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.
i think Red Hat includes IBM's implementation, and Apple uses their own impl.
While I agree that MS has erred in the past, they shouldn't be forced to carry another company's product within their product.
However, they should not be allowed to continue carrying their own, proprietary version of java. Does the ruling say anything about that?
It isn't Microsoft's job to promote Java, it's the job of Sun and the resellers (Dell, Gateway, HPaq, etc.) If MS wants to include Java, that's their perogative. However, they shouldn't be required to; any more than Red Hat should be required to distribute Realplayer (for example).
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
Three members of the federal appeals court have just purchased Ferraris.
Best Windows Freeware
Dell and HP are where I'd expect Sun to have to push Java - do an end-run around MS and deal with the OEMs. Now, if MS were preventing the OEMs from bundling Java, that would be different - but they're specifically barred from doing that anymore, and IMO rightly so.
Isn't middleware more of a server issue nowadays anyway? And how hard is it to include a runtime with your software?
Part of me feels that it is a good thing that it wasn't upheld.... How can you force someone to add code, I think though you may not realize it it's better this precedent didn't get made.
There is evidence to prove both Democrats and Republicans are lying cocksuckers. Vote independently.
Well, as long as PC retailers can add the software their customers ask for without barriers from Microsoft. Microsoft can keep it out of their OS.
Thing is, Microsoft should be forced not to put any barriers for Java to run properly in their OS.
that is pathetic. I lose more faith in our legal system everyday.
By including an outdated and broken version of Java with Windows by default, Microsoft has effectively doomed Java on the desktop. This build has lead to a degree of fragmentation of the Java standard, has caused Java application developers to code their applications to support the lowest common denominator, the JRE bundled with Windows.
It's very exciting to see OEMs bundling a recent Java runtime with their new systems, especially Dell who is the largest OEM. Perhaps with this application developers can have a bit more freedom to code their applications in a manner which utilizes more recent features. There's no reason why everyone shouldn't be using the 1.4 JRE at this point in time.
"Apple, Red Hat and Lindows have also agreed to include Sun's Java."
That's like a couple of blue-collar labourers and a street bum giving their opinions on the G8 summit, right?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
...java has a much better market share than .net/ActiveX, and developers will continue using it. All the harm here is on Windows users, who will have to download a JRE.
--
Getting too much pr0n?
At least now they are required to implement at least one non-Microsoft standard, which could come in handy considering they will no longer release Internet Explorer as a standalone product.
.NET and other proprietary MS languages (forcing OS upgrades to obtain the new required features), as well as keep alternate browsers a viable solution.
It would seriously protect against businesses having to rely on
I may hate Microsoft, but I do side with them in this case. Forcing M$ to include Java is stupid, they can do whatever they want with their product. That would be like forcing Linux users to install Internet Explorer or something silly like that!
This is about whether or not the Java Runtime should be bundled with Windows, right? If I'm off-base here, please enlighten me.
I'm as against anti-trust as the next guy, but I can see why forcing MS to bundle Java (or, for contrast, a similar plugin e.g. Flash or Shockwave) is going too far.
Mainly, it would place an additional support burden on MS that's not really appropriate -- they'd have to keep up with versioning, deal with customers who are confused as to who services it, etc.
Anyone who's smart enough to distinguish it as belonging to Sun rather than MS should be smart enough to go find it on their own (these days; granted at the original time of the suit perhaps it wasn't nearly so straightforward), and it *is* free, after all.
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
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.
They shouldn't be legally required to include it, but we should, as developers, code in such a way to JRE is the only way to go. If M$ wants to use their own Java Virtual Machine, fine, but we need to make sure that they have little choice but to make it compatible with the rest of the world.
I'm personally not going to go out of my way to recode everything so I have to make two seperate binaries, one for windows, and one for everyone else. The whole point of Java is that I shouldn't have to do that.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
The libertarian in you should also realize that unrestrained capitalism is functionally equivalent to communism. Instead of a top-down dictatorial system driven by government incompetence, we would live in a world of top-down dictatorship driven by corporate incompetence. Libertarians love to overlook the Enron's and the SCO lawsuits of the world, but the fact is in a world without well intended regulation of those who claim to be well intended, we might as well live in anarchy.
796F75617265616E65726400
I say fix the whole lot at MS by not installing their software. Use Linux, use OS X. Anything but the effluence flowing from the filthy beast. Maybe if more people stopped complaining about MS and started doing something about it, with their pocket-books and wallets, the whole point here would be moot.
It's similar to the whole controversy over the 7 dirty words that you can't say on the radio or television. There was never a need to ban those words. There are two options; turn the channel, or turn it off. There is choice.
If Darwin was right, you'd be dead by now.
Since the HP and Dell announcements, this is pretty much a moot point anyway.
The real problem of all this is that Microsoft has walked away from the whole "let's release an incompatible version of Java", with only a "don't do that" slap on the wrist. The monopoly remains intact, and unpunished.
This should be a chilling reminder to anyone that does ANYTHING with Microsoft. If they're gonna screw you, don't expect them to be punished for it, no matter what happens.
Well Sun has finally figured that it's futile to force M$ to include Java with its OS and has done a great job convincing the major PC makers to include Java instead. With the new logo and new website www.java.com designed for the average joe, Sun has finally decided to do something about its branding, and making Java a household name. The Christina Aguilera (sp?) promo was a smart move in collaboration with Motorola, but I feel the handset design was a disappointment. Sun may have lost the desktop war forever, but its enterprise presence (J2EE) is strong despite .NET's aggression and its mobile presence (J2ME) is way-ahead of WinCE/Windows Mobile. Nokia's debut of the first MIDP2 phone (6600) is a great win at this year's JavaOne. With its share prices dropping ~92% in 3 years, it's now going to be make or break for Sun.
www.rexguo.com - Technologist + Designer
Find 10 suits who know the diff between MS and SUN Java and I'll give you 100$ [subject to my approval]
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
At first I was* pleased to hear about this, for it would mean not having to download Java just to run all those neat Java applets all over the web. Then I thought of ways this sort of thinking ("include this because lot's of people use it") could be applied in ways I would not like...
* I almost just wrote "At first I was afraid, I was petrified..." No shit. That's scary.
[SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
If you had read the headline, the appeals court sided with M$. There is no reason for this to go any futher now.
I can't believe that it would even have to go to the appeals court. To force any company (even M$) to include someone else's propriatary code is foolish.
Why not just get General Motors to start putting Porsche engines in their cars. SSDD
In C++, friends can touch each others private parts.
Come on Sun. Wake up, you're looking like SCO. Hey, so is your stock!
scott
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
No. The counts were halted for specific counties that had not completed the counts yet. Suprisingly the counties in question had an unofficial lead for Gore.
On the one hand, if Microsoft doesn't want to sell their product with Sun's Java, I don't think they should have to.
On the other hand, if they're gonna include something and call it Java, it should damned well BE Java.
-JDF
Nice rant, but what the hell does it have to do with the story at hand?
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
As a programmer, I really like Java's "write once, run everywhere" motto (while it may not always work out that way in practice). From what I understand, did not have a fully compatible VM, so Sun develops one for download. While I don't think MS should be forced to ship Java, they should be disallowed from trying to hijack Java (hence they went out and made C#).
Damn, he pointed out the flaw in your argument. Time to pull out the name-calling strategy!
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.
Your question: Why should IBM be forced by Microsoft to ship Windows, a competing product, with their systems?
Two COMPLETELY different issues. The first is done through law, where Microsoft doesn't have a choice in the matter, and the second is done through contract, where both parties agreed to the terms.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Why should a company be forced to include a competitors product with their own?
Good question, here's one back.
Why should a company that sells an operating system package whatever programs they want onto it?
Furthermore.
Why should a company that sells an operating system package their programs onto it?
With their ISP on it.
Go to Best Buy/Frys/Compusa and find me a single computer with JUST windows on it.
It should be sold stand alone, and not bundled.
I still find software on my pc I didn't know that I had (read: paid for)
http://use.perl.org
What does that have to do with Java? Your argument has nothing tio do with the courts forcing MS to cary Sun's Java VM.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Because they signed a contract saying they would do so?
Even though it's hard to swallow having the government dictate the operating conditions of a company (and include / disavow specific portions and products ) it's important to remember that this is/was a *penalty* for serious antitrust/anticometitive behavior.
It was a light "slap on the wrist that doesnt really cost much of anything" penalty too.
Guilt without punishment, well, isn't going to hinder them from this sort of behavior in the future is it.
I guess there is always justice for those that can afford it.
Kremvax
--- Little Atomo - The Amazing Thinking Robot from Atomocom! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIP9KisHi4k
I think we can all say that Java is rampant on the Internet. For instance, most online gambling sites use Java user interfaces. The average Joe six pack thinks he got the shaft from his computer company when IE displays a broken icon when he tries to view Java content. Companies such as Dell are bundling Java so their customers won't think they have broken computers.
Yeah...
BTW, how are Diana and her buddies doing now-a-days?
SIDE NOTE: You must be at least 40 years of age to appreciate this joke.
SIDE NOTE 2: You must also have a crummy sense of humor like I do to appreciate this joke. :-p
2) Contract law is enforced by the government.
"I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
"Unless Sun is given a fair opportunity to compete in a market untainted by the effects of Microsoft's past antitrust violations, there is a serious risk that in the near future the market will tip in favor of [Microsoft]"
Motz reasoned that Microsoft had illegally used its monopoly position to do irreparable harm a competitor's product, and that Sun was exceedingly likely to win their suit. This temporary order was necessary to level the playing ground until that suit was carried out.
Basically, as in all Microsoft's legal troubles, their strategy is to draw out the cases indefinitely until they can leverage their desktop monopoly to the point of making the suit a moot point. Then, they can just settle out of court for chump change. Anyone heard of Netscape?
--Mid
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" -
I've seen a lot of comments that say the reason MS in trouble for this is for releasing an incompatible version of Java. Is there something wrong with doing that (legally, I mean. Obviously it makes writing Java more painful)?
Honk if you're horny.
"Java on the desktop" doesn't mean applets.
It means using Java to write full applications.
Though I would argue that the reason Java isn't on the desktop is due to a history of poor performance. Those points may be less relevant now with 2ghz processors, but there is a lingering belief that Java is slow. (works great as a server development language, though)
"Maybe we should ask Microsoft why they felt that IBM, who was working with Linux, should be required to ship Windows, a competing product, with their systems?"
MS didn't use the govt. to do this. They merely negotiated a contract. Sun on the other hand, thinks it right to get the govt. to point a gun at a competitor to get what they want. There's a big difference.
Vote for Pedro
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...
Why not? It would actually cost GM money for one thing.
IP -> real property comparisons are nearly always highly dishonest.
The cost to Microsoft to bundle something else into their Operating System is ZERO. This is one of the problems with Microsoft having a monpoly on OEM OS distribution. They can shove their crap on everyone's desk for free.
There's no compelling reason that other's can't come along for the ride. For every product that Microsoft bundles into the OS, every competitor should get their place as well.
Microsoft has been declared an abusive monopoly and this has held up on appeal. So normal rules no longer apply. Thus any "harmful precedent" is also narrowed in scope.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I'm going to take the contrarian view here. :).
It looks like alot of people here are of the view that the courts shouldn't force one company to bundle the product of another. Fair enough.
However, at this juncture, the courts might as well tell Microsoft that they can be anti-competitive all they want, as there will never be any real punishments for their actions. Microsoft has benifitted from the fragmentation of Java, through their distribution of an outdated, poorly functional version. And prior to that, they benifitted from their attempts to prevent Java from being a write-once, run-anywhere language.
At some point, justice has to incorporate the ideal of punishing organizations for their past bahaviour, in order to reduce the benifits of undertaking that behaviour, and in order to curb others from undertaking the same behaviour in the future.
If I were to go on a spree killing my enemies in society (not that I have any enemies... ;) ), the courts wouldn't haul me up and say "You are hereby enjoined from ever killing anybody ever again", and then setup a panel (that I get to select some of the members of) to make sure I don't. Instead, they'd take away my freedom to do whatever I want, and throw my sorry ass in jail.
You can't throw a whole company in jail, and in the MS case, nobody has directly died (I realize the extremity of my example :) ) due to MS's actions. But still, there has been zero accountability on their part up to this point. There has been nothing yet to aid the real victims of MS's anticompetitive acts, nor nothing that would really cause MS to want to avoid such acts in the future. Where is the justice in that for the companies who have had their intellictual property values eroded due to Microsoft's acts?
This was a chance for society to tell Microsoft (and other big computer software companies) that if they don't play fairly, there are consequences. Judge Mott gave a creative ruling that incorporated both punishment for past bad acts, while at the same time helping level and repair the playing field for Sun.
MS's come-uppance is long overdue. They've destroyed the value of new technologies from their competitors, and thus far, while techinically losing in the eyes of the courts, have gained from the experience. And you're not supposed to be able to gain when you violate the law -- but apparently MS has found that, in their industry, crime does pay.
Yaz.
Why was MS told to include Java?
Well, it was because the judge decided that MS had tried to use MS's monopoly to destroy Java.
So, the judge decided that the damage done by MS could be fixed by having MS ship Java.
MS was found guilty and the court ordered MS to take an action that would result in MS repairing the damage MS intentionally inflicted upon Sun.
duh!
It's a punitive measure. You might as well ask why you'd be forced to live in a small locked room with barred windows if you went out on the street clocking passersby with a crowbar. Of course jailing you won't do anything for their head injuries, but it will presumably make you think twice about engaging in similar behavior in the future.
Maybe my memory is slipping, but wasn't the original problem that the MS version of Java had extra features that only worked on their version? It was compatible with regular Java, and would run all regular Java apps, but it had "extra features" that programmers could use that would make the Java app only work on their JRE. If this is truly the case, why would they have to include Java at all? They were originally told they couldn't ship their Java because it was "broken" (which having extra features is far from broken, not fair maybe, but not broken). So they decided not to ship a JRE at all and Sun sued because they weren't distributing Java at all. It seems when they were distributing a version of Java (although an "extended" one) Sun said don't do that. then when they decided not to ship Java if they couldn;t ship their version, Sun said they have to ship Java. They can't have it both ways. If MS's Java was compliant with the standards, but had extras, it was completely acceptable.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
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?
Please note that the appellate court upheld the part of the injunction preventing Microsoft from shipping a non-compliant JRE.
The fact is, Sun could still obtain a final order that MS must bundle the Sun JRE with the Windows operating system. But this will only happen after a trial. The injunction here was issued at a preliminary stage of the judicial proceedings. But if you think forcing MS to ship the JRE at any point would be completely inappropriate and only market conditions should rule, you have a gross misunderstanding of antitrust laws and their purposes.
Microsoft has a monopoly in operating systems for the Intel platform. This is legal fact and Microsoft cannot walk into any court room and claim otherwise. It's been decided already. A monopoly means that market conditions cannot work. Even Adam Smith (you know, that guy who kind of invented capitalism) said that the market cannot work when there is a monopoly. Ensuring the market can still work in a monopoly is the purpose of antitrust laws.
Now that it is legally established MS has a monopoly, it completely changes how MS can do business in the market. In the case of the JRE, it means Microsoft cannot leverage their monopoly in the OS to obtain a monopoly in another area. You know, like they did with the browser!
What I expect would be a more likely outcome is that MS has to make a decision. If they want to bundle .NET, then they have to bundle a compliant JRE. Then the market truly would be deciding and it would not be a case of MS simply leveraging the OS monopoly into a new market.
All that said, the legal nuances are the important point to note from this decision. The appellate court was not saying MS would never have to include the Sun JRE. They were only saying that the legal burden of "irreparable harm" had not been met in order to obtain an injunction. That's why they vacated the order.
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
The world you live it passed about 6 years ago. MS chose not to behave in this fair manner you suggest. This was their punishment. Recall, one of the FEW pusnshments. And now its taken away.
The capitalist idea should do that, but it doesn't. What if there is no choice. What if there was only 1 car company, and they owned all the roads? What would you do, becaus even if you built your own car, you still couldn't use the roads. That's how Microsoft's lock-in with Windows and Office works. All documents in office format, that all other businesses use, and Office only runs on windows. The capitalist system works fine when there is competition, and at least somewhat fair competition. When 1 company controls the market, that's not capitalism, it might as well be the government like in communism.
Thankfully that is changing slowly, but 3 years ago it was almost that bad.
Not when dealing with a monopoly.
or boycotting an industry altogether.
Oh please. That's not a viable choice. We're not talking about Beanie Babies, we're talking about essentials. Could you realistically boycott the food industry or the real estate industry?
Actually, had the government not interceeded in MS and Enron case, then things would be different. MS has the passive support of the current admin and DOJ. Likewise, ppl like Ken Lay would be behind bars except for the intervention of the current admin. To stop this does not require more regulation but simply non-corrupt government.
You are missing the point. They broke their agreement with sun when they made java enhancements that would only work on windows. They screwed up and didn't have to pay for it. And yes, I think .NET = .CRAP
A corporation is NOT incompetent like a govt in running a business, since there is negative feedback that will put a company out of business if it does poorly.
The point is that this is not true of monopolies, hence the anti-trust laws. Our maybe you think T. Roosevelt (Republican, by the way) and friends were hallucinating?
-- Brian
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How do you suppose contracts are enforced if not through getting the government to "point a gun?"
If it's sufficient to run on a server, where you have dozens of people using it at the same time, it's sufficient to run on a desktop. It's just that the initial implementations were slow because the necessary technology hadn't been developed yet.
Java is also slow to start up the virtual machine, which makes it inefficient for programs you stop and restart frequently.
why all the lawsuits over something that is freely distibuted over the internet and on burned cd's anywhere.... what a waste of money... why force microsoft to include 3rd party apps in its own software package. i mean we dont force any distro of linux to include winamp do we? it would be the same fucking thing..
most of these MS lawsuits are stupid
For the most part, the government should stay out of things. However, the true function of government, if you think about it, is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves alone.
Free market is a great idea and works until you have a monopoly or near monopoly. At that point the system breaks down due to the overwhelming force of that monopoly. That's where government must intervene in order to maintain a healthy balance.
Of course the assumption being that government is working for the good of the people. Lobbying, however, causes a corrupt government to turn a deaf ear to the voice of its people.
Microsoft being a monopoly and having shown that it is willing to abuse its monopoly position to both maintain that position and to extend its influence into other non-related areas of business, clearly demonstrates that the government needs to take corrective action. I personally don't think that forcing Microsoft to include a non-broken version of JAVA as a corrective action is in error.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Microsoft wasn't being forced to carry Sun Java because Sun Java couldn't compete.
Microsoft was being forced to carry it as a remedy of past anti-trust practices of embrace, extend, then obscure.
I'm fine with anarchy. People throw that word around in a negatave way. But it's the only way we could ever actualy be free to live as we please.
Don't confuse anarchy with chaos. Anarchy simply means you're no longer anyones slave.
"Those Ivry tower egg-heads have screwd us once again" --Homer J Simpon
-makoffee
Except for the fact that a communist society operates on the principle of force, while a [true] capitalist society operates on the principle of voluntary association only. Of course, our pro-government friends would never admit to this.
I would say "good", point any gun at Microsoft, but then I though of the same gun being pointed at a company I would support.
So now I would say, "good" point the anti-monopoly gun at any monopoly, especially MS, but also the RIAA, because that's what anti-trust laws were all about.
Actually this was a prelim injuction that was overturned. The $Billion lawsuit is still ongoing. A little early to be calling it a slap on the wrist. God willing it could still be $1,000,000,000.00
I mod you +6...
I think letting companies like M$ run free while allowing them to be anti competitive is only going to hurt US. The increasing competition from other countries, where M$ can be curbed with thier own laws will just run circles around them in the long term. Yes, in the short term M$ wins and US as a country looses. The long run, both M$ and US looses.
Let's see..they bastardize Java by implementing their own version illegally. What do they get? Nothing. At least they're getting the same punishment they got for their antitrust practices. >
How is this harming Windows users? So they'll have to download Java if they want to use it. So what? How is that different from having to download Quicktime, RealPlayer, or Adobe Reader? Why should Microsoft have to include competing products with theirs? That's like telling telling Coca-Cola "your company is too big. Ship one Pepsi with every six pack from now on to be fair to consumers".
Let the buyer beware, and download whatever he wants. And if you don't like the way Microsoft does things, buy a Mac, or go to any small PC store, and have them build you a white box to load your own OS on. They'll probably be happy to load something easy like Red Hat for you.
And for all of their ills, Microsoft has a point about Java. WHY should the industry just lay down and accept that Java is the future, if competitors say "we have something better, we're not using that"? Busting Microsoft for breaking the Java license is one thing. Making them ship a competitors product is another, especially when that competitor has been boasting for years that said product can be Microsoft's undoing.
The only way you can justify this is to say that since the anti-trust people blew it, this court will pick up the slack and regulate Microsoft in one area. That might even be a just action, but it would be bad law. Don't we have enough of that allready? We SHOULD have taken more anti-trust action against MS. We should have perhaps restricted their markets. We should have perhaps made them open their API's more fully to the public. We should never make them, or any company, distribute a competitor's product as a remedy.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
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)
In a way, shipping the "broken" java was doing Sun more harm than not shiping java at all, since it gave MS so many more opportunities to make java look bad.
Freedom must always be taken.
There is no freedom that can be given that isn't some form of collar-and-lead.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The MS version not only added things (WFC, JDirect), but removed some things (JNI), and weren't truly compatible on others (RMI, if I recall correctly). It was this removal (among others) that violated the contracts and trademark agreements. Basically, MS was calling something Java without it meeting the agreements to have that name.
MS did not uphold their end of the contract, along with violating a trademark agreement. This is why there's such a big legal and technical mess.
Because the original judge correctly recognized that a) Sun would probably win on the merits and b) waiting for the end of the trial would probably make the issues moot (see IE vs. Netscape), he ordered that Microsoft had to include Sun's version of Java with their OS.
But this particular appeals court tends to be very pro-business (especially businesses that have contributed heavily to the Republican party) and ignored the issues. And since what's good for Microsoft is good for our troops, siding with Sun would mean the terrorists had won.
I has been proven that MS is a monopoly and used monopolistic tactics to control the market. They lost the trial to Sun on the Java issue, and were ruled a monopoly by a federal judge. So, where is the punishment? All I see are the same monopolistic tactics!
Free speech is getting expensive...
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
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Actually, for your analogy to be right it would have to be something more like: GM owns the roads and some cars. Porsche comes up with a better car. GM makes their roads incompatible with Porche's car while pushing their own inferior car. Government says as a punishment GM has to use Porshe parts.
To end the analogy, government now says "Whoopsy, we don't really know anything about roads or cars so do whatever you like."
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
Locate a Windows box, one with XP on it. Go to java.sun.com and get the Windows JRE and install it. Notice how the install process is point and click. then get a Java program, notice how it will run just fine, using the JRE.
There is no difficulty at all in installing Java from Sun in Windows. Same process for Win 2000, etc.
Rather than forcing MS to include Java in their OS, they should be prevented from including support for their apps and development environments in the basic OS. Thus Java and .net developers would both be required to ensure that the target Os supports their developed products.
Admittedly, this still leaves a loophole in that MS can supply .net with Office, it will provide a start in splitting the OS/App advantage that MS enjoys.
It's a punitive measure.
But even with Ascroft as AG the courts still presume innocence before a case is settled. Sun is not entitled to damages or any form of punishment until they prove their case. An injunction is strictly limited to preventing certain types of irreparable harm.
Sun's case for forcing Microsoft to carry Java is pretty ludicrous. They sued Microsoft to stop them carrying Java. Then they were surprised that Microsoft wanted nothing more to do with Java and in particular Sun's Java.
It is even more ludicrous when you look at where client side Java is these days. Client side java was getting nowhere when Microsoft was distributing it, in large part because the software Sun originally delivered was utter crap.
What Scott McNealy is up to is tring to find an excuse for the reason Sun is going down the toilet. The reason for that is not Microsoft, its Linux. Some companies are moving from expensive Sun boxes to WNT machines, but the flight from SPARC to Intel is making much deeper cuts in Sun's market share. Sun's problem is not Microsoft, its Dell, HP and IBM, each of which is taking deep bites out of Sun each quarter and saying yum yum yum, give me more.
Its a bit like blaming Bin Laden for the budget deficit. Bin Laden is a really bad guy, but 9/11 is not the cause of the Bush recession or the Bush deficit.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
The main problem is that the stuff that comes pre-installed with Windows and/or Windows Components (Media Player, Internet Exploder) is the stuff that everyone uses, whether it's better or not.
.WMV or .ASF, do you think any web sites would offer content in .WMV format? No, all web sites would offer stuff in Quicktime format by default because they'd know that they'd be able to reach the greatest number of users CONVENIENTLY. No company is going to want to tell users "We really want you to view our product, but you'll need to download this plugin to do so." All companies will say "We really want you to view our product, therefore we're going to use a format which you know you will already have pre-installed!"
If Microsoft suddenly started bundling Quicktime with Windows Media Player and suddenly forced users to manually download and install plug-ins to use file formats such as
Microsoft has pulled this BS time and time again. The law ought to be that if Microsoft ships with Windows Media Player pre-installed, that it must also pre-install all of its competitors too. If it ships with Internet Exploder pre-installed, it must ship with other browsers pre-installed too. Yeah this sounds kind of unreasonable, but there is a precedence. Remember how Windows 95 shipped with a bunch of shortcuts for other ISP's such as AOL?
Before you say it wasn't fair to force them to carry a competitors product, once they were declared a monopoly the rules changed for their operation.
Even something as simple as this must be looked at differently then in a 'free market'.
Remember the OS market has been legally deemed not a free market the day they were found to be a monopoly.... so the rules are different now..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Sun, if you want people to use Java, you need to start being competetive with it or let other people be competetive with it. GPL of your implementation and open standards would be a good start (although it would likely take a few years to revitalize Java). But that would let other users do exactly what Microsoft was trying to do -- fix problems with it, which is exactly what Sun prevents. Licensee programs and JCP are a farce, and do not help enough to most users. As such, users need to be able to easily create derivitive works and show the merits of changes, which Sun could choose to integrate in their distribution or not under GPL.
Actually, this ruling has nothing to do with any compiler or language, but rather a virtual machine which is (at least nominally) language-independent (and more-than-nominally language agnostic). The Java VM is a program that interprets .class bytecode files and produces an execution environment from them.
Nothing is forcing anybody to distribute a compiler or JDK with Windows, and MS is more than welcome to develop their own bytecode compiler that uses Java or any other language they want (not bloody likely to, though)
Man, wouldn't that be awesome? As it is, the only language that comes with a Windows/Office bundle is VBA (neat for what it does, I suppose, but a bad first language for a hobbyist).
All's true that is mistrusted
There ain't no such thing as a true capitalist society. Inevitably you get market-deforming agglomerations of power. In a company town, there's no voluntary association with the only source of goods and services. Oligopoly/monopoly is a very different animal and obliterates the "free market" basis for libertarian thought.
That's why I'm disgusted with Republicans - they aren't acting like conservatives. They are anti-market and pro-business, and business has plenty of power vs. consumers as is.
If it's sufficient to run on a server, where you have dozens of people using it at the same time, it's sufficient to run on a desktop.
If you're running the same thing, yes. But server apps tend to basically just be limited to text processing (HTML, XML), socket access, and DB access.
Desktop apps require GUI functionality, and the non-native feel, combined with early, slow AWT/Swing implementations gave users a bad first impression of Java applications on the desktop.
Also, as the parent to my original post points out, a lot of people got it in their heads that Java was a language for "stupid web animations" and it also tainted people's feelings about it.
I'm fine with anarchy. People throw that word around in a negatave way. But it's the only way we could ever actualy be free to live as we please.
Courtesy of http://www.m-w.com
Main Entry: anÂarÂchy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"nÃr-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
Date: 1539
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER
Main Entry: chaÂos
Pronunciation: 'kA-"Ãs
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek -- more at GUM
Date: 15th century
1 obsolete : CHASM, ABYSS
2 a often capitalized : a state of things in which chance is supreme; especially : the confused unorganized state of primordial matter before the creation of distinct forms -- compare COSMOS b : the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a natural system (as the atmosphere, boiling water, or the beating heart)
3 a : a state of utter confusion b : a confused mass or mixture
Yeah... until someone with a bigger gun comes along and kills you because they just want to because that's how he chooses to live as he pleases. Folks who talk about anarchy often only view it from their own perspective and fail to think about it from anyone else's perspective. Yes, you are free to live as you please in anarchy. But... so am I... and what pleases me may have a large impact on what pleases you - like my taking a gun and killing you simply because I feel like it... or I could come along and rape you or your wife/family if I could force myself on you... or I could simply walk into your house and take whatever you owned as mine and kill you or kick you out of your house... and there would be no consequences at all as long as my might kept me alive. And yes... I realize that someone else could do the same to me.
You assume that humans would behave in the utopian mode of anarchy. Look at some of the bad parts of NYC and LA. Where lawlessness exists, warlords and gangs form to enforce their own law. This is a fact of nature, not idealism.
You are right, still the same shit. Except its .NET not Java. They have been squeezing your balls so hard for so long, that you've learned to like it.
Free speech is getting expensive...
I mean, hell, we already call them Cowards!
And Sun Java is well worth what you pay for it, unless you are a licensee with things you need to have fixed.
If it were GPL and open standards, it would be worth much more, and distributers could choose the best alternative, and there might be better responsiveness for improvements and fixes.
Since the HP and Dell announcements, this is pretty much a moot point anyway.
It's always been a moot point. Sun has always had the capability to license Java through OEMs to include on their machines. Sun simply choose not to pursue this path.
The real problem of all this is that Microsoft has walked away from the whole "let's release an incompatible version of Java", with only a "don't do that" slap on the wrist.
I'm sorry, but that court case was resolved a couple of years ago in a settlement. At the time Sun declared victory, so did Microsoft.
But releasing a "incompatible" version of Java was never a crime, it was a contract infringement. Microsoft had their contract revoked and paid a penalty.
The monopoly remains intact, and unpunished.
Microsoft has a monopoly on Java? How do you figure?
This should be a chilling reminder to anyone that does ANYTHING with Microsoft. If they're gonna screw you, don't expect them to be punished for it, no matter what happens.
This should be a chilling reminder to anybody who forms a Strategic Litigation business unit thinking they can profit by going after Microsoft in court.
Boycotting the food industry: Grow your own vegetables and go hunting.
Boycotting the Real Estate Industry: Buy your home from someone who's selling it themselves. Sell your home yourself (and make an extra $2k or more)
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.
as I said..
The point of the ol' DoJ vs MS trial was to show that MS ran around pointing a lot of guns at a lot of people to get them to stop supporting Java.
The point now is that MS has been found guilty of gun waving and there should be some compensation/restitution. The Appeals Court decision (based on a prelim scan/read) is interesting in that they're saying Sun can't prove immediate harm but they can come back and ask for an injunction when/if they can. Motz's original order was based on the fact that there's no way except after the fact to go and point at the exact date when a market tip occurred. Seems to be a bit of a circular gotcha there.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
I'm not quite sure why anyone would want to sue Microsoft in a federal court under the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Microsoft WILL win the case, regardless of its merits. Microsoft has dominated that Circuit Court; the judges have such a bias in favor of Microsoft that you're practically shooting yourself in the foot by using said district. You sue, perhaps win, perhaps lose, the case goes to appeal, and you DO lose. And given the Supreme Court's unwillingness to review cases, that pretty much puts an end to your action.
A better strategy is to sue in a court under the juristiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth has repeatedly shown technical know-how and a willingness to embrace and extend technology, though certainly not in the Microsoft sense. The bottom line is, don't sue if it's obvious you're going to lose from the start.
> How about several:
l . Reading thru the documents there, it's difficult to say that they came up with anything definitive. I mean, here's an excerpt from the "Media Group README" text file:
Thanks, very interesting. In all honesty, I appreciate the info.
All 3 point to the same study - http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/results/index.htm
================
'ABFOUND' (1)
Collier--County officials said they discovered 25 uncounted absentee ballots in a still-sealed envelope after the rest of the absentees had been counted and recounted. 21 of these ballots contained votes ultimately included in certified totals, but officials cannot say if the remaining four were undervotes, overvotes or unqualified write-ins. So a precinct called "ABFOUND'' was created to account for the 25 ballots.
================
Hardly a compelling argument for overturned the previous 3 recounts.
It was a close one. But President Bush won.
The Army reading list
Regardless of the VM it's run on. Many java programs are never going to be run on any other platforms. Write-once is such a lie anyway, Java programs rarely work flawlessly on every platform. Any non-trivial application will have som issue with the platform it's run on. It might be file access, thread scheduling, nulls returned where there are no nulls, or missing classes. ( Apple's vm doesn't support javax.print classes, but most everything else ) All java code must be tested in every envoriment you expect it to run in, else you can't be sure that it will work at all.
Looks like the rule changed, read this: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/ 20030626/wr_nm/microsoft_appeal_dc_23
Jose Vicente Nunez Zuleta RHCE, SJCD, SJCP
"I'm personally not going to go out of my way to recode everything so I have to make two seperate binaries, one for windows, and one for everyone else. The whole point of Java is that I shouldn't have to do that."
.NET controls will run out of the box. Developers may well make the same choice as they have before when they choose to accommodate the crippled MS JVM: they will choose to develop components that will run out of the box on the vast majority of installed browsers, and choose .NET. This is nothing more than MS leveraging its monopoly of the desktop, and the judge was right earlier to require MS to carry the latest Sun JVM with IE, as per the agreement they made with Sun
Many other developers share your view that you shouldn't have to do that. Yet, many developers jump through all sorts of hoops to make their applets run on the crippled JVM that comes with Explorer, rather than use the latest Java features. Why? Because an incompatible applet will just result in a grey square on your web page, and few of your average users will realise that they need to have a more recent runtime environment. Besides, the JRE doesn't run applets as smoothly as the built-in MS JVM does.
This is just another battle in the War for the Desktop, people. This ruling means that soon IE6 will no longer run Java Applets without having to download the JRE, whereas
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Are these questions really meant to be a rebuttal?
"Why should a company that sells an operating system package whatever programs they want onto it?"
Because they want to.
"Why should a company that sells an operating system package their programs onto it?"
Because it makes good business sense.
"With their ISP on it."
Definitely makes good business sense.
"Go to Best Buy/Frys/Compusa and find me a single computer with JUST windows on it."
Why?
"It should be sold stand alone, and not bundled."
So start a company selling an OS, and have at it.
"I still find software on my pc I didn't know that I had (read: paid for)"
You decided to pay the asked for price for the pc, not knowing that software was there. I'd say you didn't pay for it.
Providing a bunch of software you'd like people to use along with the OS isn't wrong any more than other sensible business practices are wrong. You, the customer, can consider those programs when deciding whether to buy or not, depending on their value (if any) to you. Heck, I'd say it's not even wrong to be such a successful company that you dominate your market. Which is not to say that the government shouldn't step in and attempt to restore competition...
You completely miss the point of the lower court ruling. Microsoft licensed Java. They didn't adhere to the contract they signed with Sun. This was part of the remedy of that lawsuit. It was thrown out today.
The "monopoly" refers to Microsoft. Geesh.
The "chilling reminder" is that, is you do ANY business with Microsoft, prepared to be screwed, with no legal recourse.
Just gotta love those Microsoft apologists.... Geesh.
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
Well if you agree with this you also should agree that they shouldn't be allowed to bundle the
The only just decision would be both in or both out. This way it confirms the MS position and strengthens their play for
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
That's quite a telling statement. When the votes were being recounted, there was no President Bush, was there?
(Don't take this post too seriously, just saw the opportunity to take a snipe)
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.
> When the votes were being recounted,
:-)
> there was no President Bush, was there?
That recount sounded fairly chancy... lots of guessing going on. Blahh...
> just saw the opportunity to take a snipe
This political debate stuff is exhausting. I should stick to Java and the like
The Army reading list
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...).
>Fortunately, Dell and HP, the top 2 PC makers, have >already decided to ship Java on the PCs that they >sell. I wonder how long it will be until Microsoft says to Dell and HP: "If you're going to include Sun's Java, you'll have to pay full retail for every copy of Windows you sell."
Thats the beauty of Linux for me.. vendors can sell whatever they want, bundle whatever they want and I, as the consumer, can choose to keep or ditch all of it-- and roll my own version of their distro.
Nobody I know begrudges Microsoft bundling whatever they hell they want. They get aggravated because Microsoft ships it with a "and you will like it" attitude.
I originally fancied Linux because I recognized how much freedom it gave me. Years later, looking at how the market attitudes have so changed, I cherish Linux for being the only OS that absolutely confers to me the right to choose what I want and don't want to run on my computer.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
The main problem is that the stuff that comes pre-installed with Windows and/or Windows Components (Media Player, Internet Exploder) is the stuff that everyone uses, whether it's better or not.
It's not Microsoft's fault that people are too lazy or not techically inclined enough to install third party add-ons. If consumers don't agree with the fact that Microsoft includes their OWN SOFTWARE with their OWN SOFTWARE then DON'T USE IT. This is very simple, I don't know why people have such a problem with it. Isn't that supposed to be the beauty of free choice?
And don't give me the "Well if I use Linux or [insert alternative OS here] then I can't use Word or [insert critical application here]..." It's called business. They made an indispensable application that you like to use. People weren't forced to use. People chose to use it. Sure, now you almost have no choice, but back in the day WordPerfect was in the same position but MS unseated them. If it happened once, it can happen again.
What I don't understand is why people for some reason thing Microsoft should be forced to bundle COMPETITORS products with their own product just because they happened to do better than these competitors. Please note that Microsoft may have been ruthless in their business tactics but no one had to say "yes." The used their position to gain market dominance, but it wasn't given to them on a silver platter.. I don't understand why America punishes their successful businesses.
If it ships with Internet Exploder pre-installed, it must ship with other browsers pre-installed too.
That's just absolutely ridiculous. It makes no business sense. Please state why you think they "must" ship other browsers pre-installed too?
Remember how Windows 95 shipped with a bunch of shortcuts for other ISP's such as AOL?
Actually, they didn't ship AOL icons with Win95 because of anti-trust, they did it because of some clever manoeuvring by AOL. AOL had a massive market share in ISP business and essentially said to MS that if they didn't ship with their icons they'd stop using IE as their default browser.
BTW, kudos for referring to it as Internet Exploder... because it "explodes" the Internet right? So very clever.
IMO, Java is extremely slow and very much open to exploits
Microsoft's Java was by no means slow - it was the fastestof all the JVM's out there for a long time- but it had the same problems with security and vulnerablities that almost all Microsoft's other software has. Sun's JVM, on the other hand, has never had much in the way of vulnerablities but has traditionally been slower on Windows than, surprise, Microsoft's JVM.
These days, however, if you're runnig any PC that has been built in the last two years i.e. over 800MHz, then I defy you to call Java slow on the desktop.
But with an attitude like yours, you wouldn't know any different, now would you?
Anarchy's a nice enough idea, but it needs some sort of body to govern it so that it doesn't descend into chaos.
The power to gain power is a positive feedback thing, (get more of that kind of power and you'll get even more of that kind of power) and thusly without proper maintenance you'll end up with power accumulated among a few. And then you have something bad.
That's why you need a Democracy, (Or as close to that as is sanely possible.) not raw Anarchy.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
i don't wonder why you posted ac, since that's the safest bet when you are completely wrong.
yeah, yeah, get humor ha ha... riiiiight...
the fact of the matter is the homeless, (or bums if u prefer) are hardly boycotting anything.
you would have been more correct if you said a coop, but even they need land (commonly known as real estate)....
if you wanted to be absolutely correct, you could have said grizzly adams, or robinson caruso, (though technically the latter was marooned). you see the point i'm making here....
(just in case u couldn't) the homeless rarely make a choice to boycott the food or real estate industries. the norm is probably closer to the rug being pulled out from under them due to economics, mental disfunction, or just plain old self alienation.
now, the teamsters or any other large union on the other hand have some real boycotting power. and don't even get me started on "the grey panthers"...
Since microsoft are a monopoly, it is only common sense that competitors are allowed to put there own within Windows, to even out the playing fields.
Microsoft could very easily squash all competitors - bundling Office, Database, Development Tools with Windows == crush competition.
of course, they aren't going to go that far because of anti trust. Mind you, the american government bend over backwards to please them.
"This is an important victory for the Java community". See their rose-colored-glasses take on it here.
MS licensed Java, then released their own extensions in a compiler.
That was not part of the license. It broke the back of Java, and it's momentum.
Profit!...WHAT PROFIT? What are you going on about? Java?
Your pathetic attempt at an analogy shows you have no idea.
Ask anyone who has written an applet for a browser and would like to use newer Java implementations (i.e. anything about Java 1.1).
Works on Linux. Works on Macs. You need to install Sun's java to get it to work on Windows else it looks broken. Joe Average using Winows has no idea that this is the case and just assumes Java is crap.
You assume that humans would behave in the utopian mode of anarchy. Look at some of the bad parts of NYC and LA. Where lawlessness exists, warlords and gangs form to enforce their own law. This is a fact of nature, not idealism.
no it isn't, it's a fact of poverty u ac twit!
Compare forcing an OS on people which that are charged for to a FREE application which actually helps people use other peoples applications.
If Microsoft didn't license and f**k up Java in the first place, I might agree with you, but your not seeing the bigger picture.
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.
I'd rather see this than having Microsoft be the dominant distributor of Java for Windows users. This way they can't pull the bullshit tactic of trying to break Java in subtle ways to make it work on their platform and fail on others, like they did to anyone developing in J++. If MS doesn't distribute Java, then people will tend to get the uncorrupted, uncrippled, unsabotaged version right from the original source. After all, look how popular RealAudio is for newscasts, and it doesn't come by default on machines - people just install the plugin when it comes up.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
IBM has a choice. They could ship Windows with their systems, or something else (like OS/2, back in the days when they were really hyping it).
IBM was not *forced* to ship Windows, they chose to do it because there wasn't enough market demand for OS/2 (or Linux, or whatever) at that point. They *could* have shipped both operating systems, except that then Microsoft wouldn't let them get the same deal that other OEM's got, which would mean that IBM would have to increase the prices for their machines.
This is not force, people, this is a choice. Granted, IBM didn't have as many choices as they would have preferred, and Microsoft did in a sense lowball them, but they did have a choice - be able to compete with everybody else, or not. Companies are not entitled to a profit, and they're also not required to provide hand-outs.
-- Joe
When you put an page on the internet with a Java applet using an MS extension, what are the chance of using the applet in a Linux, Mac (non-IE) or Solaris browser?
Answer: NONE
This does in include the fact that you could only use Internet Explorer to see the applet. Netscape, Opera, etc. on Windows would show a broken applet aswell.
Users would think that only IE works, and the rest of the browsers are broken.
Sun gave the world Java, and it was good. Sun license Java to Microsoft, and they INTENTIONALLY broke it!
All MS has given me is headaches!
As I understand the situation, it has to do with the way MS did their contracts and stuff. No one make MS include Java in the first place -- they could have just ignored it and told people to d/l the JVM from Sun; they could've waited until they had C# ready before they put *any* vm on their system.
But instead they decided to do their anti-competitive, "Embrace, extend, extinguish" crap, including a JVM that was incompatible with the published Sun standard; including it on their widely-distributed platform by default guaranteed that a large percentage of people using Java would be incompatable with any non-MS implementation.
No one made them do this flagrantly illegal acts; forcing them to include Sun's JVM is a punishment for their behavior.
Asking, "Why should MS be forced to include Sun's JVM" would be like saying, "Why should I have to pay a $100 ticket for driving on the road -- other people don't." (Answer: you were driving 20 mph over the speed limit.)
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
Richard,
You make several good points and I agree with you. I too do not like having multiple applications installed in my GNOME menu that all do the same thing. I would prefer the people who package up the distribution make that choice for me, or at least have some kind of user voting system so I can see which application most users prefer.
I guess we can agree that there is no clear solution to this problem.
I'm sorry, but I must disagree.
A proper punitive measure would be for Microsoft to have to stop shipping their incompatible VM (which they have done), and a cash settlement of some sort (maybe a lump sum, plus a percentage of Visual J++ profits?).
Bundling a competitor's product forceably provides an unfair advantage for that competitor (Sun in this case). What if there was another company that made a Java Virtual Machine that was also harmed by Microsoft's acts? (Okay, there isn't, but let's suppose their was.) Shouldn't we include their VM as well, or give them some compensation?
Typically in criminal offences (which is your example), people are jailed because there's no real way that they can provide restitution. There's also no real competitor of the criminal, in the sense that nobody else directly benefits (well, okay, maybe the extra crowbar clockers find more victims because one of their cohorts is off the street, but that's not really the point).
-- Joe
In a company town, you can quit and move away.
I like to see Microsoft get punished for their monopolistic behavior, but forcing them to distribute Java would set a bad precedent in my opinion. Courts should not force one company to act as the distributor for another company. They have a wide variety of other remedies at their disposal: fines, corporate breakups, restrictions on contractual agreements and pricing structure, jail time for executives, etc. Besides, Microsoft could have easily sabotaged this kind of distribution anyway and placed the blame on Sun ("it's not our fault that Sun's distribution isn't keeping up with Windows DLLs").
If decisions like this were allowed to stand, judges might start messing around with Linux distributions as well, and that would definitely not be good.
There's no contract between MS and Sun in which MS committed to distributing Sun's JVM so it's not a matter of government enforcement.
I guess you're talking hypothetically since no such contract exists between MS and Sun.
The contract that MS broke was settled to the tune of millions of $ paid to Sun. MS didn't break the latest contract which did not commit MS to distributing Sun's Java.
The current litigation is a private antitrust case, not a contract dispute.
true, but MS went out of there way to confuse peple about Jave, and try to become the defacto Jave company. In doing so the intentional broke the Java implementation. I felt this was a good punishment that fit the crime.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Whether it's a proper punishment is certainly open to debate, but from some of the posts around here it seems some people see this as Big Government taking it upon itself to butt in on behalf of whiny little Sun as Microsoft was just peacefully strolling along minding its own business. I was trying to point out that this was a response to bad behavior on MS' part, not some kind of food stamp program for underprivileged corporations.
If I were a Sun shareholder I'd want MS to pay money instead. MS distributing Sun's Java in Windows isn't going to have much positive effect on Sun's bottom line. This case is not about business, it's about ego.
You really don't seem to have a clue.
Capitalism/communism are economic systems. Dictatorships are political systems. You can have capitalist dictatorships, and you can have communist democracy.
Capitalists always defend their system of preference by associating it with freedom of opportunity, but it only works that way when you get started. Once the system is mature, the rich pretty much keep everyone else under control.
If you really wanted a free society, you'd want a democratic political system combined with a communistic economic system. You'd need a society that didn't glorify greed and materialism. If everyone recognised that having a comfortable level of prosperity was all they needed, and motivated people with respect and reputation rather than money, things would be fine.
Capitalism will NEVER lead to the end of poverty, hunger and scarcity. Why? Because those are the tools capitalists use to keep power, and they would lose their power if they were gone.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
The rules are different when you're a monopoly (and Microsoft has been found to have a monopoly in the desktop OS market by a court of law and there is no argument about that anymore, legally speaking)
Just wondering Yaz, do you trust the courts to do the right thing, or not?
You seem to trust them when they rule the way you want (MS violated antitrust laws), but not when they rule the other way (MS doesn't have to ship Sun's Java).
Your only consistent thrust seems to be that MS must be punished, and punished hard. Your justification (correct me if I'm wrong) is that they broke the law. But when the same courts that found them in violation don't find them deserving of severe punishment, you think something is wrong with the system.
This doesn't make sense to me. If you think the system is broken, then it makes no sense to trust any of its findings, wouldn't you say?
It is quite clear that a law establishing what a platform is, and how it should be treated legally is long overdue.
JSPs are, behind the scenes, simply translated into Java source code and then compiled into classes by the Servlet/JSP engine.
Keeping complex code out of JSPs has little to do with runtime speed -- it's more about code maintenance issues (at the end of the day) than anything else.
I mod you +6...
Is that like one of those D&D superweapons?
The unofficial
Funny how those pesky govt regulations work huh?
> The consumers would revolt. You can only abuse the consumer so much before they will not take it any longer.
Okay, fine.
But do you really want to be one of the poor schmucks who has to live under the thumb of the proverbial King George or Louis XVI?
Things shouldn't have to get so bad that outright revolt is the driving force for change. A civilized society shouldn't have to get to the point of insanity (people taking up pitchforks and torches, running around rioting and chopping people's heads off, or hiding in the woods with muskets to ambush passing Red-Coats) before life becomes sane again.
Revolt is very impolite. People will avoid it until there are no other options left, reasonable or otherwise. And if you're a smart little dictator, you can get in and get out before the revolution comes, leaving someone else to hold the bag. Sure, punishment and retribution come, eventually, but does it give back what was taken? No.
Just because it works, doesn't mean it isn't broken.
You completely miss the point of the lower court ruling. Microsoft licensed Java. They didn't adhere to the contract they signed with Sun. This was part of the remedy of that lawsuit. It was thrown out today.
No, I'm afraid you missed the point of the lawsuit.
Sun already sued Microsoft on contract infringement relating to Java, and settled out of court two years ago.
This is a new lawsuit as part of Sun's Strategic Litigation division. (look for the name Lee Patch and check out his title) Sun is now claiming that they were harmed by the earlier lawsuit they settled, after Microsoft announced they were going to pull all versions of Java out of Windows XP.
Well whatever. Anybody who has been in the industry for a while knows why Java failed no the desktop. It had nothing to do with Microsoft's JVM for Internet Explorer. If you wanted to run client-side Java you had to download Sun's JVM anyway. The Microsoft JVM just let you run Java applets in the browser.
But Java applets in the browser never took off, not because Microsoft made a JVM that allowed developers to hang themselves if they wanted to.(Apparently Sun believes developers aren't smart enough to realize interfacing with COM components means your stuff won't run on a Mac) No, Java didn't take off in the browser because it didn't work well. Instead Macromedia came out with what they called Flash which had the same concept of running applets, but was a higher level language that was easier to create content with.
The "chilling reminder" is that, is you do ANY business with Microsoft, prepared to be screwed, with no legal recourse.
Once again, the chilling reminder is that strategic litigation and whining doesn't improve your market position.
Just gotta love those Microsoft apologists.... Geesh.
No, you've gotta love people who don't understand the history of the internet and believe whatever sob story someone tells them.
Please, people, engage your brain!
blatant MS worship here on /.
You confuse pointing out the flaws in ABMers arguments with MS worship.
Back to Activewin with you scumbag zealot.
I must admit I get more informative news at ActiveWin.
But no, my goal here is to stamp out the FUD you and your ilk promote.
We don't punish our successful businesses. We punish (or are supposed to, anyway) those companies which use illegal practices to gain an unfair advantage. Free market systems with no regulations or laws are rife with corruption and eventually implode.
Microsoft is not as successful as they are because their crew is just so darned innovative that they've made their products indispensable. They're as wealthy as they are because they've tried to limit competition and innovation using a suite of legal and illegal methods. Predatory pricing to gain control of a technology, our old friend "embrace and extend", threatening third parties with inflated prices, etc..
The way you describe it, Microsoft can do no wrong because after all, people can just refuse to do business with them. Sure, third parties might go out of business because their clients require Microsoft compatability - compatability that others don't have because Microsoft has specifically engineered it that way - but they can still say "No." This is ridiculous. By your reasoning, none of us should complain or seek relief for anything, because after all, we can just refuse to do business with anyone and go live in the hills.
Oh, and kudos on taking his "Exploder" bait. You really showed him with your blithe sarcasm.
.i'm fully acquainted, thanks.
What about virus scanners, firewalls, updates...not to mention the actual applications...yeah right buddy!
Try writing a "graphically rich" applet for all browsers on all computers platforms, INCLUDING older versions of IE (4 and up).
Sun wants Microsoft to distribute the JRE, which is easily downloadable by any tech savy person, with Windows!
Unfortunately, like yourself, most people have no idea.
While I do not care one whit about MS, I have to step in here, and say, for crying out loud, give it up already. If people would quite whining, and just stop using MS products, the "problem" would resolve itself. Just a thought.
You will never "find" time for anything. You must "make" it.
Why, that will only leave them with $44Billion in the bank. So long MSFT...
And actually, I think we're both wrong. The lawsuit wasn't part of the original case (as I said), but it also wasn't Sun suing a second time (like you seem to be saying). The remedy was because of the Federal lawsuit brought by the states see here for a reference. Sun made the request for the injunction in May, 1998, and it was granted after the first lawsuit was settled after the first lawsuit was settled. Sun didn't initiate all this after the first one was settled. So we were both wrong. While, "strategic litigation" is a pretty stupid title to give a division of lawyers (and you have to think they thought that one up themselves), it wasn't what Sun was doing in this case, as you imply.
Java on the desktop and Java in the browser are two different (although related) issues. Java on the desktop was weakened by Microsoft's release of the incompatible Java, simply because of everything they did. The lower courts found that to be true.
However, I would lay the blame at Netscape's feet for giving people the bad impression about Java on the browser. It always ran incredibly badly. Hell, even HotJava ran applets better than Netscape ever did, at least until the plug-ins came along. That was the first impression that most people got of Java. Not through HotJava, but through Netscape. I still meet people to this day that complain about Java's speed, and when pressed is usually because of some dumb applet they tried to write back in the early days.
Microsoft's JVM did allow people to write applications, See here for a J++ guide which talks about it in Chapter 7.
The COM interfacing thing, if you'll also recall is something that Microsoft was saying way back then, they intended for DCOM to work across ALL platforms. Here's something that talks about that search for Macintosh. So, yes, I do think that Sun believed that people were eating what Microsoft was feeding them, and further, that by not telling people the special "features" they were adding to "improve" Java, if further locked them in.
Sun should have done this first: Use the ActiveX control technology built into Internet Explorer to automatically install the JVM, with permission, when a user hits a page with an applet. Macromedia Flash does every time I hit a page that requires Flash 6. Plus, if I remember correctly, that the latest Java Plug-In for Internet Explorer is already implemented as an ActiveX control.
So what's the problem, Sun?
Coderz 4 Life
As much as I'd like to see the latest version of Java included with every modern desktop OS, I think the decision was correct. Imagine spending years designing, creating and selling your product and then being ORDERED by the government to include a someone else's product which will reduce your competitive advantage. And even though this particular decision was the right one, I personally feel that the prior remedies imposed on Microsoft as a result of the anti-trust settlement is pure crap that was not entirely unrelated to the massive new campaign contributions made by Microsoft ever since the trials began.
That's great. I mean, I was going to buy Windows but then I saw that Lindows included Sun crap hole software and it was like - wow!
Dont eat yellow snow
There are two problems with your argument:
1) Capitalism != free market, at least not in the US or anywhere else in the existing world that I am aware of. Corporations are creations of the STATE, NOT a free market. Chomsky repeatedly emphasizes this in his lectures.
2) Anarchy does not mean chaos. Read the philosophy of anarchism before misrepresenting. (And don't bother quoting Webster's definition or some other dictionary to prove your point...they're probably equally ignorant of the concept.)
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Heh heh heh... Gold Standard. Telecommunications Act of 1996. Republican tort reform.
It's never a good thing to be asleep at the wheel.
But that's not what this decision is about. Allowing a court to decide that Microsoft should include as part of its product, the product of a company Microsoft regards as its chief competitor, is tantamount to ordering Coca Cola to include a can of Pepsi in every 24 pack. The Court here correctly saw that. If we assume that there is a public good in supporting the proliferation of Java, then we must first ignore that Sun Microsystems is a business seeking to make profits and dominate the market. Remember, Sun wants us to abandon our flat desktop computing models and embrace a networking computing model that has Sun Microsoftsystems at the center. I can recall early Sun speeches about Java's purpose as a long term strategy.
The original decision was additionally irrational. The court didn't spend time considering why Java should be given protected status over any other technology that must also rival de facto standard Microsoft technologies (PHP vs ASP, MP3 vs WMA, DIVX vs WMV). The original decision further set a precedent that would encourage companies to sue more successful competitors into giving up access. This actually goes against the spirit of the AntiTrust Act, which sought only to create a level playing field and not guarantee the success of any one company. Granted, this is a floodgate argument, and would be considered inherently weak, but it's a worthy one.
Because Microsoft has been known to use unlawful practices to keep competitors out of the market.
.NET in order to grab some of the server market.
Microsoft wants to control the client side with
From its beginnings through to today captialism has always, ultimatly, relied on military force.
Actually, I'm afraid that your are wrong there. The Republicans are currently pro a very small section of business. Namely large companies and not entrepreneurs.
See my journal, I write things there
The issue of hardware platforms is another story. I agree that a mass-produced x86 box will always be cheaper than specialised SPARchitecture.
See my journal, I write things there
> It's not Microsoft's fault that people are too
> lazy or not techically inclined enough to
> install third party add-ons.
Actually, it is at least partly so; the Windows user interface has selectively dumbed down parts of the system such that the nontechnical user is shuttled towards some features and not others. There's no real reason why you shouldn't be able to insert a CD and have the software install automatically with no further prompting required (the EULA can go on the CD envelope, and with the massive drives in most consumer PCs altering the install directory will only be necessary for most technical users; of course, there'd have to be an option to let you have an install dialog if you wanted), but MS haven't tried to implement that, not even in their own MSI installer. (Except on corporate installs, but that's only because they know the end-users there don't have any choice about what software to use.)
> They made an indispensable application that
> you like to use. People weren't forced to use.
> People chose to use it. Sure, now you almost
> have no choice, but back in the day
> WordPerfect was in the same position but MS
> unseated them. If it happened once, it can
> happen again.
If "Now you almost have no choice", then NOW the restriction should be applied. WordPerfect didn't have a monopoly in the same way that Word does; amongst other things WordPerfect was competing with WordStar and SamnaWord. Further, installing new software was more common then because even the relatively nontechnical users had more computer knowledge (with only a DOS CLI, they had to!)
> better than these competitors. Please note
> that Microsoft may have been ruthless in their
> business tactics but no one had to say "yes."
> The used their position to gain market
> dominance, but it wasn't given to them on a
> silver platter..
Actually, it WAS. Microsoft were *asked* by IBM to develop DOS. They didn't compete for it. They used DOS to push their apps, then DOS to push Windows, then Windows again to push their apps. Any other firm could have done as "well" as MS if they'd been the ones asked to develop DOS.
And it's not like MS were that good in the first place. I have, in a very old attic, a dusty copy of Microsoft Multiplan for Apple II. Yes, it's the same Microsoft. Multiplan wasn't particularly good; it was a ripoff of VisiCalc with more overblown menus.
> That's just absolutely ridiculous. It makes no
> business sense. Please state why you think
> they "must" ship other browsers pre-installed
> too?
Because there must be a free market - or at least, as free a market as possible - and there isn't one if one product is much easier to choose than all the others.
> Actually, they didn't ship AOL icons with
> Win95 because of anti-trust, they did it
> because of some clever manoeuvring by AOL.
No, it was the other way round. MS used the offer of an icon on the Windows desktop to tempt ISPs into using IE as their supported browser. Remember the Netscape lawsuit?
I think you're right, I've never seen someone change their political opinion after having a discussion with someone holding a different ideology. Usually, it just ends up as a flamefest. As they say, never discuss politics or religion :)
Sun's case for forcing Microsoft to carry Java is pretty ludicrous. They sued Microsoft to stop them carrying Java.
Wrong. Completely wrong. Totally devoid of fact.
Sun sued Microsoft in an attempt to force Microsoft to comply with a contract that they voluntarily entered into.
Interesting thing that. You sign a contract and you're expected to actually live up to the terms of the contract. In MS's case they completely failed to live up to the terms of the contract. Additionally, they refused to make changes to come into compliance with the terms of the contract. At that point there was no other option but to void the contract.
As for the rest of your comment. I'll put that down to simple opinion and non-sequitors.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
There were two other problems with MS's VM.
First they didn't bother to implement core Java functionality in their VM. (JNI was one main example.) Second, they made changes to core Java classes.
MS could have very easily had all of the new functionality that they wanted if they were just willing to implement Java as it was and put all of the other functionality in the com.microsoft packages area.
Instead they were busy deliberately polluting Java, threatening other companies (see the whole Intel "advice"), and writing restrictive contracts with programmers to force them to use MS's VM in exchange for getting technical information for Windows.
Note that the current case is ONLY about the damage that MS did to Java via their anti-trust actions. All other complaints regarding the initial contract were settled already. (Though they did address the fact that MS isn't complying with the settlement terms.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
by overthrowing the Sherman-Clayton Anti-Trust Act.
....
MS will use the gov approval of their monoply to clinch further gains in their drive to control EVERY aspect of PC use. Expect to see code 'enhancements' that deliberately blocks successful use of any kind of implementation of Java. It will be in the form of bogus system error msgs that "encourage" users to employ C# instead of 'incompatible' tools.
When the cops join the robbers
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Hopefully, the deal between Sun and RedHat to create an open-source JVM will come to fruition and will be just the shot-in-the-arm that Java needs to fix critical bugs and other asundry problems in Sun's VM implementation.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
The forward march of technology is the only thing that ever solves the problem of a company getting too powerful.
Cookies
Accepted Certificate Authorities (CA)
Current Authentication Credentials (Basic or NTLM login state)
Configuration for Proxys and Firewalls
Let us say that you want to create a rich and wonderful application hosted in this environment so it can use all this browser state information when talking to a web server.
Sun's Java plugin will not let you do this. It opens direct socket connections to a web server (bypassing the browser) and it impossible in an applet to determine any of the browser settings. You certainly cannot pick up cookies or ride on top of an NTLM login. Also, the certificate authorities for SSL may be completely different then the browser's settings.
Microsoft's VM inside the browser let you do all these things.
Where else am I going to get a solution that lets be write code that will run inside a tight sandbox, use the full browser environment for connecting to the web server, and let me do full OO style programming with all the extras (threads, container classes, support for interfaces, reflection, serialization of data, XML parsing, locales, etc.)? How do I get such an environment in a way where the user gets a seamless download experience once they install just one plugin?
Did I just read the same court opinion that the rest of you read? Micrsoft didn't win. The appeals court turned over the preliminary injuction granted against them for illegal monopoly powers.
The appeals court AFFIRMED the preliminary injuction against them for violating the settlement agreement and Sun's copyrights.
Microsoft lost.
--Insert catchy
Not if you're broke. Not if you don't have assurance that things will be any different where you go. It's the choice between slow and rapid starvation.
No it's not. The "free" pieces you speak of have clauses in the liscense that prohibit redistribution. You've got to be kidding if you think Sun or Apple will let MS include their products in the OS for "free". The mere thought of it would cause their eyes to turn into dollar signs comic style...
A communist government shoots you if you try to get out. This actually happened.
A worker in a (capitalist) company town faces uncertainties and takes a common economic risk when he leaves. It's not the same.
History has answered these questions. You don't need to make up ridiculous hypotheticals when your argument is correct. Why not look to reality to be your guide?
I used to play some of the free games on MSN gaming zone and IIRC the JRE/Plugin from Sun would always fail to load/run the games and I would have to manually turn the thing off and reactive the M$ junk to get them to work. Once I would leave that site however, in order for other sites to work the M$ JFE (Java Fail-time Environment) had to be deactived and the Sun JRE had to be turned back on. Has anyone tested SUN JRE recently on MSN Gaming Zone? Are they still writing Applets to cater only to the M$ version?
Only two things are infinite, the universe, and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former.
If someone wants to point a gun in my face, I say ... bring it. In that same inviornment I would also be unteathered to defend myself will all posible means. I would have no qualms with slaying a man on my door step, if he came to lay harm on myself or my family.
;)
I've also lived in some of these so called "lawless" parts of the world. ie New York City, and Detroit. And they are in no way absolutly lawless. Even if there isn't a visable police presence there is still law and a code of conduct that is still upheld to some degree. Even if it is up to the high standards of drug lords and pimps. (don't fuck with my bitches!)
I'm not so much looking for the utopian mode of anarchy. I'm looking for that mad max kind of anarchy. The type of situation where as I can stand up and take back what should rightfully be mine. Where I can paint the streets with the blood of the fat cat capitalists.
Thanks for the brush up from webster by the way.
-makoffee