Slashdot Mirror
MS Moves Deliberately On Java Ruling
Darwin X writes "So, Microsoft will finally put Sun's JRE into future versions of Windows. This article talks about how they're taking the steps to make this happen. The fun part of it is that Microsoft has released a statement that said Windows Customers are NOT required to update their machines with this. Ah, yes...gotta keep it all MS in the house..." Update: 02/03 23:07 GMT by T : However, according to this report on News.com, Microsoft has may be able to backtrack anyhow -- they've gotten a stay from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, meaning the earlier order to ship Java with Windows doesn't apply, for now.
Removing their own java isn't the same as installing Sun's. Just stalling for time... "Yeah, it'll be in the 'next one'". Couldn't fit it into this one? Run out of disk space or something? Ba.
-=sig=-
Microsoft also says:
They don't have a monopoly.
They don't have security problems, only lazy customers.
They don't think you should worry about giving them your information.
They don't think 95, 98, 2000, or XP is proprietary.
And the grand daddy of them all, they don't think you need anything but automatic update to keep your system secure.
Neck_of_the_Woods
#/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
Sounds to me like they are making all of this complicated planning (I had to read the article a few times to get what they're doing).
With all of the SP1a, SP1b, SP2 and other crap relating to other versions of windows, users may be forced upon with a few hundred MB of downloads (depending on how they get their patches).
Sun: You've licensed Java; you can distribute it, but you can't modify it.
Microsoft: Yes, we can; we're Microsoft.
Judge: Now you have to distribute it.
Microsoft: No, we don't; we're Microsoft.
Microsoft's "move" is to today replace Windows XP Service Pack 1 with a version without a JVM, and in June to also offer a version of the service pack with Sun's JVM. So far as I can tell, even in June, XP users who've already installed the service pack won't be able to get Sun's JVM from Microsoft, unless they re-install SP1 using the new version (if they're even able to do so).
Windows Server 2003, formerly Windows XP Server, is (according to Microsoft) "not impacted by the District Court's order and will include neither the Microsoft Virtual Machine nor Sun's JRE."
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
1. this court system is totally foobar, ie. it no longer functions as intended, due to major "holes"
2. this court system is horribly corrupt
It all must come down to campaign contributions and conflicts of interest.
Government by and for the people? *laughs* - whatever. By the politicians for their own interests is more accurate.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Sun took over iPlanet. It is called Sun ONE now. Netscape(AOL) now has no part in it. The webserver is a pile of crap now. They went from 4.1 to 6.0, skipping 5, just like Netscape did with its browser. Last week I tryed to get a servlet to work in. Took me 6 hours and I just gave up. Installed Tomcat and had servlets running in 10 minutes. So now we have the iPlanet front end with the nsapi_redirect.dll pushing the servlet requests onto Tomcat. Damn what a mess.
just opinion
I don't see where forcing Microsoft to include Sun's VM provides any benefit to the majority of Windows users. I can see where it benefits open-source developers, and where it definitely benefits Sun. But client-side Java apps are on the wane on the Windows platform and this merely adds to the bloat.
Perhaps both VMs should be removed and only be installed at the users option, if it's necessary for software to function, but otherwise, it's useless.
So, who benefits? This decision should have been about what's best for users, not Sun or Microsoft. There are other ways to punish MS for failing to live up to a written contract.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Too bad your long comment is based on incorrect information. MS has not been found guilty of any crimes by any court. The anti-trust case was a civil one. If you can't even get this small detail correct, what's the point in reading the rest of your comment?
Ok, let's take a principled stand.
Instead of complaining about Microsoft, let's just not do any development for the M$ platform. We've got Linux and Java and we can develop using those.
M$ doesn't owe us a living (nor have they offered to provide one for us). No one is forcing us to develop on their platform, and if they try, we can just say no. Might cut into our paychecks? Well no one said living according to principles is cheap. Just seems more productive than constantly bi-otching and moaning about them.
Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards. -- Aldous Huxley
It's sort of funny that you think that the rule of law and precise legalese terminology are the key issues here. You must be a lawyer, if not professionally then at least in heart.
The fact of the matter is, everyone with a sense of what is right and what is wrong knows exactly where to place Microsoft on the map of ethics and morality. Focussing on the legalese just puts you right down in among the scum, by your own blind choice.
I just got the March edition of CPU and Alex St. John, a columnist for CPU and "...one of the founding creators of Microsoft's DirectX technology" complained that his company's (WildTangent) browser plugin allowing Java developers to create DirectX games. They originally developed it for both Sun and Microsoft Java, but decided to go totally with Microsoft because of size (M$ Java: 3MB vs. Sun Java: 7MB), stability, and ease of extension concerns. He said that Microsoft added extentions that made it easier for developers. So, he complains that his plugin must be re-ported to Sun Java. Personally, I think that he is complaining about what Java was originally intended to be: an OS independant way to create programs. It is understandable that he made a mistake and chose the wrong Java, but to complain about his company losing money when technology is kept standardized is rediculous.
Well, now that you know that MS is not guilty of any crime (at least not by "the rule of law and precise legalese terminology") would it not be unethical and immoral for you to claim that they are without explaining that you don't mean it in the legal sense? Or is truth just a technicality as well?