Sun, Microsoft Go Head-to-Head on bundling Java in Windows

Discussions

News: Sun, Microsoft Go Head-to-Head on bundling Java in Windows

  1. The latest battle in the Microsoft-Sun war:

    Sun and MS will be battling over whether Microsoft should be forced to "bundle" a standard version of the Sun Java Virtual Machine in Windows.

    Read the article here:
    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,742821,00.asp.

    Generally speaking, if this comes to pass, it would be unfair to vendors of other JVMs.
  2. I think it should be faire if sun wants to include a Sun's Java spec complaint JVM with windows

    Not a Nerd
  3. How ridiculous.

    Why don't the linux distro's sue to include themselves along with every copy of Windows sold? Any maybe MS could handle the support calls from their users as part of the deal as well?

    Like it or not, Windows is a paid for commercial product from a company partaking in the capitalist free for all that is US market, I know if I ever released a product I wouldn't want third-parties trying to forcefully piggyback on my distribution mechanisms.
  4. Actually this is not entirely correct. Despite the recent settlement ruling (not finished anyway due to appeals), the appellate DID in fact rule that Microsoft had intentionally used and promoted a "polluted" version of Java with the intent of deception to Java developers in order to protect its dominance. Because of this, a possible remedy for this behavior is this Java requirement.

    The linux analogy you used is ignorant of these facts from both a legal and an economic standpoint. No Linux company has been accused, much less convicted, of this type of competitive or anti-competitive behavior. They certainly, I don't think, intentionally pollute existing technologies to protect a dominance that they don't have anyway (although you might argue over the recent Redhat desktop).

    Maybe you should study anti-trust economics and the rulings surrounding this case before you say things like this.

    As a p.s., it isn't a capitalist free-for-all when a company has been convicted of antitrust activities.

    -Jason McKerr
    Northwest Alliance for Computational Science and Engineering
  5. as a follow up, read this

    http://news.com.com/2100-1001-975901.html?tag=fd_top
  6. The courts as allways have the final say, however I disagree with the principal.

    Who will represent the text editor authors whom lose custom because they think 'the polluted' notepad.exe is a text editor?

    No-one right, because the idea is ridiculous. The author of Ultraedit doesn't whinge, they see an opportunity to compete. Which is what Sun should have done.

    MS Java was java 1.1 compatible from the point of view of the code executing in the VM. It was their non JNI compatible JNI functionality that Sun kicked up a stink about. Hardly a big deal in my opinion.
  7. I think you're missing some important understanding about antitrust behavior from the standpoint of the law.

    Your ultraedit analogy would be correct if you changed the scenario. If Microsoft intentionally setup their OS so that Ultraedit didn't work, you might have a closer analogy, and that does constitute anti-competitive behavior. If MS took the ultraedit code, and made it different from the original, but advertised it as the same or similar, that would also likely be a better analogy.

    I'm not saying it would be right in a free-market economy either to force Java on MS. But this particular economy is NOT free market. The government regularly imposes restrictions on monopoly based micro-economies (telecom before the deregulation, utilities, etc.). This is especially true for convicted monopolists, as witnessed in the AT&T breakup in 1996-1997, whenever that was. You should read the Antitrust legislation on this, and it'll probably make more sense to you.

    Personally, I'm not sure it's the correct remedy either. However, under the laws regarding economics and remedy, if Sun was harmed through monopolist practices, they are entitled to fairly strong remedy. This is different than just preventing Microsoft from committing these practices again. This is *remedy* not prevention! That means that Sun is entitled to some serious Microsoft hide if they lose this case against Sun (in some cases treble-damages). Think about it. If it was your company, and anti-competive practices damaged you, you'd want some of that hide. The issue isn't really the confluence of events that lead up to this, but whether or not this is a good remedy for the damage that Microsoft has done to Sun.

    I've seen this type of economic damage first-hand. I was an economic/financial analyst for the Maritime Industry, which is one of the few industries specifically *allowed* to commit anti-competitive practices (namely things like price collusion). Basically, I worked on the wrong side of the street, and witnessed how price collusion could damage companies, micro-economies, and macro-economies.

    I'm not telling you this as a developer, I'm telling you this as an ex-economist who's worked around anti-trust related finances. Step back from your developer mindset for a moment, and think about economics and the law.

    Here's a site you might reference for more info
    http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/

    As for other distros shipping with Java? Mac OSX ships with it, almost every flavor of Linux ships with it. I'd bet that AIX and maybe HPUX ship with it too, although I haven't worked with them much.

    -Jason McKerr
    Northwest Alliance for Computational Science and Engineering
  8. Are You Confused?[ Go to top ]

    <quote>
    ...the appellate DID in fact rule that Microsoft had intentionally used and promoted a "polluted" version of Java with the intent of deception to Java developers...
    </quote>

    Is that true?!

    Was anyone here deceived or confused by Microsoft's version of Java? I've never met such a person...

    PE
  9. Are You Confused?[ Go to top ]

    <quote>
      <quote>
        ...the appellate DID in fact rule that Microsoft had
        intentionally used and promoted a "polluted" version of
        Java with the intent of deception to Java developers...
      </quote>

      Is that true?!

      Was anyone here deceived or confused by Microsoft's version
      of Java? I've never met such a person...
    </quote>

    Read it again. It says 'with the intent of deception'. Whether or not anyone was actually deceived is irrelevant.

    Jim S.
  10. So let me get this straight:
    * First MS produce a custom JVM with WindowsNT/2000 (jview). Sun doesn't like this so they ask MS to remove it.

    * MS remove it and begin implementation of their Enterprise/Distributed environment (.NET) which is competition for Java.

    * MS get into trouble for integrating IE5 with Windows as it has an effect on competition with other Browsers/Internet software. They are ordered through the courts to sell it as a separate product.

    * Now MS remove any Java compatibilities and are in trouble again because Sun say MS are trying to wipe out Java. Sun wants Java back in Windows.

    Now some basic facts (and some that may not):
    * Java isn't shipped with any other platforms except Solaris (whoops I mean SunONE)
    * .NET is still not as yet shipped with windows - it's a service pack (or is it?)
    * .NET runs on only one platform at this point - windows (correct me if I'm wrong and there is a Solaris or Linux version available)
    * The major distributed OS is Windows
    * This war (and I don't mean servlets) has been going on for too long.
    * Java is free .NET is not
    * Sun hates Microsoft, Microsoft doesn't like Sun
    * SunONE is Solaris relabelled and not exactly a domestic use OS.

    I'm not trying to say I'm for MS or for Sun I'm trying to be neutral here. I know Sun can't release an OS that will replace Windows overnight but MS are really copping alot of problems no matter what they do.

    The comparisons between J2EE and .NET are avilable all over the Internet and we all know that in a professional environment, businesses will be able to choose the software they feel is suitable for their needs.

    Personally I prefer Java not just cause it's free but because you use one language for everything rather than worrying about C#, Delphi.NET, VB.NET, *.NET.Also, why should a web developer have to worry about Javascript, VBScript, ActionScript, JSP, ASP, CGI, Perl all at the same time?

    [tone]
  11. <quote>
     So let me get this straight:
    </quote>

    So many mistakes, so little time.

    Sun never asked MS to remove jview. They demanded that MS remove the name Java from anything that was not Java. Since the MS VM (jview) violated the TLDA and the Java Language Specification, it could not be called Java.

    Your timeline on .NET is woefully out of whack. It has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that .NET started as COOL which was several years ago. Long before MS decided to remove the MS SomethingThatIsn'tJava Virtual Machine from Windows.

    MS has never been ordered to sell IE as a separate product. In fact, IE used to be a separate product, available only as part of MS Plus!, but when it became obvious that Netscape was gaining too much market, MS decided that the formerly separate IE was now an 'integral' part of the operating system.

    Sun doesn't want Java 'back in Windows', they want Java in Windows. Java was never actually in Windows because what was there wasn't Java.

    To me, Sun is going about this all wrong. It is unlikely that they will convince the courts to require that MS include Java. They have a much better chance of convincing the courts that MS should be forbidden from distributing the .NET runtime with new OS releases or under the guise of a service pack. Windows users should be required to seek out the .NET runtime in the same manner that Java users must get the JVM (via direct download or through the Java plug-in mechanism).


    <quote>
    Now some basic facts (and some that may not):
    </quote>

    Mostly not.

    Java is shipped with Mandrake Linux. I can say that for certain, as it is my distribution of choice. I can't speak for other Linux distributions, but I would be very surprised if the IBM OSen (including Linux) didn't have a JVM out of the box.

    MS has expressly stated that .NET will be included in future service packs and OS releases.

    Yes, .NET runs on one platform and windows is the most often used operating system. I fail to see how these points are relevant to the discussion.

    This is a different war. Initially, it was about getting MS to comply with the license they signed. Then it was about MS anti-trust violations. Now it is about seeking remedy for damage caused by those violations.

    .NET is freely available from Microsoft in the form of the Platform SDK.

    From: http://wwws.sun.com/software/sunone/faq.html
    ======
    Q. Which operating systems does the Sun ONE platform support?

    A. The Sun ONE platform runs on the Solaris, Linux, and Windows Operating Environments. In addition, some components of the Sun ONE platform also support AIX, HP-UX, and other operating systems. Refer to product pages on Sun.com for additional information about platform support.
    ===========================

    Jim S.
  12. Thanks Jim, this whole thing has been getting out of hand anyway and like I said "correct me if I'm wrong".

    As for the .NET SDK being free, I still understand what exactly you can do with .NET. It's a concept isn't it not a language as such? A language implements it and you use that language (VB.NET, Delphi.NET, etc). Once again I could be wrong and correct me on this.

    Cheers,
    [tone]
  13. .Net provides the runtime, and standard libs etc. All this works against an intermediate language that loads of techs compile to. So the .net runtime is a jit/interpreter much in the same way as the JVM is.

    But, it is more than that, .Net gets pretty closely coupled to other ms op system features such as managed components for transactions, and WMI (management). But, and here is the rub, the features available are different on different ms op systems.

    So, what should be a simple pictures starts to blur a bit. Msoft is using it as a kick to force OS upgrades, IMHO - eg certain visual studio components only install on win 2K and above. You could say win2k is now the baseline OS as far as they are concerned.

    I imagine that as .Net ages they will continue this practice, adding new sexy features available only on newer OS versions. But perhaps that is paranoia and they have changed... :)

    Jonathan
  14. Some of you facts are incorrect. Other platforms ship with JVMs, Other companies make JVMs besides Sun and ship it on their UNIX implementation.