...
As a preliminary injunction, the judge ruled that Microsoft has to include the latest version of the JVM from Sun, so that as the case is argued in court (no doubt over a period of years), further damage is avoided.
I don't read it that Microsoft can 'opt out' of carrying any sort of JVM, especially since that's already their tactic with WinXP.
-Zipwow
1: Monopoly, not illegal in itself. MS has argued that no monopoly exists. The DoJ case's findings of fact specifically described MS' hold on Desktop OS's as a monopoly.
2: Using a monopoly in one area to hinder competition in another is illegal, and is what Sun is complaining about. Using your desktop power to break into the web-plugin market (and hence the related server market) is what's illegal.
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
Hey Dummy, that agreement was superceeded by an agreement that Microsoft could not include the latest and greatest versions of Java as part of a settlement, and that Microsoft was only allowed to distribute their older java runtime for a few more years. It never said they were required to carry anything, and Microsoft is currently obiding by that settlement.
www.atacomm.com - The Leader in VoIP Product Distributi
that's why sun made such a fuss about MS creating a version of java for windows
...why Microsoft is being required to carry a competitor's product.
.NET).
Microsoft is now competing with Java (with
Microsoft has a monopoly in a different market.
Using a monopoly position in one market to influence another is illegal.
Microsoft has been distributing an incompatible version of Java.
Monopolies are required by law to play by different rules.
"The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
This sets the stage for some really ugly lawsuits. If the courts can order them to include java then can other companies request that their software be included? The next thing you know Redhat will be required to ship with .net.
Zoid.com
It is hardly redundant. Look at the time, it was clearly the first mention of it. The first time it is posted, its funny. Every time after that, it is redundant.
Of course, the idea of joking about the editor's grammar capabilities might be redundant. Oh well, stil a waste of mod points.
(No, I'm not the original poster.)
The ruling is based on the agreement MS and Sun made under which MS initially licenced Java. Nothing to do with "Look and Feel" of anything.
Help fight continental drift.
They're an abusive monopoly. The rules are different for them due to the DAMAGE that such an entity can do to our economy. Even in the absence of any other agreement, Microsoft shouldn't get to profit from illegal activity that is contrary to fundemental American public policy ideals (IOW, the free market).
When Microsoft is no longer in a position to extort the likes of IBM to drop their own competitive product (OS/2), then Microsoft can freely abuse it's customers againt.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
a long time ago, a company named reynolds was the only producer/developer of aluminum. not only that, but they were going around the world buying up all thye bauxite mines they could find. the feds stepped in and the final decision forced them to set up a whole, new company, (ALuminum COmpany of America, or ALCOA), give them plant and equipment, AND had to forfeit to them some bauxite mines. one of the motivations for this was that aluminum was considered a necessary material, not just for war, but for manufacturing.
while i don't like government intrusion, there is a very important issue to consider. with its already established monopoly, and many abuses thereof, microsoft has gone way beyond the scope of normal business activity. this is not only a case of insuring competition, but prevents control of the market in a vital sector. economists from all sides, in particular free market champion milton friedman, argue that the role of government in the economy is to prevent monopolies and protect the market system. this doesn't pick winners and losers, just makes sure that the odds are even.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I remember hearing once that MS deliberately slowed the Mac implementation of MS-Office before, by sprinkling in a few strategic nops and delay loops to make it run more sluggish under the Mac OS than under a similarly equipped x86 Windows machine. I am sure that they could find a way to ensure that even if they were forced to include Java support, they could find a way to cripple it, thus obeying the letter of the judgement while avoiding its intent.
My rights don't need management.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
From Reuters
:-/.
Sun contends Microsoft sabotaged its Java software in order to fend off a threat to its Windows monopoly. It has asked Motz to impose the "must-carry" Java provision to remedy Microsoft's antitrust violations.
They violated the law. This is their punishment. Please read the article
I don't think this is going to last long for a variety of reasons. IANAL but, heck this is slashy
First a preliminary injunction is subject to a number of tests, Sun has to have a better than even chance of winning the case, refusing the injunction would have to cause more harm than granting it might and so on.
I don't think the claim that sun are harmed holds water. It was their previous action that caused Microsoft to stop shipping the Java VM.
Microsoft have a very strong case that Sun suffers no harm if the status quo continues and that they would suffer substantial harm. Java is active code and active code has historically been subject to lots of security risks - including Java.
Secondly, I don't think that the judge's mention of Tonya Harding helps. The statements create an impression of bias. Equally the statements appear to go way beyond the issues that should be considered where a preliminary injunction are concerned and tend to indicate that the judge has formed a judgement before the hearing...
I don't have much sympathy for Sun here. It may be the US way for failing companies to go to the government or courts to try to win there what they failled to win in the market but it didn;t do Netscape any good. Scott is driving sun into the ground with his Microsoft obsession, the competition that will erase Sun completely comes from Linux and Apple. I am not an Apple fan but they are the worlds largest UNIX vendor by far, they have a solid O/S and if they can only get a powerful processor they can clean up the market for closed source Unix.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Shouldn't it be 17232nd and not the 17232th? Oh well, with that many submissions coming in, I suppose the Slashdot editors don't have time to check grammar, spelling, etc.
The Welkin: Online Music Reviews
That's what this announcement sounds like to me. Java isn't a legally required piece of technology, there is no reason Microsoft should be FORCED to include it. I, for one, would rather see Microsoft drop ALL Java from their OS than have this ruling go through.
I'm not a fan of Microsoft's tactics, and even agree with the judge that Microsoft is including a 'broken' form of Java specifically to encourage people to use .NET. But, that doesn't mean a court should have the right to force MS to INCLUDE a competitors product. They shouldn't be allowed to PREVENT it from working, but they shouldn't have to include it, either.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
The thing is, Microsoft has been shipping Java, but an old version. Combined with their monopoly, that effectively makes that version of Java the version that programmers must code to.
I'be been playing around with 1.4 on Windows and Linux, and for a lot of things, it is quite nice, actually. The JIT has dealt with the performance problems of the past. However, I can't actually use 1.4 for anything we put on the web, because of all those Microsoft JVM's out there.
And before anyone says to just have my users download 1.4 from Sun, that's 9 meg. 9 meg is too big for modem users. There is a strong negative correlation between download size and download completions, and 9 meg is way into the high failure territory.
There is no slippery slope. This is a targeted finding related to actions that Microsoft has taken against Sun. Anyone who wants their program "xyz" included in Windows would have to go through years of expensive legal hassel. You ask where this sort of legal action stops. Well it stops if MS ceases anti-competitive practices.
Do not forget that their J++ was tantamount to sabotage of Java.
Doesn't that give Sun an opportunity that would be unavailable to its competitors? Mandating that the monopoly-holder must include a product in its own product stifles competition even more. well, maybe not more, but just as much. they might as well be required to include everyone's programming language into Windows. I think we should tread lightly when we deal with this monopoly. Just because something might hurt microsoft or help one of its competitors, it is not guaranteed to be beneficial to the industry.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
...Sun's own Java VM is dog-slow in many ways. I've tried JVM 1.4.1 on Windows 98 and when it loads the first time and/or run any Java applets it takes a long time to run. It's better in Windows 2000 Pro and Windows XP, but I still think Sun needs to speed up their Java VM to better work with Windows 98 to Windows XP.
Now, if the judge's order specified any Java VM that meets Sun's compatibility tests, maybe Micosoft could use IBM's excellent Java implementation instead.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wouldn't that be 17,232nd? =)
Judge Judy orders RedHat to bundle BonziBuddy with Linux, film at 11
Now I'll have 1/2 a dozen little coffee cups sitting in my tray that won't go away any time I load a java applet. Anyone know how to make them annoying little buggers go away?
Maybe 5 years from now there will be 10 or more... We can only hope. Personally, I wish they'd just break Microsoft up already. They're using their profits leverage in the OS platform to fuel their mega-profit-loss XBox initiative to try and snuff out Sony and Nintendo by sheer loss of revenue hoping Sony and Nintendo just throw the towel in by not being able to compete with such profit losses. It's lame.
It isn't Microsoft's fault that the JVM is 9 megs. There are a hell of a lot of things I've got to download to do my job, that's life.
Real Player is a big mofo too, and nobody wants to wait to download it. Does Microsoft have to include this? How about QuickTime? How about any of the countless software titles not included with Windows? Is there some sort of free ride onto Windows install discs that only Sun is entitled to? Is it just languages? Can ActiveState demand that a Perl interpreter be included with Windows?
I see your point, that Microsoft is stunting Java's growth, but that's life. I don't think my tax dollars should be spent ensuring that Microsoft plays fair, because they aren't going to anyway.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
This might set a precedence on other areas that MS has decided to bundle in Windows...
.MSG extension everytime I close The Bat!. Isn't this, too, considered misuse of monopoly in one area to gain market leverage in another?
My case: In Windows XP Pro (possibly even in XP Corp) MS includes IIS in the default installation. Can other web server producers (eg. Apache) sue them for this? Why? Because it is pushing their own product within an OS that is not meant to be a web server in the first place. IANAL, but I would appreciate any comments from those with a firm understanding of US laws.
Another case: Since the release of Windows 2000, Outlook Express has been integrated so tightly in the Windows code that it is near impossible to remove it (from a typical user's standpoint, n00b?). I have installed The Bat! as my default email client, but OE always retakes files with
Mildly offtopic, I know, but I do hope that there are people out there who can give their views on this.
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
The time has come for a serious discussion on whether or
not to continue using C for serious programming projects. As I will
explain, I feel that C needs to be retired, much the same way that
Fortran, Cobol and Perl have been. Furthermore, allow me to be so bold
as to suggest a superior replacement to this outdated language.
To give you a little background on this subject, I was recently asked
to develop a client/server project on a Unix platform for a Fortune
500 company. While I've never coded in C before I have coded in VB for
fifteen years, and in Java for over ten, I was stunned to see how
poorly C fared compared to these two, more low-level languages.
C's biggest difficulty, as we all know, is the fact that it is by far
one of the slowest languages in existance, especially when compared to
more modern languages such as Java and C#. Although the reasons for
this are varied, the main reasons seems to be the way C requires a
programmer to laboriously work with chunks of memory.
Requiring a programmer to manipulate blocks of memory is a tedious way
to program. This was satisfactory back in the early days of coding,
but then again, so were punchcards. By using what are called
"pointers" a C programmer is basically requiring the computer to do
three sets of work rather than one. The first time requires the
computer to duplicate whatever is stored in the memory space "pointed
to" by the pointer. The second time requires it to perform the needed
operation on this space. Finally the computer must delete the
duplicate set and set the values of the original accordingly.
Clearly this is a horrendous use of resources and the chief reason why
C is so slow. When one looks at a more modern (and a more serious)
programming language like Java, C# or - even better - Visual Basic
that lacks such archaic coding styles, one will also note a serious
speed increase over C.
So what does this mean for the programming community? I think clearly
that C needs to be abandonded. There are two candidates that would be
a suitable replacement for it. Those are Java and Visual Basic.
Having programmed in both for many years, I believe that VB has the
edge. Not only is it slightly faster than Java its also much easier to
code in. I found C to be confusing, frightening and intimidating with
its non-GUI-based coding style. Furthermore, I like to see the source
code of the projects I work with. Java's source seems to be under the
monopolistic thumb of Sun much the way that GCC is obscured from us by
the marketing people at the FSF. Microsoft's "shared source" under
which Visual Basic is released definately seems to be the most fair
and reasonable of all the licenses in existance, with none of the
harsh restrictions of the BSD license. It also lacks the GPLs
requirement that anything coded with its tools becomes property of the
FSF.
I hope to see a switch from C to VB very soon. I've already spoken
with various luminaries in the C coding world and most are eager to
begin to transition. Having just gotten off the phone with Mr. Alan
Cox, I can say that he is quite thrilled with the speed increases that
will occur when the Linux kernel is completely rewritten in Visual
Basic. Richard Stallman plans to support this, and hopes that the
great Swede himself, Linux Torvaldis, won't object to renaming Linux
to VB/Linux. Although not a C coder himself, I'm told that Slashdot's
very own Admiral Taco will support this on his web site. Finally,
Dennis Ritchie is excited about the switch!
Thank you for your time. Happy coding.
Very typical response from slashdot.
.NET runtime must supply Sun Java.......this is ass-backwards. .NET is a runtime enviroment (as is java of course).....if an application uses .NET at its core, for example Visual Studio .NET, they need to include the runtime. Seriously, why not say if it includes MFC you must include Borland OWL?!?
.NET runtime is ready for primetime in WinXP SR1.....includes .NET runtime and the only version of Java they have licensed, although the license is soon to expire.
.NET? Its a great platform, I develop both client side and server side.....and its being cloned by various open source projects. Sun shot themselves in the foot by requiring Microsoft to cancel their distribution of Java......infact, what Sun should have done was work with Microsoft and others for CROSS PLATFORM UI and multimedia libraries that WORKED well....Microsoft's customizations were designed for mainly UI elements.....so are Apples. Whereas .NET was built ground up for GUI applications as well as web applications, and is much more what developers like myself want to deal with.
.NET with Solaris and StarOffice, as they both include Java. (And MS has a BSD runtime now...for developers, not fully completed libraries yet).
ZDNews is claiming that all products from MS that include
That broad ranging declaration by the judge is key to getting this thrown out.
On to the next item......everyone claims MS shafted Java. Lets see:
1) MS signs Java agreement
2) MS produces better runtime
3) MS adds extensions for Windows only development, which are optional to developers depending on their target market (HINT: Apple has Cocoa extensions in Java......samething......they are optional)
4) Sun sues Microsoft
5) Sun offers settlement...terminate future licenses, puts a deadline on distributing the old java
6) Microsoft removes old Java well before deadline
7) Sun complains, puts large advertisements out showing disgruntlement with Microsoft
8) Microsoft decides
9) Sun cries fowl. Demands MS includes Sun's java because they limited MS's license to an old, obsolete version.
10) Judge grants sun's wish......for now.
This will be overturned. You can't sign an agreement which you wrote, which specifically states what you can and cannot do regarding terminating a license, and say hey, this didn't work out how we wanted.
And the fact is, most of the average users, including myself, don't run into client side java all that often........and the only ActiveX control I ever see is Flash.
On the client side Java is becoming irrelivent.....and I for one do not want to be forced to see the Java icon flashing me from my tray. This is not furthering choice what-so-ever. I think if this settlement would take effect, Microsoft should counter Sun needs to carry
www.atacomm.com - The Leader in VoIP Product Distributi
The BSA has just informed the US DoJ a letter saying they have three days to hand a list of all their computers, the software they are running and the licenses for the software. A spokesman for the BSA said "Of course this has nothing to do with the case against Microsoft, the law makers have to obey the law too. The normal patriotic courts in this beautifull country have nothing to fear, it's the ones which are against us we're after.".
bash$
But I don't want Java!
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
I'm still trying to figure out why Outlook Express is a required part of Internet Explorer!
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Sorry, I don't feel like entering into this particular pissing contest. Suffice it to say that Microsoft is in breach of their contract with Sun and will (hopefully) end up giving Sun a few hundred million dollars in punititive damages.
I've seen a lot of comments here about how this is government intrusion and has no place in a free market.
That, dear friends, is complete bullshit.
People seem to equate "free market" with "freedom for companies to do whatever the hell they want." But it doesn't work that way. A free market is a market in which there are multiple companies all competing on the same level with the same rules. And it provides consumers with multiple choices so that they have the power to decide what's the best product to use.
The key point here is that if the product is a foundation for other products, such as telephone lines, cable service, computer hardware or computer software, you need to set some rules so that everyone has the chance to compete on the same level.
Think of it like a football game, where one team provides the playing field, the locker rooms and all the other assorted stuff that goes along with a normal game. The visiting team plays at a disadvantage because most of the fans are rooting for the home team, but they still play with the same rules, independent referees, the same size goal posts and end-zone. The home team doesn't get the ability to have things however they want it just because it's their field. There are rules, and they must be adhered to.
Remember, a free market economy's prime benefactor is the consumer, not the company. When companies become so large that they can influence the consumer's choices no matter what, you lose the benefits of free markets. That is why anti-trust laws were created and one of the reasons you need governments in the first place.
So, don't think that a free market economy needs no supervision. It needs lots of it, for the benefit of the consumer. In the end, everyone wins, not just one producer of products.
(BTW, on a completely different note, this is partly the same argument that can be made for affirmative action and programs like it, in order to create a level playing field so that everyone progresses and moves forward, rather than just a select group).
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
The real problem is not getting them to download the 1.4 version, users will do anything you tell them - the problem is that once they have done that - 90% of all online-homebanking (those ie-only ones) stop working, because they been coded specificly for MS' JVM.
;-/
And you can't really ask users to change their JVM 2-3 times a day...
The judge overstates the importance of the distribution channel. On the client this will change absolutely nothing, just as any inclusion of the .NET Framework would affect nothing.
Even if Microsoft had just shipped the Sun Java VM from the begining it would not have afforded Java any more success on the client than it got through Microsoft's VM, which was the fastest and most compatible around in spite of the few unimportant differences Sun sued over. Does anyone out there really think that ISVs will be more likely to write Java apps, or users more likely to use them, if MS is forced to ship Sun's VM?
On the server the idea that bundling will help is so dumb it doesn't deserve serious consideration.
Now my browser will crash even more often, until I remember (AGAIN) to disable Java.
sulli
RTFJ.
I still don't understand how Internet Explorer is required for Windows!
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Everytime I go to a website that has a Java Applet on it, this stupid Java Terminal thing pops up in my system tray and doesn't go away until I close every instance of IE.
Does anyone know how to stop that from happening?
While I can understand the judge's opinion that Java should be carried on every system that ships with .NET to avoid the anticompetitive practices here's what I don't get from the ruling:
.NET runtimes - they were a separate download! I don't see why a product that Microsoft *hasn't* bundled the .NET runtimes with should be required to have Java bundled.
My copies of IE and Windows XP did NOT ship with the
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
"The rules are different for them due to the DAMAGE that such an entity can do to our economy."
Ever think about how much damage would be done to the economy if MS suddenly folded? I'll give you a hint: It's not guaranteed the world would be a better place.
From PDF one can see, that Sun asks not for mere "put us on desktop" but to be carried on any product, containing .NET(page 10 of PDF) which (allthough not specificly listed) would include all Pocket PCs and Server products. While having Java pre-loaded on desktop versions is, of course, reasonable, having Sun's environment piggybacking on pocket pc is not. .NET (in terms of developers) is based on survey and projections from Evans Data ignores development tool availability and/or usability (in other words there's Visual Basic for Dummies, but I have not seen any IDE that would let a Dummy User to generate Java Application -- except for Macromedia FX).
:)
Arument about market tipping from Java to
Good things in this injunction for Microsoft are:
1. No more litigation. Once Sun supplied Microsoft with it's runtime environment it cannot sure Microsoft in regard of this matter (bye bye other lawsuit)
2. Microsoft will be able to blame problems on included Java platform and charge users extra to resolve them (if any).
3. Must carry does not mean "can't be removed". So it is possible that first question user will see after starting system will be "Would you like to remove Sun's Java Runtime environment, to save space and resources?" with button YES set as default
Hyperom.com
17,232th person to submit ;P
17,232 people and THEN you post a story, I know we get on your case about dupes but we aren't THAT mad about them
-Jason
You might also note that the previous poster didn't claim that Microsoft was required to carry anything, and the 'agreement' (really a court order) was that Microsoft couldn't include the latest and greatest incompatible bastardization of Java. Read the actual settlement text, not the 'summary' at Microsoft.com.
Actually, it's not the idea that they can do anything they want because they are "above" the law: they should be able to do anything they want with THEIR PRODUCT, including the decision to not include other people's products. It really was summed up with the statement that someone whom I've forgotten said that it's like Coca-Cola being forced to include a Pepsi in every six pack.
Now, if MS bound themselves contractually to Sun and violated that contract, then they SHOULD be forced to obey that agreement. However, once that contract is fulfilled, they should be able to say "fuck you, McNealy" and not distribute Java by default.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
A lot of people have missed why Sun was harmed in the first place. You mention the shipping of the defunct and broken MS JVM, but miss the real past harm: MS' illegal actions against Netscape.
Netscape, the then-dominant browser, also installed a Java VM with every installation. Its this inclusion that led to the MSJV in the first place. When MS illegally forced Netscape out of the market, they also harmed Java. Evidence that this is more than just a side effect is that Sun Microsystems is specifically mentioned in the DoJ findings.
Several points can be made here. Sun "lost Java" (not really, but close) in the open market because Microsoft violated the rules of that market. The idea that monopolies are legal, but using them to extend to other markets is a pretty basic tenet of free market economics. That Java still exists despite this 'foul play' from MS is a testimony to its strength.
Next, you say that suing about this "didn't do Netscape any good". There's two important things that Sun has that Netscape didn't. First, an injunction that remedies the problem during litigation, and more importantly: a new product, based on the harmed one, that is also a strong competitor.
J2EE is competing with
All in all, I think its pretty reasonable. This is a new market, and we as consumers deserve a product created by competition free of monopolistic influences.
-Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
Isn't that sort of like the idea that, say, Dell, or Gateway, should be able to do anything they want with THEIR PRODUCT, including the decision to not include other people's products?
Just because it works, doesn't mean it isn't broken.
No, it was Microsoft's bastardization of their Java VM that caused them to stop shipping the Java VM.
Microsoft's platform dependent extensions to their Java VM were against their contract with Sun, and when Microsoft was barred from spreading their bastardization, they said they wouldn't include ANY version of the Java VM and tried to claim it was all Sun's fault for upholding their contract to keep Java platform neutral. Apparently a lot of people bought the claim hook, line and sinker.
Microsoft's press releases sounded like Sun was barring them from shipping Java, when it was only Microsoft's bastardized version that was being barred!
Java is active code and active code has historically been subject to lots of security risks - including Java.
Compared to what??? I haven't seen such a clueless statement in a long time. Please go get yourself a book on Java's security model.
Microsoft can appeal this preliminary order, but they probably won't get it overturned. So 90 days from now, we should have a decent Java shipping with Windows.
IMHO, requiring MS to include a Java runtime (are they even required to pay for it?) is simply the wrong tactic. It won't keep MS from bastardizing Java with windoze-only extensions that the VB lusers will insist on (Java.NET, anyone?)
The right thing to do here was simply to make MS pay out a nine-figure judgement for damages.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You betcha. Unfortunately for them, they signed exclusivity contracts with MS so they could get "discounted" pricing schemes. The kicker is that MS then absolves themselves of any and all responsibility for MS products placed on the machine. As a former Dell technician, it was drilled into us that it's not MS Windows, it's DELL Windows (licensed from MS). OR something like that. It's not my fault they make shitty decisions. :P
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Two interesting details, the first being that I think the payment to Sun from MS was $20M, and the second that at that time, MS offered to exactly what Sun just got the injunction for: shipping Sun's JVM.
Sun didn't take it then because it had lots of nasty strings (I think it would've allowed MS to break it 'for security' or some other odiously broad clause).
However, that offer is one thing that the judge cites to refute one of MS' defenses against this injuction: that the Sun JVM would introduce security problems. The judge basically said that if MS really believed that, they wouldn't have made the offer in the other case.
-Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
Microsoft announced plans that it was halting C# and .NET development. "Oh well, never mind" said Steve Balmer.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Ever think about how much damage would be done to the economy if MS suddenly folded?
Now come back to the real world. If there was any risk of Microsoft folding from any kind of marketplace pressures, the courts would not have found Microsoft to be a monopoly.
doesn't this open up a slippery slope?
Similarly when people commit a crime they can be fined or go to prison. But if we extend the powers of government to allow them to take money from people and lock people up won't everyone end up penniless in prison? No, of course not. There is no slippery slope because nobody has been given the right to arbitrarily impose conditions on companies. What has in fact happened is that a court, which is part of a complex system with many checks and balances, has imposed a condition in a very special and unusual situation.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
"Now come back to the real world. If there was any risk of Microsoft folding from any kind of marketplace pressures, the courts would not have found Microsoft to be a monopoly."
Hardly conclusive. Lack of vulnerability due to economic pressures is not a requirement of a monopoly.
And make them distribute the newest version with Windows Update. hah.
Interactive Visual Medical Dictionary
" I don't think the claim that sun are(sic)harmed holds water. It was their previous action that caused Microsoft to stop shipping the Java VM."
But that previous action to which you refer was actually a reaction to MS's "...extend, extinguish", which was an illegal violation of their aggreement.
I welcome the new Slashdot Submission Accounting System.
I'm sure the system which tallies the duplicate submissions also will detect and block the duplicate acceptance of articles.
Where's the value? Now I can run applets? This doesn't hurt MSFT - and has marginal benefit for Sun. MSFT can actually put added pressure on Sun now, to ensure that the Windows version of the JVM works perfectly with whatever features they put into Windows. Added cost for Sun. Additionally, how many Java-based applications do you actually install and run? The majority of the desktop application market is still MFC/Win32/COM/.NET. This is only a moral victory for Sun.
.NET. Not to mention the additional 6-12 months that MSFT will appeal and maneuver.
.NET (managers aren't programmers, they don't read Slashdot, and they don't give a damn about the politics of McNeely or RMS)
Not to mention that MSFT could probably engineer Windows/IE to run the JVM more slowly, and give the user a "Disable Java" option. Of course, it'd end up back in court - but how long? 2-3 years? Enough time to gain more ubiquity for
Best scenario for MS: they advertise the fact that they have Sun's Java, make it run slow, and put an imprint in the mind of managers everywhere that Java is slow. No matter what the financial costs would be (Bill and Steve: "Fine us for $300 million! Oh please, don't throw us in the briar patch! Oh no!") What matters is the decision that those very same managers make, when they're deciding between Java and
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
Hint, hint - if something's moderated as "Funny..." it might be sarcasm.
Microsoft had the vision to remove Java from their systems because of the lack of stability and usefulness in their systems.
Sure, Java may be slow... but lack of usefulness? You just wrote that Morpheus was written in Java... Morpheus seemed pretty popular for a while there.
Besides, if you contract with someone to use a particular protocol, then don't follow that contract, whatever the reasons - that's not vision, that's breach of contract.
Its simple! Lets all stp using Java and instead start using Microsoft5's .NET replacement! ;)
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Nope -- at least not in the States.
:)
That's neither trademark nor copyright.
Hey, that was almost interesting, wasn't it?
I agree 100% with you. Because DELL is in the business of making money! Their "discounted" pricing schemes help them run that much leaner. That's why DELL is doing so much better financially than its competitors and its profit margins are so much higher.
Besides, as a DELL technician, I'm sure you didn't get phones ringing off the hook asking for Linux. I would venture to guess that most of the people that want to install other OS's on their machines fall into this category of build it yourself. Linux and other similar OS's are fantastic but are so far a niche market (for consumer PC sales). Hobbyists and enthusiasts will enjoy them while others probably will ask what the big deal is... "You mean I can't install my screensaver I've used for the last 3 years?"
In fact, most people I know that buy computers build their own and see some of the all-integrated component PC's that DELL (no offense), and Gateway, and HP-Compaq mainly sell as somewhat inferior and outdated to what they can build on their own (for less, in most cases). Or, in other cases, they own lots of components already and just upgraded a few pieces at a time (new Motherboard, CPU, and memory every few years (cause how often do you need to upgrade your CPU case, or CRT, or keyboard, or mouse, or printer, speakers, or CD drive? I'm not a gaming enthusiast and upgrading my MB, CPU, and memory typically gives the necessary extra punch to do the job) recycling the ones that don't need upgrading.
-Joe
If we're all god's children, what's so special about Jesus? - Jimmy Carr
With this ruling will this bring to the desktop a more unified Java VM. Developers can build applets using the latest technologies provided by the latest JVM.
Of course not. Applets suck.
(Just kidding, or am I?)
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
I don't think this is true when it comes to software, especially middleware and operating systems. With software, compatibility is a critical issue. People buy the operating system that has all the software. Developers write software for the popular operating systems. We end up with networking externalities. The end result: monopolies form naturally in the software industry.
To change the natural formation of software monopolies, we would need to drastically change copyright and patent law (which themselves, are government granted monopolies).
Sun wasn't a "failing company" when they brought suit against Microsoft.
And, as far as I know, Sun isn't a "failing company" today.
Or maybe I missed that memo?
...this is a preliminary injunction. This means for the time being, at least the duartion of the trial, Microsoft will be forced to comply with this ruling. However, they can always appeal this decision and the final judgement could always allow Microsoft drop Java in compliance with the ruling from a year or so ago where MS was ordered to pay Sun $20m and phase out Java from their OS over the next 7 years. The fact that MS dropped Java much earlier was not in violation of the agreement.
they should be able to do anything they want with THEIR PRODUCT
Until it becomes a monopoly, at which point they lose some control.
Microsoft has not been shipping an old version of Real Player of Quicktime. They have been shipping an old version of Java.
I see your point, that Microsoft is stunting Java's growth, but that's life. I don't think my tax dollars should be spent ensuring that Microsoft plays fair
It sounds like your beef is with antitrust law in general, rather than this particular application of it.
That was a bit of unjustifiable personal opinion there.
The way I see it, I've been Microsoft free for years, and I haven't had much difficulty doing it. I have a hard time seeing them as the threat that everyone else does. They don't play fair, so what? Nobody plays fair.
It's not because Microsoft going to do it anyway that I think they should be left alone. I just don't think our government needs to spend so much being a referee.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
An anonymous reader was the 17,232th person to submit ... and still, only *one* story was posted! The Slashdot editors are improving quickly!
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Microsoft is trying to "kill off" Java by making an inferior and incompatible alternative.
My snowboarding game for example, will not work on M$'s virtual machine while it works perfectly on every version of Java2 from Sun.
Should Micro$oft be able to include(and advertise) an orange with every copy of windows while calling it an apple?
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Since you bring it up, nobody knows what would happen if M$ folded up. But I can tell you this much, before M$ came along companies were churning out revolutionary software and services, and M$ still haven't added much to the mix. On the way to buying everything in sight and vaporwareing their way to infamy they have certainly killed off some interesting products that came too close to their core interests. If you don't think that's true then you don't understand fully why they are being called on the carpet as a monopoly.
People think that rich companies are good for the economy. If Big Blue had killed the PC somehow would our economy be better now? IBM was rich, still is, so why not kill the PC? Or how about the Bell system. Got their asses kicked, and good thing. Otherwise do you seriously think your silly cell phone technology would have ever taken off? The Bell system was rich, but that didn't make for a great economy and fabulous options in personal communications. Did it.
You like M$, you can have them. You want to Be Like Bill, have at it. It's just money, it's not progress. Some of us still know the difference.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
A good question - there are many ways to make Java not to work, and, to blame Java for all the problems. Personally - bad decision, let the best system to win, it's not the question of forcing people to use or not to use - you really like the voting results every time?? give some credit to the users ( like me but also a developer over 30 years ) have a nice day - tuomo
So what you are saying is that Dell is somehow bound to honour a contract because they signed it as a contractee of Microsoft? But, as a contractee, it's not a problem that Microsoft not honour contracts they sign?
Or are you saying that Dell really legally didn't need to honour their exclusivity contract? Actually, I'm sure that if Dell broke their contract with MS, they have an injunction filed against them, just like Microsoft has.
-BrentFrom the Judge's opinion:
"According to Sun, if Microsoft had not committed its anticompetitive acts directed toward thwarting the implementation of Java, current and compatible Java runtime environments would now be ubiquitous on PCs."
This is hilarious.
.... after you get out of kindergarten?
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
When the product is the instrument of a monopoly yes. With any technology microsoft wants to put on the windows monopoly bandwagon they must also include competing products. That's the idea, they have a monopoly, they no longer have the right to use windows to push their products. Windows is an illegal monopoly and if used to push anything it must also be used to push that somethings competitors to promote fair competition. They've lost their right to promotion via windows through lying, cheating, stealing, and forcing it into a state where it has become an illegal monopoly.
I know this is Redundant, but everyone is missing the underlying point here. Sun and Microsoft had an agreement to put the Java platform on Windows. Sun did NOT sue to "force" their competing technology onto the Windows platform. Indeed, they actually sued to "force" Microsoft to keep up it's end of the agreement, nothing more. It would be like me contracting with someone to create a software product, being paid, then delivering something that only meets 10% of the specs. I can't really argue that the rest is "my own version" of the product, because that wasn't the agreement. Likewise, Microsoft has effectively created something that isn't even Java, so it's in violation of the contract they agreed to with Sun.
I would agree that if the court were stepping in and saying something like "you must include Open Office on Windows" that would be wrong. However, in this case, there was an agreement that Microsoft didn't live up to, and all the court has decided is that "yes, they must honor the agreement they made with Sun".
Fair is Fair. If MS has to carry Java, then Sun should have to ship with .Net Framework. The only provision is that MS would have to write it to work on Suns OS, as Sun does for Java.
Seems like a fair shake to me.
...and Microsoft violated the terms of their contract with Sun by including a non-compliant Java in Windows. They also misused a Sun trademark and have sought to further break the original agreement by simply removing it altogether. But since there still is a contract in force, M$ is obligated to follow it.
The courts ruled in favor of Sun, and since that time, M$ has been trying ANYTHING they can to weasel out of the consequences, mostly by using their huge amounts of cash and monopoly power to push their own technologies.
Case closed, contingent upon appeals anyway.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
Remember all that cash Microsoft gave Apple a few years back? Part of it was to settle the look & feel nonsense...
This isn't any ordinary darkness. It's advanced darkness.
What good is it? I have the MS Java disabled under Internet Options - am I really missing anything? I hope I won't be forced to install Java, or anything else from SUN or there is a way to disable it once it's installed.
Um.. You know.. I'm not sure what you're getting at, but if you read my initial post above you'd see that I fully SUPPORT enforcement of contract law. However, most people don't even read the articles, I should be surprised if they actually read the comments, either. Don't worry, I've found myself guilty of the same offense. Contracts are legally binding. Of course, then there's EULA's and that whole mess....
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Ah, I'm sorry. I misunderstood your comment. I though you were contrasting Dell's contract with Microsoft to Microsoft's contract with Sun. But you were really comparing them. I'm glad you corrected me that you support this injunction.
A lot of these comments are really bogus and it's getting late....
-BrentWhat I've read sounds closer to:
... which includes provisions that they carry the latest version
... for Java 1.1 ...
... but are opt-out rather than opt-in and violate JVM spec unless you specifically turn them off (another reply to the parent has explained that already)
1) MS signs Java agreement
2) MS produces better runtime
3) MS adds extensions for Windows only development, which are optional to developers
Most importantly, you left out:
3.1) Sun releases enhanced JVM 1.2 with better enterprise networking features etc and the JNI for interfacing native code with Java. At a low level the JNI doesn't work the same way MS's native windows extentions do (although another post in reply to the parent says it would have been possible to support both in Windows).
3.2) Microsoft refuses to support 1.2, pushing on with its 1.1 branch, apparently in violation of their license (presumably figuring that the worst that could happen was that a court would order that they couldn't carry Java anymore, which would suit them anyway, with maybe a lawsuit for mere millions of dollars when this market is worth billions)
3.3) Judge finds that in fact MS illegally used their monopoly to hurt Sun & Java (even though Java still had some life left in it).
That changes the background for the rest of the steps: .NET runtime is ready for primetime in WinXP SR1.....includes .NET runtime and the only version of Java they have licensed, although the license is soon to expire.
... because they violated the terms of their long term license to use the latest version of Java?
... it sounds like MS had the choice to keep their Java license long term, if they had supported the current version of Java, not just the 1997 Java API plus Windows API in 2000 and 2002.
... stating that further harm would be done in future if the market wasn't adjusted back towards level immediately. If Java was as dead as some of the other technologies MS has crushed, there would be no point in trying to help.
4) Sun sues Microsoft
5) Sun offers settlement...terminate future licenses, puts a deadline on distributing the old java
I don't know if that was a settlement or just automatically triggered by a license violation.
6) Microsoft removes old Java well before deadline
7) Sun complains, puts large advertisements out showing disgruntlement with Microsoft
8) Microsoft decides
9) Sun cries fowl. Demands MS includes Sun's java because they limited MS's license to an old, obsolete version.
10) Judge grants sun's wish......for now.
No shit. I gotta be at work at 5AM. :(
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Java is active code and active code has historically been subject to lots of security risks - including Java.
I agree there. Code constantly under development is usually pretty prone to security risks. That's why I'm so mother fucking happy that Windows never has to release a single fucking security update. What fucking planet are you on ass clown? IE's got shit coming out of the wood works here and it's five fucking years into production. The holes found in Java today are piddly compared to the gaping bullshit I see in IE on a weekly basis.
Scott is driving sun into the ground with his Microsoft obsession, the competition that will erase Sun completely comes from Linux and Apple. I am not an Apple fan but they are the worlds largest UNIX vendor by far, they have a solid O/S and if they can only get a powerful processor they can clean up the market for closed source Unix.
How big was the fucking crack rock you smoked this morning? Linux is -NOT- a threat to the Sun industry. Linux runs on cheap assed x86 based hardware (and more.. but x86 is where it's cost effective)... for mid-grade server environments and clustered computing. Go to Sun's online store sometime. They've got shit in "entry level" listed at over 30k per box. That is NOT Linux's market. I love Linux -- it's great.... but it ain't cut out for the big iron yet. Any ass clown that tries to throw Linux on an E10k deserves to get taken out behind the office and flogged.
Who the hell is he going to go after besides Microsoft anyway? I mean shit -- with all the marketshare out there on the desktop that MS doesn't have he could yank all the business form the Linux crowds and half the business from Apple and have a giant fucking 4% of all desktops around the world! Yippee fucking do! There's a business plan for ya. Fuck going after the majority -- the real money's to be made with the 4% of hobbiest out there that actually care about their OS.
And for Apple and OSX -- Why the fuck do you think Sun's so pissed off? They have absolutely -NO- chance of getting in on the desktop marketshare with Microsoft in charge of shit. Apple's got their niche market that dwindles down as time goes on. I work with people that deal with technology every friggen day and have no idea how to work a Mac or why they're so nice. That's a friggen monopoly -- plain and simple.
Furthermore -- Where the hell do you think OS/X came from? They yanked the OS right from FreeBSD and put it on the PPC architecture. There's no way in Heaven or Hell that Apple could devote the kind of money it would have taken to get OS/X off the ground w/out the work of the FreeBSD group and the whole open source community. Why? Because there's a fucking giant gorilla running around crushing all commercial competion. How sad is that? Your stellar OS's foundation is based of the free work of hackers around the world because that's the -only- way you can compete with Microsoft.
Yes, Microsoft dominated the market. Yes they got there through shrewd business tactits. But -- they gained a monopoly and ABUSED that. Plain and simple. As a technolgoy worker I am forced, like it or not, to get down on my knees and suck the dick labled "Microsoft" now and then simply because they're a monopoly. I'm sick of sucking their cock and taking it in the ass -- fuck them. I'm a libertarian by nature but this has go to go. They're not doing any good for the tech industry nor the consumer. I'm all for the government coming in here and telling them what to do with their desktop. It's the only thing in the world that actualy has the force -TO- do it. The consumer can't -- that's plain and simple and has been proven in a court of law.
I get irate about this stuff; obviously. It amazes me that somebody that can actually use a keyboard would swallow anything less than a "thrash MS to death" mentality.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
one less thing i need to install when i reinstall Windows whatever their new version of windows is :) - as well as one more thing that works really well, that M$ can make NOT work really well - thanks to redmond engineering :)
Ave Molech Setting
. . . mention of Tonya Harding helps"
Actually, I think if you "apropos" Microsoft you get refered to man Tonya Harding.
Looks like just a factual reference to me.
KFG
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Monopoly market power is, by legal definition, the ability to price products without regard to the price of cometetitors' offerings.
So, yes, lack of vulnerability to market forces *is* a part of being a legal monopoly.
In this discussion, it's useful to know what a monopoly is in legal terms. Hint: it doesn't mean you have no competition whatsoever. It does mean that your competition is so marginal in the market, that they don't affect your pricing, so you can ask, and get, excessive prices for your wares.
The kid from "The Simpsons"?
"Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
Unnecessary government intrusion is the "War on Terror", a war on a verb, mind you
Actually, "terror" is a noun. Nice troll, though.
By the way - you don't see Sun getting a free ride on Microsoft's OS because of a court decision as being "unnecessary government intrusion"?
Java ISN'T broken on Windows, its a seperate add-on.
The version of Java that Microsoft included with Windows was broken (It didn't comply with the Java spec), and was included with Windows.
Why are THEY special.
Because THEY signed a contract, and MS must obey the contract.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
It was their previous action that caused Microsoft to stop shipping the Java VM.
Sorry, that's not what the judge found as fact. The Judge ruled that Microsoft intentionally broke the platform-independence of Java in violation of their agreement and FORCED Sun into having to restrict Microsoft from receiving future versions in order to protect it's cross-platform nature. Further, the judge ruled that he would not allow Microsoft to then turn around and say (as you have in your post) that Sun caused Microsoft to not be able to provide up-to-date JRE.
Microsoft have a very strong case that Sun suffers no harm if the status quo continues and that they would suffer substantial harm. Java is active code and active code has historically been subject to lots of security risks - including Java.
Wrong again. The judge ruled that Microsoft uses other third party software vendors and the support and security risks with Java is similar to the support and security risks that Microsoft takes on with these other vendors.
It may be the US way for failing companies to go to the government or courts to try to win there what they failled to win in the market but it didn;t
This statement is just plain bizzare. Microsoft is seems to be terrified of stacking their products up against the competition and resorts to criminal behavior rather than the free market to succeed in business. This appears to be, as you put it, the "US way" (Enron, Worldcom, etc.)
I want to be alone with the sandwich
Jythons an implementation of the high-level, dynamic, object-oriented language Python written in 100% Pure Java, and seamlessly integrated with the Java platform. It thus allows you to run Python on any Java platform.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Um right. Never mind that MS's era rushed millions of PCs into people's homes, they stifled innovation and other bs.
Face it, before Win95 PCs were not a mass market item. If MS hadn't have succeeded, niether would have quite a few companies in its wake. My comments have nothing to do with liking MS, rather I'm not interested in joining the "MS SUCKS!" club so I can be cool.
I misread your post. When I read 'marketplace pressures' I thought you meant events like 9-11. I'm sorry. I didn't sleep well last night.
Listen to yourselves!
If Microsoft were a monopoly, you guys wouldn't be able to post to Slashdot using Linux. If Microsoft were a monopoly, apple wouldn't be able to sell OSX. If Microsoft were a monopoly, you wouldn't be able to buy machines without Windows installed.
A monopoly is defined as "A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity."
Microsoft may control a vast portion of the market, but they're no monopoly. Otherwise, there would be no competition (and therefore no linux).
I'm sure many a fanatic will mod this down.
Sun isn't very popular on the client because there is no consistency in the client-side VM. Gee, do you think Microsoft had anything to do with that?
I doubt that a consistent client JVM would seriously degrade the security of a product that already has weekly security patch releases.
And last time I checked Sun still does more than twice as much business as Apple. But since they don't sell desk lamps to starfuckers they don't get the same kind of press.
<rant>
For all of the "Microsoft apologists" proclaiming that this ruling unfairly punishes M$ and to all of you saying that this treatment would not be accepted if it were applied to some other company: you're right.
However, There's one itty, bitty, teensy, weensy thing you seem to be forgetting...
Microsoft is a
If you don't know what that means, LOOK IT UP! Among other things, it implies that M$ is not entitled to the same treatment or protections as other corporations, nor should it be. To try and say, "M$ is just another corporation" is insane. Please, if you're going to argue against this ruling, find something else as a basis.
</rant>
P.S. If you don't understand why a monopoly deserves special treatment, you should study your history books more closely.,
Furry cows moo and decompress.
You got a link to back up your "facts"?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
I guess my point is, I would like to have a web browser on my system, and let's say that I use Internet Explorer on Windows for that (I don't, but that's beside the point...). Now let's also say that I would like to have an e-mail client on my system, but I specifically don't want Outlook Express (or anything with the word "Outlook" in it) on my system. Now the problem presents itself...
And actually, I wish that all of the 'functionality' that (only) Outlook Express exploits could be removed as well, to enhance system security. I agree with you that it's nice to have handy libraries to automate common tasks. But I don't want to have these ones, because one common task I don't want to automate is the macro virus.
So as long as glibc doesn't add that added, handy macro virus functionality, I should be fine. Windows users should still be careful, however.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
The version of Java shipping with windows is broken crap. Everyday that it ships people continue to experience it and think that it is Sun's fault for that broken crap. Therefore it is Sun's reputation being damaged by MS's actions. The argument is not weak since this would be similar to slander. Please note that it's perfectly okay for Sun to fuck up their own reputation.
Also, MS is not an "illegal monopoly". They are however a monopoly. They were also found to be abusing that fact. You obviously do not understand what you are bitching about.
what the fuck is .NET? is a runtime, a platform, a toolkit, an API set, desert topping, or a floor polish? i don't think you can compare .NET and java. java is a specific language that includes a specific runtime interpreter, a specific UI kit, and specific API's. microsoft has been obfuscative with .NET. nobody i think knows exactly what it is. i guess that makes it a harder target?
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Actually, the issue is that Microsoft was intentionally attempting to propagate a non-standard version of Java in order to kill it off. As emails from Microsoft state, their strategy was to:
The key issue is that Microsoft was deliberately trying to kill off Java using their OS monopoly to distribute a polluted version of Java and thereby fragment the Java market (as indicated by internal documents brought up in the court case.)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't get this.
Everybody hates MS, but supports their OS.
MS screws up Java by giving a useless VM.
They needed Java when they want to've lead over Netscape.
They don't need it, when they had the lead( that's fine. Sun has to find its own way, not "hitch-hiking". They found a way.)
Then MS shouldn't have signed the contract. But they did.
MS breaks the contract, well, pay the penalty.
MS comes back, saying the 'great' OS XP won't include Java.
MS reverses the decision. WHY ?????
MS foresee's trouble. 1st let them explain as why they decided to NOT include Java and more than that why they DECIDED to include it.
So the point here, as and when they see some legal trouble, they'll change their tune, great.
Then, most among say, MS is a monopoly. But the judgement is wrong.
Come on guys, we accept and hate MS as a monopoly, but don't want Sun's Java to enforced, then what do we expect from MS. Go door-to-door and sing as how great Java is ! That ain't going to happen.
If you don't follow the law, it has to be enforced.
Then the questions here is how can it be done. Well, you screwed up Java, pay for it.
I don't think Judge Motz had a scewed view of the whole battle. This decision takes the whole arena of issues between these 2 technologies.
If they're going to shut down Java, Netscape and enforce IE, tomorrow they'll come and say "well, the next 'greatest' version of XP or YP or ZP, won't support any of the hardware on the market out there, but you can buy anything you want from MS processor, MS mother board, MS sound card etc. etc.( keep in mind they already are there in the market with network hardware )
I think that day is not far, when we start seeing MS machines in Costco, Wal-mart & Amazon.
Judege Koleen had one good observation, in the case of MS against 9 states.
Don't stop short of giving a solution to the problem. When you've the vigour to explain as what harm has been done, explain me the solution, you propose. Same problem in this case too.
Sun accuses MS to be a monopoly. Sun wasn't able to convince Judge Motz that it had incured full harm. So there is one small pocket of oxygen for MS.
Then for Judge Motz, what options are left. Well, he feels and accepts that MS is a monopoly but Sun's claim( even though its not sufficiently substantiaced ) to stop it is to enforce it on their OS. Ok, fine, there you go. That's where we're now.
But as far as other products Netscape or Mozilla, it should be a fight that they've carry themselves. Sun can't be given sweeping powers to fight for others. Afterall, what right do they've to tone others.
The only way you can stop a monopoly is to have a stellar product. I'm not fan of MS either, but what good options you've in the market. Linux - I agree, Mozilla - I agree, Java - 75% I agree. But how many of the end-user components are supported using these, "compared" to MS'. Few if not none. So in a monopolistic market, he who shouts the lie 10 time, makes it truth. The only way to shut his mouth is put a scotch-tape and say, you should've this tape for this time. That's what's happening.
The remedy essentially costs MS nothing. They were going to be burning the CD's anyway. I am sure that there were a few extra bytes available on them.
It means that MS can skip trying to make a good JVM and put those resources elsewhere and nobody will have cause to complain.
If the JVM for Windows is buggy or slow it is Sun that catches the flak, not MS. Nobody can claim (as it is essentially was done in the suit) that MS is intentionally making the JVM bad because it is no longer Microsoft's JVM. On the other hand MS will no longer have to worry about having to jump through hoops when Sun ammends the Java Specification.
If then Microsoft makes their .NET clr run rings around Sun's JVM then it will be a matter of the products winning on their own merits, not a matter of MS putting more resources to one than the other. And frankly the odds are pretty good that MS could outprogram Sun. Dislike their business practices all you want but the programmers there are a fairly sharp bunch.
Actually you have your history all confused.
It was ALCOA who had the monopoly, not on mines but on smelting process and technology. They knew how to produce aluminum cheaper than their competitors. After WWII the US government sold plants that ALCOA had helped build, but they prevented Alcoa from bidding, they ended up going to Reynolds and Kaiser for pennies on the dollar.
There was also a lot of political wrangling, Alcoa had their initial case overturned on appeal, but then they lost again. Alcoa is still fighting off anti-trust issues to this day, some 60 years later. Back in like '99 they were going to buy a can making plant from Reynolds but it was blocked by the DOJ.
Of all the various anti-trust cases in the past, the ALCOA one has the most parallels to the Microsoft case.
Should be: ...was the 17,232nd person...
For all you copy editors out there.
Java has been on the market for nearly 9 years. It was hyped, lots of money went into it. Java ports of a lot of a lot of major applications were announced. None of these were released as a final version. Java has found a nieche on some servers, but hardly anyone uses it on the desktop.
Do we have to blame MS for that? Or is it remotely possible that Sun has screwed on the tech side?
After more than 8 years Java 1.4 sped up Java GUIs to a decent speed. But startup times and memory consumption are still horrible on the desktop (Sun failed to implement memory sharing). And there isn't a clean way to terminate threads from the outside.
Personally, I'm convinced that it's not MS that is to blame for the lack of popular applications that bundle a JRE.
The suffix for second is 'nd' not 'th'. Woops.
Well, I hope this injunction (if it stands, which I doubt) satisfies Scott McNealy's ego because it won't help Java and it won't help Sun's bottom line.
The problem with crafting an invalid argument to fight MS is that a judge might believe it and give you a remedy that is equally flawed. Since MS is not at fault for Java's problems, making them carry Sun's version won't change anything.
This: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/59/28677.html
They are still at their best shoddy practises. I say sue them into limbo for whatever stunt they pull. Microsoft have shown us time and time again that they themselves doesnt believe in their own offerings since they go to such great lenght to artificially stifle all and every sign of competition.
If Microsoft doesnt think their products is worth a rats ass, why should we?
Im totally "Anything But Microsoft" and my decision seems better and better each day.
HTTP/1.1 400
Sorry, guy, but MS is not a criminal corporation, fucking or otherwise.
After reading the judges decision from the PDF helpfully linked elsewhere, I found what I was looking for - the judge does not just generically demand that any .Net implmentation must also ship with Java, but also that in particular IE must ship with the Java Plug-In and Windows Update must notify MS users of Java to make it availiable for install.
.Net (sorry for the buzzword bingo there), but that VM must pass tests from the JCP to insure the distrubited VM is valid (de-facto standard) java!!! (my own wording there). Repeat after me - the JCP defines what Java is, and sun does not control the JCP. Sorry for repeating that, but I thought it would be helpful as few seem to believe it and perhaps having a federal judge pointing it out to them will help. Responses arguing against this point will have to study the workings of the JCP and then provide specific examples of how sun "controls" the JCP or they will be ingored.
That is huge. If the Java plug-in really is everywhere, it might well help stamp out crappy java programs everywhere that are forced to run in the shadowland between IE's VM and all others. It means that with a modern Java VM everywhere, you really might be able to develop and distriibute a nice Java application for web distribution much easier. Corperate developers do not have to weigh the choice between a good UI and features with a lengthy plugin download vs. just making do with a very limited interface, either AWT or pure HTML/DHTML.
Although this has nothing to do with my main point, I really liked this quote from the judge:
If, as Microsoft asserts, the granting of preliminary relief is extraordinary, the short answer is that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary remedies.
Another very interesting point the judge makes is that (and this is the exact wording from the descision):
"Sun has no control over the JCP"
All of you out there who keep claiming Sun controls Java ponder that. The injunction would have Sun provide MS a VM to ship along with
This is also a judge that knows what he is talking about, just reading the document he issued supporting the injunction provided a number of points that no poster here has managed to make in the course of 500+ comments, and also addressed a number of the arguments against the injunction that posters here have raised. After reading the PDF about 499 of the 500+ posts could probably be removed without any overall loss of content.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"It isn't Microsoft's fault that the JVM is 9 megs. There are a hell of a lot of things I've got to download to do my job, that's life."
.NET download about 15MB?
Isn't the
I'm not siding with Microsoft per se, but what is the point of including the Sun JVM with Windows?
I don't think the masses are buying Windows to write their own Java programs, are they? The main benefit to the average user to have the Sun JVM would be what? To run some ugly Java applet? Don't even get me started on Swing applications.
Regarding Netscape, I would argue that this was Netscape's downfall as well. (Everyone knows how big a piece of crap IE3 was, and everyone knows how big a piece of crap Netscape 4 was. Netscape 4 was Netscape's downfall. Coming out with a competent browser now isn't enough to break the multiyear stranglehold given to Microsoft by Netscape 4.) In the earlier days of the browser wars, people were smart enough to pick the browser that did a better job. Today? I don't know.
Let's be realistic - most users don't need or care about Sun's JVM at this point in time.
In the grand scheme of things, I think most end users have more need for the Macromedia Flash plugin than the Sun JVM. Of course, The Register has a story talking about Microsoft making a hostile bid for Macromedia.
Ultimately, forcing Microsoft to add Java to Windows accomplishes little, since Joe Average won't be impacted in any meaningful way. This is as empty a moral victory as Sun can possibly have. And for the users who actually use Java, it will probably end up being more of an inconvenience, as they'll be upgrading to a more recent version of the VM anyways.
Apparently, the ruling also requires Bush to submit to brain surgery. Something about two lobes being better than none.
They just implemented some specs differently: COM components were possible and some interfaces were developed using native code. (the things Sun does too in the JVM for Solaris). Sun dit sue, won, and in the end, MS was ordered by a settlement to stop producing an own JVM and they had a limit amount of time (7 years) to keep distributing the JVM they had. (which is still distributed). Sun wanted that, but figured out that in the end the settlement wasn't very positive for Sun so they sued again with this ruling as a result. Did Sun win? No. All they will achieve is more hate among MS developers towards everything that's ever touched by Sun. More and more developers who produce software for MS-related platforms (.net/win32) will turn their back agains Sun.
;) but I'm sure I'm not alone in this. Sun's whining in court is starting to get pathetic and it definitely hurts the already bad image of IT/software development in general.
After I've read the ruling, I've removed all JVM's from my machines, disabled Java whereever I could. I'll never ever do business with Sun nor using sun-related techniques. And with Mono around the corner I don't have to either.
_THAT_'s the true 'win' Sun will get and of course I'm just a lonely geek behind a keyboard
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Sun is #1 in UNIX sales , Sun sells a huge array of software, all of which runs on their hardware. I have to say you are completely wrong on this point unless you can point us to something besides your statement. Where do you get the %65 figure?
So the more mature technology can be squashed just by just playing the waiting game? I agree with the judge: Motz wrote that if Microsoft's system was to remain dominant, "it should be because of
So weird of an idea that it scared the crap out of MS, the whole make the OS irrelevant thing you may have missed. Hmmm.. I have seen Java applets and full applications on many sites. Please point us to something supporting your 'very few sites' contention. If you think that Flash is the main competitor for Java, then, well, your opinion weighs very little.
Most rabid MS supporters want to ignore that MS was found to be a monopoly in Jude Jackson's findings of fact. MS appealed the judges decision for break up based upon those findings of fact, but the FoF stand as does the monopoly declaration. That means that MS has a different set of rules they must adhere to now because of their dominance in several different markets.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
There is already not a friendly atmosphere between .NET developers and Java developers when it comes to their technologies and this ruling will not be a startingpoint to open the minds and work together instead of against each other. I already moved away from sun 8 years ago and now I've decided throughout my company no-one should have java on their machines nor work with sun-related material. Why? Because I've had it with Sun. Totally. Java might be a nice platform, I don't care anymore. I also don't have to, .NET is also extremely nice and with Mono around the corner, my software will also run on Linux and other platforms Mono is ported to.
.NET today, but everyone on Windows was developing in Java for COM objects. Ah well...
I'm all for fair competition, but this ruling is insane. What's next? RealPlayer bundled with XP because it's crushed by the unfair competition of WMP, which is bundled with XP? Apple Quicktime too? I surely hope not! I mention these two allthough MS hasn't signed a contract whatsoever with Apple nor Real Networks about distributing them, because Sun has settled a lawsuit with MS years ago (1997) so that MS was forced to stop distributing the latest java and had the option to distribute java in the last known good state for 7 more years (but there wasn't an option which forced MS to do so for 7 more years). So legally: MS didn't had the obligation to distribute java, it was Sun's wish, well, what's the saying? "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" ?
If I may add: the first lawsuit of Sun against MS about Java truely hurted developers on windows: after the lawsuit they weren't able to develop COM objects running in native code using Java, but had to fall back to VB for ease of use or to C++ which requires more in depth knowledge of COM to produce COM objects. If Sun hadn't sued MS for that, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have had
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Lots of people aren't included in Microsoft Windows distributions, and the ones that are presumably have committed to some serious contractual obligations. Why should Sun have it easier than everybody else?
The specific harm to Sun in this case is that Microsoft ships a broken version of Java, not that they fail to ship Sun's product for them.
If you don't think MS should have been sued in the first place, you will not believe any of these rationales, and probably not that antitrust is necessary in the first place.
Oh, I think Microsoft should have been sued, and I think there should be a remedy in this case and others. But the remedy is to require Microsoft to stop shipping their broken version of Java, not to force them to include Sun's. If Sun wants to get their version of Java into Windows, they can negotiate with Microsoft and computer manufacturers, and create compelling Java applications that end users will actually want to download.
In general, the best remedy for anti-trust problems is to create the conditions under which market forces can operate again. And that may mean breaking up the company or forcing it to unbundle its products. Forcing Microsoft to bundle Sun Java just replaces one company that forces software people with another company that forces software on people.
Then Microsoft should be required to unbundle their middleware. But forcing people to include Sun's middleware is not the right solution because it just increases the club of companies that can use coercion to get market share by one.
First of all, unlike IE, .NET really, really is not a separate solution. Microsoft is going to be basing almost its entire operating system on it. That's actually a reasonable thing for them to do. It's not a competitor with Java in that sense.
Second, Java is just another proprietary solution, one that happens to come from Sun. Why should Sun get special treatment?
Third, both Sun and Netscape's products were more hype than reality. Netscape's browser lost in the market because it increasingly sucked compared to IE: it was slow, buggy, and failed to be standards compliant. It wasn't until Mozilla that it became competitive again. And what Sun has been doing with Java isn't exactly pretty either: Java has become bloated, and Sun has failed to deliver on numerous important promises. I used to be a strong supporter of Java, but Sun has been lying and failing to deliver for so long that I just have to say: don't touch Java. And I also have to say: don't touch .NET--it's still shrouded in legal uncertainty.
The correct remedy is to require Microsoft to stop shipping their broken version of Java and to stop exclusive distribution arrangements with PC vendors. But, ultimately, to actually get Java pre-installed on end user PCs, it is still Sun's responsibility to do the hard work of negotiating with PC vendors and creating attractive distributions for end users.
In any case, it would have been entirely appropriate for the judge to order Microsoft to stop shipping MS "Java"--Microsoft was violating Sun's trademark and engaging in unfair business practices. But it was inappropriate for him to order Microsoft to ship Sun's software: Sun has to figure out how to do that just like other companies. And AOL shows that companies can successfully do that (AOL software is pretty much everywhere, despite the AOL/MSN competition).
In a story about any other company I could see this being an important story. And I could discussing it on /.
The court orders Microsoft to do a lot of things.
MICROSOFT DOESN'T DO THEM!
The court doesn't follow thru with anything directed at Microsoft. There is no enforcement, no actual punishment.
You wouldn't raise your kids this way. You wouldn't tolerate this kind of behavior from your neighbors. You would expect/demand that the courts stand behind what they say in any other case.
But this is not what happens with Microsoft.
So some lawyers and a judge got their chests all fluffed up and announced that Microsoft will carry java.
If you think that actually means that Microsoft will include java....well, I've got some great real estate deals for you.
Wake up people!
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
they are still on trial for their illegal monopoly, they are very much STILL an illegal monopoly.
JAVA: is 1 language, many runtimes for different platforms with different vendors.
COM/ActiveX: is 1 technology/standard (not language) that allows interoperability between code generated from different languages & compilers/linkers. You can use a COM/ActiveX DLL generated by Delphi with MSVC++.
Check out 1 p.14, The COM and COM+ Programming Primer by Alan Gordon, Copyright 2000 by Prentice Hall PTR, ISBN 0-13-085032-2 - A VERY good book for understanding the COM/ActiveX fun.
There are a lot of posts in this thread that say, in effect, "nobody uses Java on the desktop, so who cares about this decision". Well, I'm a developer who uses Java on the desktop. Why? So that I can deliver cross-platform apps (Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, etc.) from the same codebase. So I can use Java Web Start to securely deliver those apps over the Internet. So that I can use a language that is (IMHO) better than C++. Sure there are a few things that I'd like to see improved in Java, but it's an excellent platform with some unique advantages. Unfortunately, Microsoft's smear campaign has been effective - many users erroneously think that Java is 'dead' or 'bad' or 'slow'.
Look, it's trying to think - Albert Rosenfield
Eeek, when I checked on this article this morning it said that there were exactly 666 comments. For those of you who wanted proof that anything associated with Microsoft is evil incarnate...
So the question is, why didn't Sun long ago make a bundling deal with AOL to include the latest JVM with those ubiquitous coasters? Frankly the two would be a perfect match. AOL gets to claim their disk comes with a free bonus OS upgrade, and through AOL Sun reaches exactly those clueless users who can't figure out how to get their hands on an up-to-date version of Java if they want it.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Java really has no place in windows and it certainly sets a very dangerous precident IMHO. Windows is Windows, if I don't like it I can use Linux, or Solaris, or one of the other dozen operating systems.
While I appreciate the staggering power MS has because the vast majority of people have elected to use their platforms. I most certainly do not agree that the courts have the power to let other companies ride on that popularity.
This decision is nothing more than ordering McDonalds to put a burger king counter in all their restraunts, or requireing the NFL make room for MLB to play a game during halftime.
It's stupid and very illconsidered.
How is IBM's JVM better on Win32? VisualAge for Java isn't even up to JDK 1.3 yet, and their Developer Kit for Windows seems to still be in beta.
I never use java for anything and I don't want that bloatware on my system! So now the government is forcing Microsoft to bundle? Java is useful for operating systems outside of Windows, but is totally useless for windows. Why would I choose to purchase/download a Java program when there is probably a better alternative available?
I hope there will be an option for me to remove it at least.
The report you cite does not mention either Apple or Linux. They are the two factors I identified as threatening Sun's position. Apple shipped more UNIX machine last quarter than all the other proprietarty suppliers combined.
So weird of an idea that it scared the crap out of MS, the whole make the ... yack yack
Self serving bullshit. Java died on the client because creating content as Java applets makes no sense. There are not that many Active X components either. Take out the flash component and the certificate enrollment plugin and you are left with a bunch of stock ticker applets.
Most rabid MS supporters want to ignore that MS was found to be a monopoly [internetnews.com] in Jude Jackson's findings of fact.
And rabid anti-Microsoft types completely ignore the fact that Jackson was found to have been biased by the appeals court who censured him for his conduct. They also stated that his 'findings of fact' contained many opinions that they are not bound by. So no, Jackson's findings of fact do not stand except in the most technical sense. The appeals court is certainly not going to reverse a lower court that rejects Jackson's opinions and has much more lattitude if it decides to reverse a court that depends on them without hearing evidence on an issue.
The monopoly finding by the appeals court does not rest on Jackson's opinion, they simply applied their own judgement to the evidence.
This whole Sun/Microsoft thing is a false dichotemy. You don't have to like the Democrats to loathe the Republicans. McNeally and Ellison are only upset at Microsoft for one reason alone and their complaints about Microsoft are largely projection.
Ellison is the guy whose company scammed $90 million out of the state of California and whose yatch cheated in the Americas cup by using a banned radar. OK so the other side was found to have cheated too, but a rational person says that both OneWorld and Oracle were cheating rather than saying that OneWorld cheated worse so anything Oracle did was OK.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
being jailed for tax evasion. At least he did some jail time, so it was better than nothing.
Microsoft was found guilty of abusing their monopoly position to drive their competition out of business, yet they really weren't punished for it in any meaningful way.
I don't think forcing MS to carry the latest JVM is going to change much. On the other hand, it *is* forcing Microsoft to do something they don't want to do, and that's better than nothing.
Did you read what I said? He said taht sun does not control the JCP, a combination of an organization and a process. Not programming. I'm sure the judge knows less about programming than most of us, but about ownership and control of a process that is directly pertinent to a case he's overseeing, yes I'd say he knows that pretty well.
The fact are that the JCP stands outside of Sun. If Sun went away tomorrow (not likley) the JCP, and Java, would be just fine and continue on without a hitch.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I know here is one person who will uninstall that trash given the chance. And they better give me the chance! If this is really allowing choice then the customer should have the choice to get rid of that shit. Java is a big dead hog that is bloated from being under the sun too long. It's day has come and gone. If a language can't survive on it's own merits (outside of any interference) then it deserves to go away.
This must be why my (work) computer now starts up with "java.exe has caused an error and will be closed."
Microsoft was distributing SUN's java under license; SUN sues Microsoft for shipping the "wrong" kind of java; Microsoft changes java; SUN sues Microsoft again for not shipping a "compliant java,"; Microsoft has enough and strips all SUN java products out of Windows; SUN sues again to force Microsoft to *ship* SUN's java with Windows (because Microsoft making SUN's java available on the Internet for anyone who wanted it to download was not enough for SUN), and another computer-illiterate judge decides to play it safe and rule against Microsoft (without, it seems, ever understanding the issues involved.)
The wonder of it all is what SUN thinks Microsoft's shipping of their little java engine will do for SUN...? That's what's I find baffling. Microsoft never stopped shipping SUN's java on its own in the first place--the company simply sickened of lawsuits from SUN objecting to the way Microsoft is run and managed. Who can blame them? I certainly don't. But the irony here is sweet: Scott McNealy believes so strongly in the strength of the Microsoft operating system that he would sue Microsoft just to make sure his little java virtual engine gets shipped with each and every copy. What's the deal? Does he think it makes Windows a better OS?
1) At least one company has solved this problem, with an automatic tool (The name of the tool is J-Integra, from Linar systems, www.linar.com). I believe it uses JNI, but does not require you to write any JNI.
2) With either approach, there has to be a linkup between the DLL and the Java code. MS' approach used an approach that hid everything in the JVM. Could they not have generated JNI code that did this instead? This approach does not necessarily have to make the developer deal directly with the JNI code (i.e. write it). And, it meets the language and JVM specifications, and would work with other Windows-based JVM's.
I suspect that such approaches did not meet MS' business objectives (to kill cross-platform java by promoting a polluted version of java).
A few moths back there was a story about NatWest (a UK bank) and their peculiar Java based online banking system. Someone tried to login using Mozilla with the latest official Sun JVM. They were presented with a message telling them they were using an incompatible JVM and they should use the proper M$ one as the one they were using 'lacked' important features.
Apart from the irony of the situation, this goes to shows the dangers of the actions of MS. Look at this way, MS adds ActiveX like features to Java, devlopers start using these features, users forced to use the MS JVM, a few years down the line MS suggests to developers "Why not switch from Java to ActiveX controls?, MS drops Java. As a result of this more users are locked in to MS systems as it will become a pain to have a Doze system on hand to access certain website or services.
The same thing happened with the browser wars and is still happening. MS may have pretty much killed off Netscape, but they will continue to add IE specific features to make it a pain for users of other OS's to access certain sites. How many sites fail to work in Linux? Quite a few, the more irritating it is for me to access popular sites the happier MS are.
The damage has been and continues to be done. The best the court can do is to stop the "continues" portion of the damage.
If you are quite read on the case, why do you continue to bring up Apple and operating systems in general? They are not relevant to the discussion in the least bit since MS is a monopoly in operating systems on x86. Bringing up Apple in that context is like bringing up Nintendo.
Is your entire argument hinging on the fact that perhaps today .NET is not distributed with the operating system? How much would you like to bet that it will soon be included in an upcoming operating system? I'm willing to bet anything. You?
And finally, no one cares what fantasies you have about MS being a monopoly. The reality that the rest of us live in is that the court issued a findings of fact that says they are. End of discussion.
Every post like yours reveals a serious lack of understanding for how the US economy is managed by the government. Capitalism has serious flaws that have revealed themselves throughout history. The US government has taken many steps to foster, protect and manage its psudo-capitalist economy. These steps include patent laws, the Federal Reserve and yes, even antitrust laws.
The repercussions of a government not managing its economy are a lesson you should have received in grammar school.
I can clearly understand how someone could disagree with the particular policies of government or the ruling of the court. I don't know how anyone with a rudimentary education could not understand the fundamental issue of why the US does not have the kind of free-for-all, do-as-you-please economic system you seem to think exists.
my original question still stands.
RNI code will probably never run with anything other than Microsoft's old VM on Win32 (which is already at the end of its life AFAIK), mostly because it constrains optimization opportunities much more severely (the lack of write barrier support was one problem that leaps to mind).
I think Microsoft's VM also omitted RMI in favor of DCOM or something, though eventually they at least made that available as a separate download.
That is a good example. In that case, Microsoft SETTLED, by allowing those ISPs to have their icons on the desktop. They were not forced into it by the government. In this case, the government has declared that Microsoft must include someone else's technology. That means that Microsoft has to agree to Sun's license, wether they feel like it or not. Heck, Sun could now change their license to say that anyone who implements it in their operating system must give sun the entire source code to the core of the operating system. It wouldn't matter for Linux, it's already open. It wouldn't matter for OS X, as Darwin is already open. But, it could be used to force MS to give up their source code; as the government has just mandated that MS acquire a license for Java.
Again, I would have no problem with the government forcing MS to remove their faulty Java implementation. I would have no problem with MS being required to pop up a dialog box saying 'you must have Java installed to run this, please click the link below to be taken to www.sun.com to download it - warning, this link takes you to a website outside of Microsoft's control'. That would be just fine. But FORCING a company to include a competitor's product, with no end user choice, is wrong. Yes, no end user choice. The government has just declared that Java is a legally mandated part of Windows.
To quote the judge "If
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Seriously, forcing companies to carry their competitors product is stupid. To give a company tóo much CPR like this, would true capitalists do that? No. Would socialists? Sure.
---
bius sig file. This is a moebius sig file. This is a moe
Go tell that to the folks at symbolics, the price points are even the same. Oh and symbolics had their best year the year before they went under.
There is no high end in the computer business, never has been. The high end suppliers have always been killed by competition from below. That is what happened to SGI, you can go to Frys today and buy a $400 video card with a rendering engine that is more than adequate for most professional uses so why pay $30K for an SGI workstation?
Furthermore -- Where the hell do you think OS/X came from? They yanked the OS right from FreeBSD and put it on the PPC architecture.
Actually OS/X is NextStep which is the MACH kernel plus the original BSD distribution. 4% of the desktops is a heck of a lot more machines than 30% of the high end servers. If the desktops are so irrelevant then why the paranoia about Microsoft?
I get irate about this stuff; obviously. It amazes me that somebody that can actually use a keyboard would swallow anything less than a "thrash MS to death" mentality.
You don't say. Perhaps you should try an anger management class or a 'how to flame coherently on slashdot' course.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Um, you are aware of the anti-competitive practices of Microsoft where they effectively banned vendors from offering other operating systems? Some choice: Windows or Windows.
let other companies ride on that popularity.
Funny, I seem to recall a certain Redmond, WA company that loves that other companies write software for their operating system and thus ensure its continued use.
It's stupid
Your misplaced allegories are. The choice between Burger King and McDonald's is real, the choice between Windows and other operating systems is not, because of secondary markets (read: software).
The main issue is that Microsoft initially agreed to carry Java from Sun. And then AFTER that, subverted their agreement to their (Microsoft's) advantage. This has a long term destructive effect on Sun because to most of the unwashed, they think that Microsoft STILL carries Java, not knowing that it is Microsoft's own incompatible version. Any problems with that will now be related, unfairly, to the real version. Plus, NET becomes, by mere implication, the successor to Java. Had not Microsoft agreed to carry Java in the 1st place, it would not be required to continue carrying it. I believe this is fair compensation, in addition the $20M sum, plus any others awarded in the future ;-), for their very serious violation of the Java agreement. As THE dominant player, they have responsibilities.
you are aware of the anti-competitive practices of Microsoft where they effectively banned vendors from offering other operating systems?
...that loves that other companies write software for their operating system and thus ensure its continued use.
Oh...? So what were the 'other' operating systems makers doing? Sitting about waiting for someone to pick up their stuff? To sell something you have to do some hard work selling it. If you didn't reaslize it yet, marketing is also an industry. Get the point?
Something wrong with that? I think something would be terribly wrong with you if you wanted other companies not to write software for your operating system. Why have it in the first place if you don't really want anyone to use it?
IMO, the bottomline is this: MS intentions may be to not allow Java to dominate. Nothing seems to be wrong with that. If Sun is really keen on making Java work, then why not do some work getting it running on windows rather than ask MS programmers to do it for them. Dont they have enough capable programmers at Sun? (I had heard Sun was not doing well, but this i never imagined!).
...now if only they could automate that somehow... hmm.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So exactly why is my example about the son being killed a "strawman"? Would you not punish the killer? Are you saying that if there was no possibility of the killer committing future murders that you would not punish him? How magnanimous of you.
Your counter examples to the Finding of Facts are silly. That case was tried, reviewed, and reviewed some more. On appeal the courts said that the they agreed with the Finding of Facts, just not the punishment.
The DMCA is a product of congress not the courts. Big distinction. In fact, in the first test of the DMCA with the Dmitri case, the courts found that it did not hold. So yes, I guess I do agree with the courts about the DMCA.
Similarly, your other examples are confusing laws with what the courts found. Well, except for OJ, where corrupt cops and bad handling destroyed the evidence. Not to mention that that was a jury case versus review by a highly intelligent judge.
And why is Nintendo a stupid example? If I had a Gamecube with net access and a disk that had a web browser and a java engine, it would have about as much compatibility with the world of Microsoft Windows as Apple has. Not much. That is the reality of the world.
I don't need to say whether Microsoft is a monopoly or not, the facts stand on their own.
Now, if you wipe your drive clean you will have to get service pack 1 for XP to get JVM. I ran into this a few days ago, but luckily I had gone to the admin downloads a few months ago and downloaded ALL of the pre SP1 updates EXEPT for the famous Media Player backdoor. I did this back when MS announced that soon, Windows Update would begin uniquely ID'ing your machine. So if you believe the little drama that was acted out in front of you to make divert your attention to the illusion that they are getting tough with MS you might want to read the story or Brayer Rabbit from the Disney movie Song of the South, which you can get in NTSH format from ebay pirates. God Bless Us All.
Libranet GNU/Linux - Excellent Debian Based Distro http://www.libranet.com Check it out!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, of course it would be unfair for a competitor to be forced to hold your product, but this is really not all the case in this matter. Microsoft has went great lengths to discredit Java, and mutilate it so that it would not work very well on some M$ platforms (they all start with Wi, end with a 2 character alphanumeric sequence)