"Yes I can see that it is copying 'embrace and extend" but what makes everyone think that that will work against the monopoly, solely because it works for the monopoly? I fear there is some flawed logic in everyones thinking on this."
One way to look at it would be by embracing this technology you could extend what you are doing by so much more. For every language that is supported there are that many less wrappers that you have to maintain and less layers to debug to figure why the hell your code isn't behaving as intended.
The other side of the coin is if the system was truly object oriented languages wouldn't be a problem any way because you are dealing with objects not libraries. Is that not what the file metaphore is all about.
"Mr. Goodhew's problem here is a gramatical one. Hew substituted the article 'the' where he needed to use the pronoun 'their' indicating Microsoft's (in this case, refering to Microsoft's implementation). The true meaning being that Microsoft can license Microsoft's implementation only, rather than the (all of 'the') implementations by any vendor."
It makes sense to me if you think about it this way.
MS and the ECMA are working together to get C# approved as a standard. Since the ECMA lets MS retain control of the implementation they will license it however they like and retain control of it. The ECMA will control the specification and it will be open.
The result of this is if you don't agree with the license the implementation uses you will still be free to use the spec, you just won't have a reference implementation to use as a starting point.
IANAL, but that is how I interpret the statements made.
They gambled that getting MS to support Java would bring much needed support for Java. And they gambled that the license was good enough that the courts would side with SUN in a legal dispute if MS did something disagreeable.
On one hand some of the early expectations for Java have not been met. On the other the primary goal of getting wide spread support has been achieved. That is a win in my book.
"I really doubt that things are going to roll out according to their timeline. I mean, how often do you have to replace a TV? I guarantee that not even 50% of the households in the country will be able to accept the digital signals by 2006."
We subscribed to digital cable at our house. For a moderate additional fee we get a bunch of extra channels. All with the same TV. If we had a digital TV we would only need the set top box for the Pay and PPV channels, but at present our other TV sets are still capable of recieving all the same channels they ever got.
I don't know what percentage of the viewing public has cable, but I would expect by 2006 there will be a few reasonably priced solutions for those people that can't or won't pay for a cable or sattelite subscription. and more for those that do.
"Saying that glibc is not part of the OS would be like saying that all the DLLs and the registry are not part of Windows"
I view glibc as being more like the VB runtime module. If you had a different compiler to compile VB code with you would no longer need the VB runtime module.
Looking at it this way it really becomes a POV thing. Both statements (it is, or -it is not a part of the OS) have equal merits.
Slashdot Mirror
Capatain Rotundo said:
"Yes I can see that it is copying 'embrace and extend" but what makes everyone think that that will work against the monopoly, solely because it works for the monopoly? I fear there is some flawed logic in everyones thinking on this."
One way to look at it would be by embracing this technology you could extend what you are doing by so much more. For every language that is supported there are that many less wrappers that you have to maintain and less layers to debug to figure why the hell your code isn't behaving as intended.
The other side of the coin is if the system was truly object oriented languages wouldn't be a problem any way because you are dealing with objects not libraries. Is that not what the file metaphore is all about.
Later, seeker
hillct said:
"Mr. Goodhew's problem here is a gramatical one. Hew substituted the article 'the' where he needed to use the pronoun 'their' indicating Microsoft's (in this case, refering to Microsoft's implementation). The true meaning being that Microsoft can license Microsoft's implementation only, rather than the (all of 'the') implementations by any vendor."
It makes sense to me if you think about it this way.
MS and the ECMA are working together to get C# approved as a standard. Since the ECMA lets MS retain control of the implementation they will license it however they like and retain control of it. The ECMA will control the specification and it will be open.
The result of this is if you don't agree with the license the implementation uses you will still be free to use the spec, you just won't have a reference implementation to use as a starting point.
IANAL, but that is how I interpret the statements made.
Later, seeker
TummyX said
"BTW Sun didn't win. They settled."
But I think SUN did win.
They gambled that getting MS to support Java would bring much needed support for Java. And they gambled that the license was good enough that the courts would side with SUN in a legal dispute if MS did something disagreeable.
On one hand some of the early expectations for Java have not been met. On the other the primary goal of getting wide spread support has been achieved. That is a win in my book.
Later seeker
"I really doubt that things are going to roll out according to their timeline. I mean, how often do you have to replace a TV? I guarantee that not even 50% of the households in the country will be able to accept the digital signals by 2006."
We subscribed to digital cable at our house. For a moderate additional fee we get a bunch of extra channels. All with the same TV. If we had a digital TV we would only need the set top box for the Pay and PPV channels, but at present our other TV sets are still capable of recieving all the same channels they ever got.
I don't know what percentage of the viewing public has cable, but I would expect by 2006 there will be a few reasonably priced solutions for those people that can't or won't pay for a cable or sattelite subscription. and more for those that do.
"Saying that glibc is not part of the OS would be like saying that all the DLLs and the registry are not part of Windows"
I view glibc as being more like the VB runtime module. If you had a different compiler to compile VB code with you would no longer need the VB runtime module.
Looking at it this way it really becomes a POV thing. Both statements (it is, or -it is not a part of the OS) have equal merits.
Later, Seeker