Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Sides With Microsoft On Java
burgburgburg writes "Reuters reports that the three-member federal appeals court in Virginia ruled today the U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz erred when he ordered Microsoft to include Java with the Windows operating system.
Fortunately, Dell and HP, the top 2 PC makers, have already decided to ship Java on the PCs that they sell. Apple, Red Hat and Lindows have also agreed to include Sun's Java." The ruling is available.
At the risk of being redundant, I've just got to say that I'd much rather have like, Sun's or IBM's Java package than Microsoft's.
Since Java is not Microsoft's product, it only makes sense that PC manufacturers should be the ones distributing it by default (if they see the need).
Mike.
Mmmm......sacrelicious.
So far in history there is little evidence that anything BUT regulation will solve the problem of a single company getting too powerful.
No, it's not. I agree mostly. But Microsoft also shouldn't be engaging in anticompetitive behaviour and violating their contract with Sun by including their own broken implentation of Java. If Windows isn't going to include a proper implementation of Java (whether that be Sun's or a version of Microsoft's that conforms to standards), then it shouldn't include one at all.
My journal has hot
it's kind of refreshing to see that a lot of linux community kids are siding with microsoft on this one. makes us a little more reputible vs. always saying "microsoft is EVIL! linux roxors!"
btw. i lost my password and changed my e-mail address so i can's get it back, but i'm StrangeNewGround.
Untrue because that version of java was self-squashed by definition. Recall that it purposely sucked.
The proper remedy is to make an attempt to force MS to provide Sun with what they illegally took away. Market opportunity.
From the article... which makes the original ruling sort of redundant. Microsoft can't touch the code any more (unless Sun gives them permission, I suppose), so they can't break it.
I also enjoyed this: Since when has MS been overly concerned with security updates? Oh, and the "alternate solutions" -
Yeah, I thought that was the case as well. Doesn't Apple have the only Java implementation that doesn't spawn a new VM for each new app? I can't remember what the terminology for it was.
I wish sun would jump on that bandwagon, I'm sick of a new 30 meg vm opening everytime i visit a webpage with a java applet. You'd think a virtual machine, much like a regular machine, could handle more than one program at a time.
I've never really understood what Microsoft product actually competes with Java, it sure as hell isn't .NET because it isn't platform independent. As far as I can see it's a simple "include our language with your OS" which makes no sense. Java isn't magical or anything, it's a langauge and compiler, and I don't see where they're coming from - I mean it's like Borland trying to get C into Windows 3.11... I mean seriously, are we going to have Fortran, Forth, Lisp and Logo ship with it too?
Incidentally, does this mean that Netscape should be made to include a J# compiler? I mean, if we really want to level the playing field...
I guess you haven't followed this story. Sun and Microsoft had a contract. Microsoft broke that contract. All but the most extreme libertarians think the courts should help deal with contract disputes. I think the courts did a good job here. Do you know enough of the facts to prove otherwise?
As far as I am concerned, this is an excellent thing. I have not used any variation of Java in four years now. I use Windows 2000 Professional as my main operating system at home, and have Microsoft's Java VM completely disabled, as well as any and all scripting support for Java. I also have no other version of Java installed as I make sure everything I download doesn't include Java, so my system is effectively Java-free.
IMO, Java is extremely slow and very much open to exploits, to the point that I feel it is absolutely useless to implement. If a web site I visit requires it, then I just move on to a different web site without giving a second thought.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
If you look here, then search around the web a bit, you can find out more about the first part of the ruling - removing Java from Windows.
They have already removed Java from their current OS (XP), and were seemingly more than happy to do so since they did so rather quickly without providing a Java alternative - they recommend migrating to a different product, or downloading a VM from "Some UNknown company"
XP doesn't come with a JVM by default, and since February you can no longer download-on-demand the MS VM nor is it included anymore in XPSP1. They removed it right away, and just waited for this appeal decision in order to find out if they needed to include Java's VM instead. Now they don't even need to do that, so when users try to run Java apps, they just don't work, so Java generally just looks like a bad technology. Or maybe that's just a coincidental side-effect!
On the basis of all these points, it would be a perfectly normal, natural, sane reaction to say "hey, you can't do that!". The Libertarian view of zero (or near-zero) Government only works if one person doesn't have absolute 100% control over the desktop, the OS, the hardware (they tell Intel what to build!), the API, 95-98% of the consumers, and enough money to buy out dissenters if they somehow survive all of this.
When someone has absolute control of 5 markets and has declared intent to obtain monopoly over 5 more (portable code, wireless, TV, servers and ISPs), fair competition doesn't exist. Competition in any sense does not exist.
Should Microsoft actually acquire monopoly status in all ten industries, then Microsoft will be the only voice you will ever hear. Dissent could only be expressed via a Microsoft product and, as such, be eliminated.
Think about this, for a moment. Microsoft has violated anti-trust laws, been found guilty, continued to violate those same laws, and the States that haven't settled yet are (despite having enough evidence to fight on) unable to do so. Why? Because you can't fight City Hall - when it's a partly-owned subsiduary of a corporate giant.
We need to remember that this is NOT a typical case. The precedent is unlikely to reoccur even once in the next 300 years. There has never been a power in the US this absolute. This isn't about Us VS Them, or Govt VS People. This is about whether the Right To Choose ANYTHING AT ALL will still exist when 2010 comes round.
The use of a monopoly in one area to create a monopoly in another is illegal. The use of FIVE monopolies to slowly engulf the entire field of technology should be no more acceptable. It's not as if it's any better!
People have tried protests. They've tried civil disobedience, even. However, Microsoft aren't a threat to human life, so you can't really call out the National Guard. Libertarians would have us believe that guns can protect our rights. But no gun in the world will protect you against a corporate entity that spans the globe, the minds of people, and even the fabric of our lives.
There's nothing we can do to stop the rot. The only people who can are the judiciary, because that is what the judiciary is there for. To stop evil that cannot otherwise be touched. To act as a last-ditch defence against things that can escape or evade every other protection we, as individuals, can place in front of us.
We HAVE to rely on the legal system, because the legal system is the only thing we have left to rely on.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"Full intention"? If MS didn't want to trick people into writing nonstandard code, why did they sneak them into java.lang instead of proudly labeling them com.microsoft?
Anyone here surprised? It is difficult to hold Microsoft and hundreds of other M.N.C.'s accountable for their actions as they are having to conform to the rules of individual countries less and less.
.NET promo died off. Competitors such as OSX, Lindows, and Red Hat will gain ground from such nastiness.
:)
Corporations have become world-wide economies in and of themselves; of the 150 largest economies in the world, 97 are multinational corporations! Their influence upon important governments world-wide is steadily growing as they amass tremendous amounts of wealth and influence. Governments fear cracking down on them for fear of economic and political repercussions. In the last 30 years, new supranational authorities have emerged worldwide; big global players that carry tremendous capacity for power. Microsoft, though off to a poor and late start in this arena, is one of them.
A software producer can write whatever it wants into its operating system and it is perfectly legal. Though it sounds dreadful, Microsoft advertising its own services in Windows is a huge mistake on the part of the corporation - it will turn large number of people off. That's part of the reason all the
It is easy to criticize Microsoft. Keep in mind that Windows is a standard, something desperately needed in a world with hundreds of different programming languages, operating systems, and a plethora of different types of hardware and (OMG!) media storage out there. Take Sony for instance. Sony uses Stick Media not because it is better, but because it is non-standard and they can charge mucho dinero for it. They could have easily conformed to a standard media with a dozen other companies if it economically beneficial. Granted, everyone is conforming to Microsoftâ(TM)s standards, but itâ(TM)s better than another long-standing war of software standards such as that between IBM-Compatibles and Apple Computers. Even Linux doesnâ(TM)t even conform to a set of unified standards (though United Linux will theoretically change that).
Microsoft needs reform. It will be difficult to force it to do so, as it has a tremendous amount of influence. Ideally, a global standard operating system needs to be developed. We need a U.N. resolution.
[c0d3fu]: jwjb62@umr.edu || james@macrohub.com
You obviously never followed the topic.
The "Insightful" moderation is simply sad.
This is more like you burning down my house, on purpose, and a judge says I'm allowed to live in your house until restitution is made by you, while my house is being rebuilt. Then, these other judges come along and say, "woe", that doesn't make any sense. Even though you burned down my house on purpose, you shouldn't be held responsible unless the on-going legal action says otherwise. In the mean time, I have to go live under a bridge while you and the judges all laugh at me.
This has nothing to do with marketing or product promotion. This has to do with holding Microsoft responsible for it's very illegal and harmful activities.
I think you need the separate VM or at least separate out memory spaces to avoid potential object conflicts.
Say you have an applet that uses a Singleton type object in the core VM. So, you're counting on this one instance and probably are setting values on it. (Oh, let's say the System.properties object as an example.) Now along comes another applet that wants to load in it's own set of properties to work with. Obviously you both expect things to remain the way they are and changes could be quite "interesting".
So, there are definitely some implications behind running multiple applets/applications in the same VM beyond mere RAM.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
I don't buy the "lowest common denominator" nonsense that some people are shoveling. That may have been true for browsers wrt html support and display resolutions, I don't believe it translates to Java. Consider this -
All the customer cares about is ease of use during the installation process. With InstallAnywhere virtually free (and I can't recall the name of the project that *is* actually free) - distributing your product is easy and transparent to the user.
Just to play games, let's assume that somebody out there *didn't* want to use an installer and shipped out JAR files. Even if this maniacal situation existed, the fact that Dell and HP are dropping the 1.4 JRE onto PCs prior to shipping them to customers makes the VM Microsoft bundled completely and utterly irrelevant!
IF installers were not freely available, and IF Dell and HP were not dropping 1.4 onto the desktop then *maybe* you'd have a handful of customers negatively impacted by the decision of the appelate court. But that's not the case.
In fact, I think it's better that MS doesn't have to ship the old version of Java (wasn't it 1.1.3 that they had tos hip?) - it completely eliminates any notion of "lease common denominator" nonsense.
Do it for da shorties
For users; Java applications are not so common that the average user will miss having a JVM preinstalled in the system. Flash, JavaScript, ShockWave and similar technologies have been pushing applets away from the web scene for some time now. For someone who wants/needs to run Java apps, downloading and installing the VM is a very straighforward process. If someone wants to make and distribute a mainstream java application, then they'll have to deal with the fact that the app will require a JVM and solve the issue (bundle it with the program or something)
For the Server market: At the moment java is mainly targeted at the server market. If someone is going to develop J2EE applications, the fact that Windows doesn't ship with a JVM is not going to stop them (Plus, Windows servers running J2EE applications is a very rare setup)
For Developers: If you are into Java development, the least of your worries would be getting a copy of the JVM, plus its always easier and more convenient to use you own Java installation than using the one that used to come with Windows (IMO).
Agree, Its Sun's job to promote Java. MS shouldn't be forced to ship it. Even with the legal history that imposed it on Microsoft; the Java in the browser issue is not that important now, and it wont be untill sun comes up with something to make java more useful in desktop/browser arena. I hope they do
I don't think you really understand antitrust laws. If T Roosevelt and friends saw a huge oil company with a virtual lock on the market giving away free oil just to drive competing oil companies out of business of course they would not have done differently. Product dumping like that is a classic tactic of large operations trying to drive smaller outfits out of business. It is one of the things that has made Wal~Mart so successful. A Wal~Mart will move into an area where there is not already a Wal~Mart (is there any such place?) and charge very low prices so that everyone goes there to shop. They make no profit while doing this, but they have the resources of the large organization behind them whereas the local operators only have their local profits. After draining away all business in the area until the Wal~Mart is the last man standing or at least until people are used to shopping at the Wal~Mart, they slowly raise the prices back up to more profitable levels.
Wal~Mart was just an example. Home Depot does this too. Pretty much all large chain stores do it. The smaller stores have no chance against that sort of tactic. And, once the large chain stores have crushed most small competition, the largest will use those same tactics on other large chain stores by lowering prices in all places where the larger chain and the smaller one have locations.
How else will people actually see that Java works, and it works well if they are NOT stuck with Microsofts pathetic implementation. Certainly Java has flaws (which are usually bypassed) but some "write once, run on any platform" is better than none.
Java is Sun's contribution to computing, and it is on par with Xerox's GUI and Mouse, Apples multimedia in a desktop and Microsoft's Office.
Millions of developers want to take the next step with Java, but Microsoft is intentionally hold them back from over 90% of users and trying to push it's C# language to further isolate all competitors (Linux, BSD, Solaris, AIX, ONX, MacOS, etc.) from the market.
The sooner this situation is rectified the better!
That doesn't solve the problem. You'd always get somebody who said they'd been left out. Opera would complain that only IE and Mozilla were in there for example.
You'd also get the Linux effect. Install most distributions these days and the menus are littered with duplicate programs. Two FTP programs, two browsers, three MP3 players. It's a nightmare for the consumer. They just want one, not a whole bunch. Most consumers (and I'm saying "most" here, not necessarily the people reading this) want the OS provider to make that choice for them. They don't know the differences between browsers, they just want something to show webpages. Tabs, type ahead find etc etc don't make much difference to them.
The basic fact is that for the majority of users, IE and Windows Media Player work just fine. I never have any issues with either, and I've happily used IE since version 4, when I switched over from Netscape. Why? It was a better browser. Not because it was included with the OS. YMMV, but for me, Netscape sucked from the moment I started using IE4.
If these products were really terrible, I, and everybody else out there would be actively looking for a replacement. But right now, nothing is offering me a better alternative. Quicktime doesn't support as many formats and has a bad UI, Real likes sticking programs in my registry that launch on startup (a big evil NO to that) and Windows Media Player lets me give it a standard looking UI (I hate skins) and does the job I want it to do. Same with IE. It browses web pages. It does it quickly. It doesn't crash. Mozilla isn't giving me any reason to switch, so I don't. Tabs are unnecessary on Windows (it's just like another taskbar after all) and there's no single other feature that is a compelling reason to give up IE. Unlike on the Mac, where I was happy to start using Camino instead of IE (before Safari came out...).
Experience has shown that the profit motive does not always coincide with what's best for society. Where it does, little or no regulation is required. Where it does not, more regulation is required. This is just such a case.
At install time, people should be given options and a thorough explanation.
Example: Opera will allow you browse the internet in the same way Internet Explorer....blah blah blah...and will not hinder nor interfer with Internet Explorer in any way.
Installing every competitors applications would cause some serious bloat on an already bloated OS.
Users should still be able to go back to the original install disks to ADD apps such as Apple's Quicktime.
Well, the problem was going to be Microsoft shipping their technology for free, and no competition (IE, they were going to do the same thing they were doing to netscape). They are going to ship .Net runtimes, and then all the programers have one extra reason to program for .Net that they don't Java, which tilts the scales of fair competition toward MS. That's what this case was about.
.Net). Now that things have changed (.Net) it would follow that MS clients would no longer need the JRE MS ships.
.Net with the OS (like they were going to do with IE), or B) force them to include competing products (maybe they should have to include perl and python as well?). Either way, it stems from MS's verticle integration in the marketplace giving them an unfair market advantage. If they can hook you on one product, you have to run every peice of the MS puzzle. Java threatens this domination by allowing third party developers to write programs that will run on hardware and operating systems that the developer couldn't have even imagined. This makes software completely unreliant on market fads, and the software improves with the OS, JRE, and hardware. Java doesn't care if you are using MySQL or MSSQL, it's all the same.
The other cases in the past were about MS shipping broken versions of the JRE that actually caused Java more harm than good. SUN had an agreement with MS a long time ago to let them continue shipping theing JRE because MS clients were reliant on their JRE at the time (but that didn't change because MS didn't give them any incentive to change until
When you combine these two arguements, the logical arguement is to A) prevent MS from shipping
This scares MS a lot, which is why they wanted to mutilate it from the start. If they have control of the VM, they can always make it preform better on their OS and hardware. SUN hasn't taken advantage of Java like this (thus Java on Solaris is horrible compared to windows).
Basically, this ruling is saying that it is OK for MS to ship products with their operating systems without including 3rd party competing products. It's a complete reversal of the Netscape issue that lead to a government investigation and almost a break up of the MS company. What was wrong before the monopoly investigation (or before Bush took office, your choice) is now just fair trade.
Karma Clown
In a company town, you can quit and move away.