Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MS Must Ship Java With Windows Within 120 Days

Posted by timothy on from the but-at-least-it's-not-micromanagement dept.

Suppafly writes "Cnet is reporting that a federal judge on Wednesday ordered Microsoft to begin shipping Sun Microsystems' Java with the Windows operating system within 120 days, after the companies fought over implementing a ruling he made last month."

15 of 485 comments (clear)

  1. Its about time by psycht · · Score: 5, Informative

    Its been hell trying to suport end users with our web tool, that is java based, and having to walk them though installing/downloading java from Sun's site.

    --
    thelikesofwhich.com
    1. Re:Its about time by The_K4 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually it sounds like they will be required to put it into XP SP2. Now that's a download/install of it's own, but this isn't just about new installs. Here's the real fun part of this, everytime Sun releases a new JAVA MS will be REQUIRED to include it in the next SP. SO if you don't use java at all, you will still be required to download and in stall it if you want the latest security patches in the newest SP.

    2. Re:Its about time by Narcissus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, this is a good thing. Just because the product you (unfortunately) support was not written to use the "real" Java, why should everyone else suffer? What was going on with development there, anyway? I'd take a stab and say that someone called out another buzz-word ("Yeah, I like it, but let's write it in Java!") at the time of design...

      If you're going to write a Java program, then you should write it to run in Java. Not MS' "Java". You should know that by not writing to the standard, you'll end up in trouble. It would be like me writing an app to use undocumented APIs, and then whinging when they're changed. If I'd have used what I was given properly, I would not have gotten into the mess, and I would have no-one to blame but myself.

      The fact that you have to support a program that was not written correctly is not our fault or problem. Don't get me wrong, I feel for you, but that doesn't change anything.

  2. Not so fast by core+plexus · · Score: 5, Interesting
    While this is good news, it's not gone through the appeal yet; ""If my order doesn't get stayed or reversed (on appeal), it's going to get done," Motz said. Well, that's stating the obvious.

    Microsoft lawyers may be able to either stall it, get it reviewed, or even get it overturned. That's the way the law works. Likewise, there may be other avenues outside of the Courts that Microsoft may take.

    This little penguin doesn't forget favors

  3. Questions.... by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Will this mean that MS must fully integrate java into it's operating system? Or can they get away with just shipping either the free download off of the sun site or even just including a link to download it off it the sun website. Will they have to provide support for it over windows update, or do they only have to provide the initial download?

  4. How hard is it? by gwernol · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Microsoft, which told Motz on Thursday that shipping Java with Windows was not a simple matter and could harm large corporate users of Windows, is almost certain to appeal--a move the judge anticipated.

    Does anyone have details of what Microsoft claims was so hard about installing Java with Windows? Given that Sun already provide a complete Windows installer why can't they do this in 120 days? How could this "harm large corporate users". I know Microsoft are just stalling, but what argument did they put forward to the judge? Clearly it wasn't that convincing...

    --
    Sailing over the event horizon
    1. Re:How hard is it? by javahacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Installing Java is not the issue. They provided tools to their customers that rely on their VM being present for their corporate web pages to function. I know this because the company I am currently doing contract work for has a web application they purchased for content management of their shared project/business documents. It is written using Microsoft tools, and won't work if you have the Sun VM activated for your browser.

      Their argument is valid, that this will cause problems for their corporate clients. It will cause problems whenever it comes out, because some of their corporate clients (or their customers) will not be able to view their web pages properly.

      Delaying this rollout is not really going to help much, because most web application get updated when the application changes, not when the client changes. Their corporate customers are going to be very angry with them about this kind of problem.

      I don't feel sorry for Microsoft, because they got themselves into this mess by trying to spin Java out of Suns control, and make it into a Microsoft specific version. Now they have been told to live up to their contract with Sun, and must pay the price for their behavior. I do feel sorry for their corporate customers who bought into systems designed around the Microsoft VM, because they were dumb, not culpable. They will end up paying part of the price for Microsoft's past errors.

      Most corporate clients will have control of their desktops, and can make their internal users use the Microsoft VM until they can fix things. They can't make joe user on the internet do that, which is where things will break down.

  5. Re:I feel bad for Microsoft by Sabalon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I agree they shouldn't be able to say you must include x.

    However, from what I read earlier on in ths case it is not as simple. What I read was that MS had signed a contract with Sun that they would include Java and then backed out, so I guess this comes down to being the punishment for breach of contract, not just because Sun is whining.

  6. Do your Homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    All of you that "feel bad" for Microsoft need to remember that this is happening because MS broke a binding agreement with Sun.

  7. Re:I feel bad for Microsoft by RevMike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't feel bad for M$. They did violate the law.

    A major point of law in the area of monopolies is that a company that has a monopoly in one area can't use that monopoly to build a second monopoly in another area.

    M$ was using Java, then dropped Java entirely in order to promote their .Net product. By excluding Java in favor of their own product, they are trying to leverage their desktop monopoly into another area.

    By your example, Ford does not need to use Bosch brakes because Ford is an oligopoly, not a monopoly. If Ford, GM, VW, Toyota, etc. decided to start a joint venture to make their own brakes and exclude Bosch, the analogy would be more apt.

    The Debian analogy also isn't valid. There are many viable commercial and non-commercial distros. And Debian also doesn't own a competing product.

  8. Monopolies have different rules by semios · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What microsoft is doing is more akin to the phone company, a legally acknowledged monopoly, that blocks you from calling a competitor of theirs. Except in microsoft's case, they reroute the call to a mock phone company which provides different rates and services intentionally meant to dissaude people from switching to that competitor.

    It's anti-competive. It's illegal. And this is a fair punishment.

  9. Re:I don't like MS, BUT ..... by legLess · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Have you been reading the news? You're asking why a convicted child molester shouldn't be allowed to run a daycare center: "All sorts of other people can - what's so special about Mr. Child Molester?" It's special becuase the drastic anti-social behavior for which they've been publically tried and convicted is directly tied to this remedy.
    this is my opinion in regards to fair competition
    The point appears to elude you. Microsoft has been convicted in federal court specifically for trying to crush Java by illegally extending their monopoly power - this is a remedy. Any company can have a monopoly in any market; what's illegal is using your power in one market (operating systems) to take over another market (e.g. web browsers, office suites).
    It is like telling AOL to ship MSN8 with their latest distro
    Not at all. If AOL had 95% of the country dialing into their servers, they used their position to try to kill MSN8, were successful in damaging it, were tried and convicted by the federal government, then were ordered to include MSN8 as part of the remedy for their illegal actions ... then you'd have a valid analogy.
    If MS has to include Java, wh [sic] don't the [sic] have to include Perl, Python, PHP
    Because Perl, Python and PHP weren't the targets of Microsoft's illegal monopoly behavior.

    Have people already forgotten that Microsoft has been convicted of the most anti-competitive and anti-free-market behavior possible? That the U.S government has been trying for a decade to rein in their behavior and bring some semblence of competition to the PC market?
    --
    This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
  10. Re:Odd... by Hezaurus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not about preinstall. It's about the fact that M$ deliberately includes an outdated & mangled (something like 5 years now) version of Java to make it look bad.
    Java and Linux are threat to microsoft, so it's good for M$ when another frustrated users curses 'that fu**ing java' again when it crashes on microsoft's ancient runtime.

    Think it like this: how would you feel if all the games would preinstall some buggy old beta version of the display driver for the hardware that your company is manufacturing. If you do this, you should at least inform the users that something better is available.

    Funny, if I click to open a pdf-document (without acroreader installed) my XP offers to search the right tool from the internet. I think it should behave the same way if double click on that *.jar - package.

    --
    No matter how fast light travels it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it. (T. Pratchett)
  11. Re:In what ways did it not meet standards? by CustomDesigned · · Score: 5, Insightful
    A partial list was provided with the initial lawsuit (which was posted online). However, the two problems were naming and completeness.

    As part of their contract, MS was forbidden to add public names to system packages (e.g. java.lang, java.net, etc). Nevertheless, they did so. There were some stretchers on both sides.

    Microsoft PR claimed that Sun was forbidding them to add Windows specific extensions. This was silly - there was no problem with any number of packages named com.ms.* or whatever (except that the ms.com domain belongs to Morgan Stanley, and thus didn't follow the 3rd party naming convention - but that wasn't in the contract). There were some very nice extensions with proper names - like JDirect which let you call Microsoft DLL's without writing JNI glue. The problem was that Microsoft wanted to name some extensions java.*. This would of course cause the unwary programmer to inadvertantly create Java programs which only run on Windows - despite not knowingly using any MS specific packages. Exactly what MS wanted.

    On Sun's part, the contract included a list of packages which Microsoft could not touch the public name space of. More system packages were added to Java 1.1. Sun claimed that Microsoft couldn't touch those either - reasonable, but they weren't in the specific list in the contract.

    The completeness problem was along the same lines. Microsoft provided a complete 1.0 API. However, they left out components of the 1.1 API that competed with their own offerings. For instance, they left out RMI and offered DCOM support instead. Sun said that it was understood that the same restrictions regarding system name space pollution and completeness would apply to the packages of subsequent API versions. But this was not spelled out in the contract. It would not be in the ruthless spirit of Microsoft for them to follow the spirit of a contract if they could find a loophole.

    Regardless of quibbling over whether the system package list under contract should expand to match new API versions, Microsoft polluted even core packages from 1.0 with handy additions sure to entice the unwary. So they were guilty even by the letter of the law.

  12. What was Sun thinking? by spells · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I can't believe people think that this is good for Java! As an enterprise developer, this absolutely sucks.

    Java has become one of the primary tools for enterprise development, mostly on the server, but also on enterprise clients, where downloading an applet or java app is typically not time consuming for the client because they are on a LAN.

    What takes so long in software development? TESTING, and in java testing different versions of the VM. Up until this point, enterprises have been able to enforce a VM version on enterprise clients, and the developers can count on that version being on the client desktops. Now what? If the enterprise wants to stick with its 1.2.2 or 1.3.1 VM, they can't install WinXP SP2? What happens with the next SP and a new java VM? All enterprise java apps will need to be thoroughly tested with each new service pack, since Sun's VMs are not all backwards compatible.

    In addition, if anyone is still righting java applets for the internet, how does this help? What percentage of users are going to have XP SP2 in the next 12-24 months?

    This solves none of the Java VM version issues. This was Sun saying "wah wah" in court and getting a sympathetic judge.

    Sun needs to hand over Java to the JCP and stop using it as a weapon in its fight against MS.