Sun VP: MS injunction cancels out .NETs distribution advantage

Discussions

News: Sun VP: MS injunction cancels out .NETs distribution advantage

  1. Richard Green, Sun's vice president and general manager for Java and XML, says that the recent court injuction forcing Microsoft to carry Java in Windows will cancel out .NET's distribution advantage over J2EE.

    Furthermore, if Microsoft succeeds with is appeal, Java will continue to be "successful in the enterprise, on servers, on handhelds. But not as successful as we would like, by any means, as a desktop development platform."

    Read Q&A: Sun's Richard Green says ruling will boost Java.

    Also read Java developers laud ruling in Microsoft case.

    Threaded Messages (97)

  2. Nonsense.

    By the way, is this true (from SDTimes) :

    The Middleware Company (TMC), a Java training company owned by Precise Software Solutions, a Microsoft business partner

    ???
  3. The way the sentence is written is ambiguous and could be interpreted that TMC is a MS business partner. This is incorrect. Precise however (who purchsased TMC in June) does list MS as a business partner on their website. This has already been discussed in other threads.
  4. I cannot agree more, why MS should carry Java, and if it does why it should be SUN’s JDK and why no IBM or Oracle, they have JDKs too. They have invested billions of dollars in operating system and .Net and it is their right to benefit from it.
  5. I cannot agree more, why MS should carry Java


    ad absurdum: tell me that it's bad for Java developers. Tell me that Java developers will suffer if XP has to carry Sun's JDK.
  6. when i first read james gosling's white paper on java in 1994 he pointed out how poweful a JVM in every browser would make the web.. hopefully, now a decent consistent JDK will be available in 90% or more of browsers over the next few years and we, as programmers, can dispence with the filth that HTML and JSP are. The poor attempts in Java Faces, Web Cream, WingS, etc to remedy the problem of the web which dr. gosling solved in 1994, and has yet to make it to the mainstream because of Microsoft's sabotage, will revolutionize the web and reverse the stagnation of the past 4 years.. JSP, ASP, HTML, etc are all the junk of confused and cluttered minds.. a major step backwards into the dark ages...

    incidently, EJB is convoluted nonsense, as is the bulk of server side Java.. when are we going to get our java chips and java OSes, we were promised also in 1994.. i can't take much more of this XML, EJB, SOAP, RMI SQL psycho babble.. it is more pathetic than the eminations of microsoft anyway...
  7. BTW, after installing JDK1.4.1 I don't have ANY problem to run any (remaining) applet.
    It looks like combination of WebStart+SOAP+J2EE can be “killer app” pattern for many business applications.
  8. i can't take much more of this XML, EJB, SOAP, RMI SQL psycho babble.. it is more pathetic than the eminations of microsoft anyway...


    go back to MS world and get peace of mind...
    Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds...
  9. Why do u think XML and SOAP is not part of MS world?
  10. It is not about java developers it is about common sense, for java developers would be good to ask MS to cancel .Net server and to make java part of windows kernel with native swing support, let’s ask for that as well.
  11. It is not about java developers it is about common sense, for java developers would be good to ask MS to cancel .Net server and to make java part of windows kernel with native swing support, let’s ask for that as well.


    It is about us, Java developers. As for common sense: 1) if judge found the remedy appropriate, then it's not far from common sense; 2) to cancel .NET is not reasonable, as you know.
  12. Why would you like to cancel .NET? It is your choice to use one technology or another or both, BTW .NET is mostly about server side and this ruling is focused on the client side.
  13. Vladimir: "BTW .NET is mostly about server side and this ruling is focused on the client side."

    (IMHO) In reality, .NET is 95%+ about the client side. If you don't believe me, look at the traffic on Microsoft's own newsgroups. It is at least 95% about how to put focus on a window, or integrate with Access and Excel, or add winform controls dynamically, or why startup speed is so slow for a GUI app.

    The ASP.NET framework is a pretty good advance over the old ASP model, and I have no doubt that a lot of current IIS/ASP customers will move to it eventually, but that isn't the bulk of what's going on today, from what I've seen.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
  14. Cameron: (IMHO) In reality, .NET is 95%+ about the client side.

    That is not a balanced comment from you. Hope you will not get good blessings from Don Box and folks such as Jeff Richter or Cris Sells.
    BTW, reading up on MS Newgroups is the last thing that Microsoft recommends. MSDN has always been a rich source of information for any software development in MS technologies.
    Folks at developmentor have better dev resources lined up over past several years!

    regards,
    /Ravi
  15. Cameron: (IMHO) In reality, .NET is 95%+ about the client side.

    Ravi: "That is not a balanced comment from you."

    I thought it was. Perhaps I should have explained that, from what I've seen, 95% of the work being done with .NET is on client-side applications.

    Ravi: "Hope you will not get good blessings from Don Box and folks such as Jeff Richter or Cris Sells."

    What do these people mean to me? Should I genuflect or something?

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
  16. Cameron: I thought it (.Net) was (95% client side).

    Once one reads Don Box and Chris Sells book on CLR, one never can make an immature comment like that, Mr. MVP.

    You do not have to be a MVP to be a Microsoft specialist. What it takes is a desire to learn Microsoft technologies using their platform in a methodical approach that folks such as Don Box preach in his talks, books and articles.

    Self proclaimed MVPs such as yoruself do not have any breadth nor depth that Don Box et al possess. Get on with the program, Cameron. And learn from the "right" people before making judgemental calls like that!

    So, get on with the program, buddy!

    /Ravi
  17. Once one reads Don Box and Chris Sells book on CLR, one

    >> never can make an immature comment like that, Mr. MVP.

    So why dont you enlighten us on what you read from Essential .NET that specifically contradicts Cameron's claim that .NET is predominantly (I wouldn't go as far as to quote a percentage as high as 95) client side?

    >> Self proclaimed MVPs such as yoruself do not have any
    >> breadth nor depth that Don Box et al possess.

    <sigh/> and you know a hell a lot about Cameron because you wrote his biography, right?
    dont you guys ever get bored with ad hominen personal attacks like this? grow up people... its just technology. when did we all get wrapped up in our heads over matters like this? Choose what you want to get the job done and move on.

    --Dilip
  18. Dilip: So why dont you enlighten us on what you read from Essential .NET that specifically contradicts Cameron's claim that .NET is predominantly (I wouldn't go as far as to quote a percentage as high as 95) client side?

    Mr. Dilip, it's you who is bringing up all the unnecessary anger out of (again), sheer ingorance. Read up the "Essential .NET" book yourself. If you understand it completely, you will join MSDN universal subscriber community that includes yours humbly!

    Dilip: ... and you know a hell a lot about Cameron because you wrote his biography, right?

    Well, Microsoft specialists need not care anymore about J2EE and Java community in general, let alone Cameron- just as J2EE folks dont care about Don Box! Who cares about biographies buddy! Funny!

    Dilip: Choose what you want to get the job done and move on.

    You are right there!


    That's why when our happy "enterprise-level" customer asks for more features in Excel based J2EE app, I continue to program even in ExcelBasic.

    Here is why-

    There is no point in generating complex XMLSS formatted huge spreadsheets from C++/JAVA on server side, since a low latency network at that client site favors thick client over the server side excel generation!

    FYI: Using MS Office Web technologies in .Net, I have been able to load XMLSS formatted 800K excel files in flat 4 seconds over HTTP.

    Show me equivalent in client side JAVA, StarOffice, or any such Swingin' thingie ;-)

    /Ravi
  19. Dilip: Choose what you want to get the job done and move on.

    FYI, on the SAP connectivity back end, I would prefer not to use SAP JAVA connector when compare to SAP's latest .NET connector.

    Parallel async calls from SAP to JVM always failed with whenever we tried in 1.3.1 JVM shipped with BEA WLS 6.1, although SAP's own JCO DLL for data extraction using RFC Modules has no buffering huge data. It's funny to realise that the Enterprise class JVM has a 1GB hard limit.

    It all boils down to issues of scale and performance, and Java cannot hadle that in my extensive experience on SAP and JCO connectivity issues. If the OS would have been Unix, I would use RFCSDK with C/C++ there to circumvent this issue of scale & performance. But with .Net connector, I don't have to go even back to the VC++/ATL based RFC programming that SAP recommended with their DCOM connector in past. .Net works ouyt better on all levels here- from dev to deploy, it's breeze!
  20. "Well, Microsoft specialists need not care anymore about J2EE and Java community in general, let alone Cameron- just as J2EE folks dont care about Don Box! Who cares about biographies buddy! Funny!"

    You must be schizophrenic because you care enough to post on a J2EE board.

    Microsoft Specialist? is that a disease?
  21. Dear n n

    Why don't you try out the mono libraries instead? It’s starting to become quite useful. Then you can try out .NET (8X faster, 4X better maintainability, 2X productivity) without being a "Microsoft Specialist"! And you escape the convoluted nonsense that is J2EE!

    "People with that attitude and such language can never be right"

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  22. Dear Rolf,

       Thanks for the offer but I have a conservative lifestyle and I wouldn't want to catch MONOnucleosis.
  23. Dear n n,

    My compliments for a bonafide witty answer and as a compliment of that I will not put my usual "People with that attitude and such language can never be right" signature this time"!

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  24. |
    | XMLSS formatted huge spreadsheets
    |

    Hey Ravi,

    I hope that lesson didn't take you too long to learn. After all, most of us already understand the various tradeoffs inherent in the Java platform. Some of those tradeoffs are positive and some negative. You don't use the platform if the math doesn't work out for your application. Yes, there are significant warts, that I wish didn't exist, but for many these benefits outweigh the detractions.

    CS101
  25. Ravi: "You do not have to be a MVP to be a Microsoft specialist. What it takes is a desire to learn Microsoft technologies using their platform in a methodical approach that folks such as Don Box preach in his talks, books and articles. Self proclaimed MVPs such as yoruself do not have any breadth nor depth that Don Box et al possess. Get on with the program, Cameron. And learn from the "right" people before making judgemental calls like that!"

    Please understand that I'm not trying to be offensive when I say this, but I have no desire to drop everything I'm doing to "learn Microsoft technologies" as "preached" by Don Box or to "learn from the "right" [i.e. Microsoft Press?] people". I kind of enjoy having an open mind and working with open standards and being part of a relatively larger industry, as opposed to being part of a small economic food chain in which extinction is the only logical conclusion.

    You may or may not have noticed, but (for someone currently selling J2EE software) I have spent quite a bit of time studying and using the .NET product, and my issues with it are not (largely) technical, but rather business issues. I voiced my opinion, and whether you can respect it or not, it remains my opinion. I still prefer to come to my own opinions, rather than gleaning them from the employees of companies whose software I purchase. Also, I prefer to consider these people to be human; it is helpful to remind one's self of the difference between a demigod and a demagogue.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
  26. Cameron: I kind of enjoy having an open mind and working with open standards and being part of a relatively larger industry, as opposed to being part of a small economic food chain in which extinction is the only logical conclusion.

    Let the world know that prophecies exist about Microsoft's industry is relatively small and on the verge of exinction? Good luck on your forthcoming prophecies, and I don't care whether they turn right or wrong!

    I prefer to be proficient equally in SAP, J2EE as well as MS enterprise server software. That way, I have better chance of survival in a really tough job market especially here in the silicon valley.

     Today's economy does not tell wether J2EE industry is "bigger" anyway!!! It's tough to (be a) prophet, and you have mastered that art! Kudos to you!

    Niche speciality is the only reason folks like us still have jobs, at least in these tough times!

    Sorry to hurt your ego, Sir!

    With High Regards,
    /Ravi
  27. Ravi: It's tough to (be a) prophet, and you have mastered that art! Kudos to you!

    Touche! ;-)
  28. You are quite right Ravi- .NET is 95% about the server side.

    "People with that attitude and such language can never be right"

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  29. You aren't right!
    .NET is also a platform suited for server side. This platform is ideally for any developer. You can use COM+ (that is easier to configure/integrate than EJB into your apps). Also, the concept of ADO.NET(entire based on XML/XSD) is a revolutionary architecture(the DataSet is a an abstract representation of one or many different vendors databases into memory that is filled with tables, relations between them, constraints etc) that from my point of view is better than JDBC. Although in .NET there is no concept of BMP like in EJB, ADO.NET/COM+ will answer to all your questions in a very elegant design solutions (Attributed coding (for interacting with COM+ app server) is much superior than EJB/XML descriptors that assume many different persons implied into app design).
    ASP.NET is better than JSP/Servlets and the difference between ASP and ASP.NET is enormous(You can create any kind/type of server/client controls in any managed language which can be rendered into html without writing any html code in your ASP.NET pages. The ASP.NET classes/interfaces are designed in a way more consistent than is made to JSP). I say these things because I worked for 4 years with Java/J2EE. And when my firm must switch to .NET I was the first person that I opposed to this. I was very reticent with .NET. Today I'm very happen that I am working with .NET and my advice for any Java fan is that it is worth “to get a taster of .NET”
  30. I don't think majority here opposes or downplays .net technology. Most are ticked off because of microsoft's monopolistic attitude.
  31. Also, the concept of ADO.NET(entire based on XML/XSD) is a revolutionary architecture


    Am I reading MS whitepaper? :)

    I guess you mean disconnected table sets. C'mon, maybe it's revolutionary for VB. Then again, let's see how it works. I went through whole set of MS "revolutions" from ODBC to ADO. Every time they promise Nirvana. Enough.
  32. the concept of ADO.NET(entire based on XML/XSD) is a revolutionary architecture


    I beg to differ. It's a great architecture, but it is evolutionary. Anders took this directly from Delphi which has had an XML based ClientDataSet for about 5 years. The .Net implementation is superior though supporting .XSD directly.

    But its a dream compared to JDBC and Swing Tables and Table Models, etc...
  33. Why would you like to cancel .NET?


    I didn't ask to cancel .NET, it was your idea. However, it would be nice if MS embraced Java and developed app J2EE servers, rather than coming up with its own stuff. On the other hand, Sun could be more cooperative with them in the beginning. It's too late to fantasize about it, but it's not good to have two competing standards. Now you have to learn both .NET and J2EE, if you'd like to be safe.
  34. as long as the standard is not completely public and competely free (java and .net), i believe it is always a good thing to have at least two or more competing standards. both will grow far faster as long as the other exists and is thriving.

    we used to have netscape and ie releasing new versions of their browser every 6 months--now that netscape is no longer a threat, i haven't seen a new version of ie in a couple of years...

    as long as sun ranks cross-platform capabalities above every other consideration (performance and specific platform capabilities), microsoft shouldn't go near j2ee or java. the two have inherently different priorities, and whenever they try to work together, developers get burned.
  35. as long as the standard is not completely public and competely free (java and .net), i believe it is always a good thing to have at least two or more competing standards. both will grow far faster as long as the other exists and is thriving.


    I don't agree with this. You think that standards are just like product. No way. It's good to have one standard, but many products. That's the whole purpose of standards. If MS was doing J2EE, it would put a lot of pressure on BEA, IBM and alikes. Now, we have less competition, because market is partitioned. It's not good for developers, it's not good for consumers. It's only MS folks think that it's good for them, because they don't have to learn Java anymore :)

    Less standards is good. Look at cell phone market in USA and in the rest of the world. In EU I can use the SAME phone in every country. When I visited India, I simply bought a chip and put into my phone, it worked fine. In USA it's a disaster for consumers. I can't use my Sprint phone with Verizon.
  36. <
    Argyn,
    I agree with you that having multiple standards is problematic for developers and maybe consumers, so it's a two-edged sword. I do believe the java standard is a product (it is owned and marketed primarily by Sun, just like VB and .NET is owned and marketed by Microsoft), and like all products, it ultimately benefits from competition.

    In the end you have to see that your statement is a little hypocritical. You are defending the notion that it is good for developers if they just had to learn Java (instead of multiple "standards" like Java and .NET) and be able to build applications everywhere...

    But the java camp prides itself in diversity and uses that as a real differentiator from the Microsoft world. They have diversity in tools (IBM, JBoss, BEA), platforms (Linux, Windows, Unix), frameworks (Swing, Tapestry, etc..) Your argument would presume that it would be good for developers and users if there was one framework, one platform, one way of doing things, one set of tools to build applications because everything would work together.

    You have just described the "Microsoft way".
  37. You have just described the "Microsoft way".


    Not at all. MS abused its power. That's the problem.

    Look at the science. Everything's FORTRAN. So nice.
  38. Look at the science. Everything's FORTRAN. So nice.


    Argyn,

    I can't imagine a more boring field to work in. It may be neat and tidy, but it's a scary world. It's like you're saying: It's good to have choices--as long as it's FORTRAN (subst java).
  39. <vlad>
    ...why no IBM or Oracle, they have JDKs too.
    </vlad>

    Because the judge ruled that "Microsoft to ship up-to-date versions of Java". The judge must be assuming that Sun, the creator/owner of Java will have the most up-to-date JDK

    <vlad>
    ...it is their right to benefit from it.
    </vlad>

    Good point but...the only reason for this ruling is that Microshaft has a perceived monopoly. The anti-trust laws in the U.S. allow the courts to prescribe a remedy to alleviate monopolies.

    Race
  40. <vlad>
    ...why no IBM or Oracle, they have JDKs too.
    </vlad>

    IBM does not have a 1.4 SDK released for Windows.

    Even their 1.3 one has restrictions on its distribution.

    I sort of wonder if they are heading toward dropping their own IBM SDK on Windows.
  41. IBM does not have 1.4 but BEA (with JRockit 8) has a 1.4, and it is in many way better than SUN VM.

    I am pro Java, but I think forceing people do to java is embarasing for our side.

    I agree with those that say that Java on desktop fails on it's own, not becuase of M$ (after I developed a Java Client Side app. and it take way to long for it to load and run and it is very hard to upgrade once a new JVM version patch ships). On the desktop, PowerBuilder runs just fine, but Java does not.

    Java belongs on the server (and JavaScript, Flash, XSLT, XFORMS and XUL belong in the browser. )

    .V
  42. Race: "The anti-trust laws in the U.S. allow the courts to prescribe a remedy to alleviate monopolies."

    Not exactly. It is not illegal to be a monopoly, and the government often even grants monopolies in certain sectors. Microsoft is not in trouble because they are a monopoly, or because the are successful, or because the company desires the "freedom to innovate", because all of those things are legal and even encouraged.

    Monopolies and trusts (such as oligopolies and cartels) are subject to certain restrictions in their business practices because of their position. Antitrust law refers not to the illegality of a monopoly, but rather by the definition of "trust" (from Merriam Webster) as "a combination of firms or corporations formed by a legal agreement; especially : one that reduces or threatens to reduce competition." The history of antitrust is one of the most interesting in the legal and public histories of western civilization, and the USA is no exception to that. Antitrust seeks to balance what is known as the "public good" against the principals of laissez faire economics.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
  43. Cameron

    Considering we are discussing this on serverside.com I think this is about the most sensible explanation I have ever come across in a forum laced with zealotry madness. To distill this further to its essence, I think being a monopoly per se is not the problem -- misusing it is. Admittedly it becomes pretty hard to debate exactly how you misuse your monopolistic tendencies. For ex: MS has long been accused of hitting the competition below the belt by bundling Windows Media Player along with their OS since companies like Real Networks make a living out of it. If you turn that argument around I wonder why IBM shouldn't complain that it is their JVM that should go with Windows and not Sun's. Its hard to rationalize the current injunction. The precedent this has set is too sweeping to be ignored in any appeals process.

    --Dilip
  44. <quote>
    MS has long been accused of hitting the competition below the belt by bundling Windows Media Player along with their OS since companies like Real Networks make a living out of it.
    </quote>

    I don't think it is the case, because Linux ships with many apps for free, and no one accuses RedHat.

    I feel misusing monopoly like Microsoft using it to "change" standards like HTML. I don't know today, but some time ago, the HTML generated by Word didn't close the tags, causing the pages to not render properly in any browser but IE, "strangely" prepared for such bug.

    Or Word, that change (encrypts) its file format each new version, forcing users to upgrade, because the new format is the default format, and soon some files people send you won't open in your version of Word anymore. And the next version of it will run only on WinXP, so prepare to upgrade you OS, too!

    I don't know for sure, but someone - an university teacher - told me that Microsoft charged a larger license fee if a computer vendor wanted to install Netscape in the computers he sells.

    In our case, it started with a VM that didn't run correct bytecode but did run MS J++ code and an IDE (J++) that generated lots of "import com.microsoft.*;"; I know its old news, but if it does it once, probably it will do it again.

    I know that it sounds like "Microsoft is the Devil" stuff, but its true, isn't it? (most of it, at least :-P)

    Well, anyway, I don't agree with shipping a JRE with Windows, it's good for us, but still not fair play. The true ones to blame are lame desktop java programmers, and JVM's amazing ability of eat memory.
  45. Just a couple of comments...

    1) I highly doubt that Microsoft either intentionally made Word generate bad HTML or made IE display bad HTML so it would work well with Word. I would think it would be easier to embed a tag called <WORD> if they wanted to do this. In IE, it was probably an aid for bad HTML authors. That's why we always tested all our pages in IE and Netscape -- if you forgot that closing table tag (for instance), the page just wouldn't display in Netscape, and you knew you did something wrong.

    2) Also, Netscape was a master of changing the HTML standards before Microsoft even had a browser. Neither company was especially good at sticking to the standards. Obviously, it would be better if they did.

    Mark
  46. Mark,

    Isn't your <WORD> tag the same as the <OBJECT classid="some UUID"...> tag?

    Everytime I see a show about how Gates robbed his way to the top, it amazes me that he's respected by anyone. He's a brilliant, ammoral thief. If you're in his competitive space, wait for the knife in your back.

    Everytime one of my friends goes to work at MSFT, I cringe.

    -Gary
  47. If there was actually a <WORD> tag, I guess it would be. However, the poster's contention was that Microsoft intentionally designed Word to make broken HTML and, in a coordinated move, intentionally designed IE to read that same broken HTML. This doesn't seem likely to me. For one, there are valid reasons why IE should display broken HTML (it allows for the display of pages which aren't built correctly, instead of just not displaying anything) -- whether it should be "more forgiving" like this or not is an open question, since it also allows for more sloppiness when people are building pages. Also, if you wanted to lock up the market on displaying documents generated by Word, instead of generating broken HTML it seems to make more sense to add a new tag which only your browser can display. Neither vendor was hesitant to add new tags when they felt like it, so I'm not sure why MS would come up with some elaborate plan to break Word-generated HTML "just right" instead. Essentially, I think it's more likely that somebody screwed up and poorly coded the HTML generator than that this was a coordinated effort.

    <WORD> and <OBJECT UUID-here> would both be alike in another way. Both would be/are obvious, non-sneaky ways to flag your HTML as IE-only, and both would be easily removable if you wanted people to view your page in another browser or on another OS. If MS says "hey, you can use this tag, but you need IE on Windows to view the page then", that's not really much of a conspiracy.

    Mark
  48. "...Microsoft intentionally designed Word to make broken HTML and, in a coordinated move, intentionally designed IE to read that same broken HTML. This doesn't seem likely to me."

    Look at it from a different point of view: Normally I test the software I create, hopefully the same with others here... When MS created the Word HTML-export the must have known Netscape wouldn't display it... looking at _why_ it wouldn't display the MS-Word HTML code it seems these things should have been easy to fix, but they weren't. So it may have been by accident, but MS definitely didn't put _any_ resources into making Word HTML displayable by Netscape... I think this can be called "intentionally".

    Messi
  49. Only if the definition of "intentionally" gets replaced with the definition of "carelessly". I guess I can't picture a bunch of coders sitting around, writing an HTML generator that produces crap HTML, and hi-fiving when it finally doesn't display right in Netscape. Why not just use IE-specific tags instead? Why not insert some Javascript that pops up a message box saying "Make Bill happy, download IE now?" It's not like Word is the world leading HTML-generation tool or anything. I guess I just don't think anyone would care enough to spend the hours necessary to intentionally break this. If the question is between a well-coordinated conspiracy and a stupid, careless mistake, I know which one I think is more likely...

    Mark
  50. Mark,

    You're somehow right, I didn't really meant to say I was sure it was intentionally, but how shall I put it... maybe it was "carelessly", yes, but I guess when they discovered it they were not very keen on correcting it, though it would have been easy...
    Why not use an "IE-only" tag? Because then everybody can easily tell that MS intentionally made the Word HTML export "IE only", which would perfectly fit into most peoples picture of MS and probably wouldn't be good for their reputation, not to mention legal issues (or, what Sun, Netscape, ... could make of this fact at the court; maybe; of course I don't think this will on its own directly raise legal issues); But what can you say when the HTML export just has some bugs and well, IE is able to dísplay this malformed HTML;
    Sorry, I'd still say yes, it was "somehow" intentionally, and it was done this way so e.g. Mark Hills thinks it was an "accident".

    kind regards,

    Bernhard
  51. I think we're actually in more agreement here than disagreement. I have no trouble believing that Microsoft found out that Word-generated HTML didn't display in Netscape and didn't really care to fix it. I just have trouble believing that they broke IE and Word in some kind of coordinated effort. Several years ago, with MS and Netscape going back and forth on new tags, style sheet support, scripting, etc., it would have been much easier to just use features specific to IE (other than handling table tags that didn't close and stuff like that) to make it IE only.

    Anyway, since Word-generated HTML, although it looks ugly, now displays fine in Mozilla, that must have been removed from the plan for World Domination(TM) ;)

    Mark
  52. Why is including the JVM such a concern for Microsoft after all these years? They have been doing it for years with their "own" polluted version, which happens to have opened numerous security holes. Is it because the opportunity to pollute is not viable anymore?


    "MS has long been accused of hitting the competition below the belt by bundling Windows Media Player along with their OS since companies like Real Networks make a living out of it" - you

    It's not as simplistic as you put it. Microsoft has used undocumented features of the OS to hinder the competition's progress throughout its history. It has come to fruition many times in the past and will continue to in the furture. They went far as exercising contractual aggreements with VARS, who claimed they had no recourse but agree not to bundle Netscape, Real player, Linux, BEOS, etc.


    "Considering we are discussing this on serverside.com I think this is about the most sensible explanation I have ever come across in a forum laced with zealotry madness."

    What noble temperance. My goodness.

    "If you turn that argument around I wonder why IBM shouldn't complain that it is their JVM that should go with Windows and not Sun's."

    Simple, IBM didn't file the suit therefore IBM shouldn't. And what for? JVMS follow an open spec( i.e. http://java.sun.com/docs/books/vmspec/). It's not Windows.
  53. In Microsoft We Trust[ Go to top ]

    "It's not as simplistic as you put it. Microsoft has used undocumented features of the OS to hinder the competition's progress throughout its history. It has come to fruition many times in the past and will continue to in the furture. "

    'In Microsoft We Trust' documents some of Microsofts behaviour:
    http://reactor-core.org/security/in-microsoft-we-trust.html
  54. Cameron, you are mostly right about this. However, it seems like you are playing a bit at semantics. Indeed it is illegal to both be a monopoly and to abuse that power. It can be one of the most economically damaging crimes out there, with far reaching impacts.

    The laws seek to limit agreements in 4 main areas: collusional trade, contractual agreements between buyer and seller, mergers, and the pursuit and abuse of monopoly power. As you say these are a balance of the public good and economic health. However, they do also make provisions for remedy. These provisions are not to alleviate the monopoly, but to make reparations (sometimes treble damages) to damaged parties.

    You make it sound as antitrust is simply an economic balancing act. However, antitrust violations under Sherman/Clayton/Robinson-Patman are indeed a *felony.*
    There can even be prison sentences for convicted monopolists (up to three years).

    Also, the trust to which you refer is not entirely correct. You're using the dictionary term, but the Sherman et al acts refer to trust in the legal sense which is a name that comes from the type of business incorporation known as a "Trusteeship." Competitors found they could create security through Trusteeships. The trusts (Rockefeller and Morgan and the like) were in a position to control enough of production (which at the time exceeded demand) and to change the production into an *inefficient* manner such that marginal revenue was higher than marginal cost (one of the common economic definitions of efficiency is that marginal revenue be equal to marginal cost). There actions also limited competition and new entrants into markets.

    The Sherman act then made Trusts entirely illegal (which is why that form of incorporation does not exist anymore).

    Microsoft's problems stem more from the Clayton act, which builds upon the Sherman act, making price descrimination, tying, and other activities illegal. These things are only illegal if they "may be substantially to lessen competition" or "tend to create a monopoly."

    -Jason McKerr
    Northwest Alliance for Computational Science and Engineering
  55. I think Cameron's point was that not all monopolies are illegal. The American government supports monopolies in a few cases, usually they go under the category of "natural monopoly." If I remember correct, it's usually water, power, utilities, that sort of thing, that have been deemed natural monopolies in the US.

    Steve
  56. Steve: "I think Cameron's point was that not all monopolies are illegal."

    Generally speaking, the only illegal monopolies are those that are illegally gained or illegally maintained. In other words, being a monopoly is not illegal unless you got there illegally or try to stay there illegally.

    The recent antitrust case against Microsoft did not examine how the monopoly was obtained, but it did find (and hold up on appeal) that (among other things) Microsoft acted illegally to maintain its monopoly position. That is the finding that gives companies, such as Sun, grounds for remedies such as this JVM distribution. The distribution of the JVM has relevant legal precedents going back to railroad trust-busting.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
  57. I thought that one of the problems with that case was that while it was quite clear MS had near-monopoly positions, and that it used illegal practices, it was not proven (at least to Kollar-Kotelly's satisfaction) that MS would not have the monopoly without them. Meaning MS would have almost the same position as it has today w/o acting illegaly.
    But than I wasn't watching the case too closely...
    Regards,
    Vlad
  58. Vlad,

    Also remember to compare Microsoft "illegal practices" with other companies, then you find that almost every company in the world today, monopolies or not (not to speak of Sun, Oracle, IBM), are involved in far more "evil" doings than what Microsoft was convicted for. It is always wise to keep your proportions when everybody shouts and screams.

    "People with that attitude and such language can never be right"

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  59. My rememberance (which could be a bit foggy) is that the court decided that Microsoft acted illegally to maintain a monopoly by undermining the Sun/Netscape idea of using a browser to deliver Java applications, essentially making the client OS irrelevant. However, they also noted that there was no evidence to believe this would have succeeded if Microsoft did nothing to prevent it. So, according to the court, what they did was illegal, but didn't necessarily change anything (note: I'm only talking about this issue, not OEM agreements, etc).

    Mark
  60. Cameron,

    I said nothing about monopolies being illegal. Please do not put words in my mouth.
  61. You didn't use that word. But if you look at the definition of "illegal" and what you did say, you will see that the word does fit.
  62. All right fellas, here is what I said.

    "The anti-trust laws in the U.S. allow the courts to prescribe a remedy to alleviate monopolies."

    Does this sentence use the term "illegal"? Does this sentence infer anything illegal? No it does not.

    As a matter of fact, I was very careful in the wording of the sentence to be as accurate as possible.

    Am I a bonehead for losing my temper and saying derogatory comments towards Tangasol? Yes I am. But it just pisses me off when some people twist the comments of others to make themselves look better.
  63. Race: "Am I a bonehead for losing my temper and saying derogatory comments towards Tangasol? Yes I am. But it just pisses me off when some people twist the comments of others to make themselves look better."

    I was not trying to denigrate your posting. My post was intended only as a clarification of my earlier statement; if it came across otherwise, please accept my apology.

    If you have any criticisms of Tangosol or our Coherence product, I'd appreciate hearing those too. You can email me directly at cpurdy at tangosol.com.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
  64. My apologies, Cameron. I'm a hothead.
  65. Tangasol sucks.
  66. Relevance to the thread[ Go to top ]

    Race

    Your point about Tangasol is ...?

    Cameron didn't put words in your mouth, he expanded on your comments about how/when monopolies could be alleviated through the law.
  67. Relevance to the thread[ Go to top ]

    Geoff,

    English must not be your first language. My point about Tangasol was delivered with the two word sentence above.
  68. Language[ Go to top ]

    Being British, it certainly is ;-) Anyway from your other semi-apologetic posting you interpreted my meaning very well.
  69. Language[ Go to top ]

    :) It seems like I spend too much time apologizing these days.
  70. Relevance to the thread[ Go to top ]

    What Tangasol has to do with the ruling, are they monopoly too?
  71. Relevance to the thread[ Go to top ]

    Sorry Vlad. It looks like I have polluted the forum here. No they are not a monopoly and they have nothing to do with the ruling.

    Doh!
  72. WHOSE distribution advantage?[ Go to top ]

    Okay, I'll be flamed as a MS troll, but I have to say it:

    The alleged lack of distribution of Java in Windows is NOT the reason why Java has failed on the desktop.

    Could someone explain to me why Sun can't blanket the country with CDs containing the JVM, the way AOL can blanket the country with _its_ software? (Sun could include some of those great Java-based desktop apps on the same CD.)

    Could someone explain to me why it's so difficult for an end-user to download the JVM? My daughter had no difficulty in downloading and installing Kazaa or RealPlayer.

    Could you explain to me why it's so difficult for a developer to include the Java VM on the installation CD he sells (or to supply a link to it from the web page which supports downloading the app)?

    In short, WHY is this an appropriate remedy? WHAT ms advantage does this "cancel out"?
  73. WHOSE distribution advantage?[ Go to top ]

    In short, WHY is this an appropriate remedy? WHAT ms advantage does this "cancel out"?


    Are you going to be adversly impacted by this ruling? In what way?

    This is good for Java developers. Maybe, just maybe, it's not fair or perfectly RIGHT or even APPROPRIATE, but it's GOOD for us. Somehow, it's not good for you. Maybe, just maybe, you are not Java programmer.
  74. Not to MY distribution advantage[ Go to top ]

    Are you going to be adversly impacted by this ruling?


    No, but I won't benefit either. I already have several JREs installed.

    > This is good for Java developers.

    But what's the big deal about downloading a JVM? Or including it on the CD?

    Delphi developers would be better off if MS shipped the BDE. All developers would be better off if MS shipped xemacs or CVS or ant. Would any of these actions be appropriate court orders?

    > Maybe, just maybe, you are not Java programmer.

    I have been. I found more jobs in the MS world. I'm not looking to start an argument, simply stating my personal experience.
  75. Not to MY distribution advantage[ Go to top ]

    We are doing some client side Java (basically a single applet that is important to our offerings) and while we have an implementation for JDK1.4, we also recently did an implementation for JDK1.1.8 so it could be seen on the older JVMs, including the one by Microsoft.

    It would be nice to have a single codebase, but the differences are fairly minor. Can't use collections, yadda, yadda, yadda.

    But not having a 1.4 JVM was important enough, and enough of a pain to install for our customers/ourselves that we're trying to lessen the pain. So I'm all for having the 1.4 JVM mandatory.

    Steve
  76. Not to MY distribution advantage[ Go to top ]

    Maybe, just maybe, you are not Java programmer.


    > I have been. I found more jobs in the MS world. I'm not looking to start an argument, simply stating my personal experience.

    I knew it!!! You are not Java developer, that's my point. It's a very competitive (job) market. What's good for Java developer is not always good for VB/.NET/VC++ developer.

    As for MS world, I was there. I didn't like it. Toomany people, lower rates.
  77. Not to MY distribution advantage[ Go to top ]

    I knew it!!! You are not Java developer, that's my point.


    I would not benefit from this ruling; therefore my opinion is irrelevant. Is this your argument?

    > It's a very competitive (job) market.

    Agreed. And a lot of the competition is in Java work, even though MS does not ship a current JVM.

    > What's good for Java developer is not always good for VB/.NET/VC++ developer.

    And vice-versa. So what?
  78. Not to MY distribution advantage[ Go to top ]

    I knew it!!! You are not Java developer, that's my point.


    > I would not benefit from this ruling; therefore my opinion is irrelevant. Is this your argument?

    Not irrelevant, but biased.
  79. WHOSE distribution advantage?[ Go to top ]

    I'm not sure agreeing with a ruling because, even if "it's not fair or perfectly RIGHT or even APPROPRIATE, but it's GOOD for us" is the best way to go. It's harder to argue that the courts shouldn't get involved in the technology sector the next time, and it may not always be in a way that's good for us...

    Mark
  80. WHOSE distribution advantage?[ Go to top ]

    Exactly
  81. WHOSE distribution advantage?[ Go to top ]

    and y do you think that IE won the browser market? do you think that IE is the best browser or the most preferred browser out there? think again....

    people usually dont bother themselves having to go through the hassle of downloading things if they have an existing one in there computers...and i think some runtime components will be(or already) included in the windows OS and this will give the .NET a very big advantage.

    Currently, users are not sure to be able to execute java apps simply because the JVM may not be in there computers
  82. WHOSE distribution advantage?[ Go to top ]

    Mike,

    It's so pathetic. Do you really believe your own writing?

    I think the Java/Unix/Oracle guys have lost the ability to be ashamed. Also they have lost the ability to be embarrassed. On the other hand they have never understood the cricket game anyway.


    "People with that attitude and such language can never be right"


    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  83. WHOSE distribution advantage?[ Go to top ]

    Could someone explain to me why Sun can't blanket the country with CDs containing the JVM, the way AOL can blanket the country with _its_ software? (Sun could include some of those great Java-based desktop apps on the same CD.)


    Because its costly and non-techies won't have any idea what its useful for.

    >Could someone explain to me why it's so difficult for an end-user to download the JVM?

    Try doing it on a dial-up connection and you'll know why.

    >Could you explain to me why it's so difficult for a developer to include the Java VM on the installation CD he sells (or to supply a link to it from the web page which supports downloading the app)?

    I'm sure most server-side application developers are already doing it. See my previous comments about downloading the JVM though.
  84. Having read the .NET forums recently, I have to agree that most of the discussion is about the client side. In fact, you could expect that to happen based on the old developer pool (VB + C++ MFC).

    From this perspective it is interesting that this ruling was in favor of Java. The battle against .NET is on the desktop and not on the server side. And when/if Java is on every (Windows) desktop, client side development becomes more attractive for developers.

    One key argument against Java on the desktop has been that Swing is too slow. That may be true but how fast is .NET with desktop apps? Secondly, with this ruling, I think that Sun will invest more resources to desktop technology. Things will get better.
  85. Tero: "One key argument against Java on the desktop has been that Swing is too slow. That may be true but how fast is .NET with desktop apps? Secondly, with this ruling, I think that Sun will invest more resources to desktop technology. Things will get better."

    Both .NET WinForms and Java Swing applications can be more than suitably performant on most modern hardware for almost all applications.

    It is easier to make WinForms feel more at home in Windows. What I mean is that Java Swing applications take more work to look good (i.e. to look like the latest Windows apps) in the Windows environment, and WinForms apps can seem snappier (repainting etc.). Sun is supposedly doing something about this in 1.4.2, but we'll see.

    OTOH, I've been using Swing-based development tools since JDK 1.1, and back then it was on a Pentium 200 notebook with 128MB RAM, and it was _almost_ always fast enough (i.e. instant). Now with typical client computers starting out around 2GHz/256MB with even better GUI acceleration and improvements to Swing, I never have any complaints except with the worst-written of applications. Keep in mind that most people say "the gui is slow" when they really mean "the application is slow". Swing is more than fast enough to be a non-issue except in very rare situations. Same goes for WinForms.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
  86. Maybe we need to write more GUIs that click fast and do nothing. Yessss. <evil laugh>
  87. Swing is not just slow. It is incredibly painful to develop in compared to .NET or Delphi. And the resulting applications are not just slow they are crippled by an API that just doesn't support many commonly expected things in a GUI. BTW, .NET guis are very fast. Not quite as fast as a native windows app, but many times faster than Java.
  88. Trevor,

    "Swing is not just slow. It is incredibly painful to develop..."
    I'm not sure whether you are referring to the same "Swing" I do, I mean "JFC", the UI framework by Sun, now included in Java... *gg*
    Seriously, Swing is really far away from being slow. It is a bit slower than a native GUI, but really just a bit. It uses somewhat more memory, but that's also not that much more. Okay, Swing Apps need some time to startup.
    I just cannot follow people who say Swing is slow, about two years ago we developed a Swing GUI (Swing was "even slower" at that time, partially because of the JVM, partially because Swing has been optimized quite a bit with 1.4) which really falls into the "complex" category, much more complex than, say JBuilder or Together or ... (not just quite a few components in dialogs etc., a complex grid containing lots of other components); It used 20 MB of RAM (the _whole_ application, including quite some business logic; I won't debate whether this belongs on the server here) and worked without any visiblee "think times"... on 300 MHz PCs!!
    Other examples for fast Swing UIs are IDEA (you can easily try it) and the AIX management tools (they are a _bit_ "sluggish", but not more than native AIX apps on the RS6K E30 I used for development/server testing; that is a 166 MHz PowerPC, so what do you expect? ;-). I also used to mention JBuilder and Together/CC here, but they are now such big monoliths that they are indeed slow, whether this is because of Swing... don't think so, but who could prove...
    In what way Swing is painful to develop compared to .NET or Delphi is beyond me... sure, Delphi and .NET allow quick & dirty "drag & drop" UIs (VB is even known better for this); but beware! Don't try anything complex with them... on the other hand, Swing is the most consistent and most powerful UI framework I've ever seen, and once you know how it works developing with it is a breeze, even the most compley things; And then, if you like drag & drop GUIs (I sometimes do too, for dialogs and prototypes) you can always use JBuilder's UI editor... it makes Swing no VB, sure, you still need to know what you're doing, which is just ok for me ;-)
    Also, in what way "the resulting applications are [...] crippled by an API that just doesn't support many commonly expected things in a GUI." is also beyond me. Could you please give some examples? I found the Swing API to be one of the most powerful UI APIs ever in use. Have a look at... how was it called... codeguru? Don't know whether it still exists, some guys (mainly Nabuo Tamemasa ;-) I remember him, as he is really a Swing guru and solved many of our more complex problems; thanks!) show(ed) what can be accomplished with Swing with just a few lines of code. This was really impressing.

    kind regards,

    Messi
  89. Some of you have a hard time what a evil monopoly can do. So here is a cross post from /.

    http://grotto11.com/blog/slash.html?+1039831658

    This is an example of what MS wishes to do : pervert all standards to give it unfair advantage.
  90. Ah man... I do believe most ppl are not looking at the big picture. As I see it is pure and simple a law issue if you look at what happened.
    1) Microsoft created a very fast VM way back but it was not according to the Java Spec. Sun sues Microsoft and stops the distribution of VM. If they did not the Microsoft VM would probably have become the defacto standard and this would have killed the portability of Java to other platforms. Case won by Sun settled out of court.
    2) A of couple states from america enters law suit against Microsoft. Who wins depends on whose web site you read but Microsoft is found to have been a bully.
    3) Sun, as a victim of the bully, sues Microsoft for damages. The case is still going last time I checked. By bullying the opposition Microsoft is ahead in the market. The Judge decided its time for Sun to catch up a little and issue the injunction while the case is still in court. This levels the field a little.
  91. I honestly can't think of any functionality or technology that Microsoft can rule out of putting in their OS. Consumers just seem to eat it up because they don't realize it's happening. I'm not sure about the details, but I seem to remember hearing (no flames please) that when XP came out, it included digital photo processing capabilities. Windows users say "this is great!" But what about Kodak - the market leader? Microsoft says that you can still install and run Kodak's stuff, no problem. Just keep clicking "No" and "Cancel" every time XP tries to automatically use it's own embedded technology. If they feel it's worth the extra cost, Microsoft will "bundle" anything and everything into it's OS. And since their OS is 95% (or whatever) of the market, they've used their monopolistic position to expand into other areas. I believe the term "robber baron" fits. (When a steel company also owns a railroad, the railroad shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to someone because they bought steel from a competitor.) Also, in many cases, it's illegal to offer proposals "below cost". (Construction companies can't "underbid" each other, lossing money on the project just to get the business.) How does anyone know if Microsoft is doing this when they offer more and more functionality in the OS for not extra charge?

    -Scott
  92. Dude, history is full of the things you describe.
    Not soong ago automobiles did not come with air conditioners, am/fm radios, cd players, etc. To get them you would have to purchase them in the aftermarket. More and more car manufacturers are including theses things (and charging extra for them) off the showroom floor.

    It's natural and good for productivity. Generally speaking, I like it when things I used to have to pay extra for and go through an extra hassle to get are included in the OS, car, whatever.
  93. Imagine 95% of the transmissions in cars are sold by one company, named Microtran. Customers expect that when they buy a car, it will have a Microtran transmission and they wouldn't accept anything else.

    Now, Microtran decides it wants to sell car radios. If Dell Motors or Gateway Autos wants to stick with other radio manufacturers, Microtran refuses to sell them transmissions. They're basically screwed. Then, Microtran starts sending a free car radio with every transmission order. Finally, Microtran figures out a way to make transmissions that sometimes create short-range radio interference - except Microtran radios don't seem to be affected.

    Including radios in cars is natural, as you say. Using unfair business practices to force the automobile maker to include one and only one kind of radio in a car is anything but natural.

    -Scott
  94. Good analogy Scott. Now imagine that 95% of all vibrators are sold by one company, named Microshaft...
  95. TSS should start moderating each and every post. There are too many cross-threads, many of them requiring parental control.
  96. "Using unfair business practices to force the automobile maker to include one and only one kind of radio in a car is anything but natural. "

    That's a whole different argument than the one to which I replied. I don't disagree with it with a very strict and narrow definition of unfair.
    But including goodies with the OS isn't what I would call unfair.
    In fact, most consumers don't know or care to know what is an OS and what is extraneous software bundled in with the OS.
  97. Richard Green thinks that .Net enjoys a distribution edvantage over Java TODAY. Well, he's WRONG-O. .Net doesn't ship with any Windows OS as of the moment. It's an optional install on the Windows XP Service Pack 1. No wonder Sun's stock price is in the dumpster. Scott McNealy should take up boat racing as an outlet for his macho urges.
  98. It's clear how good is the ruling for Java programmers, when you look at how MS folks are worried about it. It means that this ruling is going to impact the situation, otherwise they would ignore it.