| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Will judge put Java in Windows? | |
|
||
| Time: 08:39 EST/13:39 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Sun Microsystems told a federal judge on Tuesday that its Java programming language had been so harmed by Microsoft that it must be included with every copy of Windows XP. During the first day of an antitrust hearing that likely will last all week, U.S. District Judge Frederick Motz gave mixed signals about what he was thinking, saying that Sun's suggestion was "attractive" but could be unduly self-serving. Bundling a Java interpreter with Windows XP, Motz said, would be a "wonderfully elegant and simple, although dramatic" remedy that could be better than turning the solution over to a clutch of economists from each side. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 318 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:58:05 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 12/4/2002 10:17:09 AM |
| the outcome of this case will have zero affect in the long-term. java is dead on the desktop. the body is cold. |
| #2 By 860 (207.111.170.131) at 12/4/2002 10:26:45 AM |
|
When MS pulled their JVM off the website and I was forced to install Sun's Java environment for IE... I remember that causing nothing but angry responses and confusion from people who needed Java in their web pages to see pretty scrolling text. Also during that process, I noticed that Sun's Java is plainly MUCH slower than Microsoft's. Who knows why? No matter... it was much slower and it just plainly sucked. I much preferred MS's implementation. However, if I had my way, Java would just go away... but so would Sun.
As for Lindows... nice alternative, albeit expensive for something that is probably overcharging people. But I like Linux, it just rarely works. They need to get it together though... the Palladium stuff and "requiring new hardware" to run on Longhorn is an absolute death warrant for Microsoft. I have people buying desktops this year to run WindowsXP - and they're replacing machines that are about 3 years old. They're certainly not going to be interested in another operating system that REQUIRES new hardware just so you can listen to MP3's! Watch out MS, there's a big mistake looming there. |
| #3 By 143 (207.223.68.86) at 12/4/2002 11:02:20 AM |
|
All that money spent on lawyers just for a plug-in.
|
| #4 By 9156 (192.55.140.2) at 12/4/2002 11:06:20 AM |
|
This is just flat out stupid on Suns part. First its that they (MS) are including too much of there own software in the OS and they should allow people to make there own choice in what Java runtime they want to use...so MS takes it out, there is the choice...now Sun doesnt want people to have the choice, and force the Sun JRE to everyone...inside Microsofts OS/Browser...is not obvius the only thing they are wanting is to use MS is the horse to ride.
(Bring out your dead...Bring out your dead...oh (Sun) give it up...just climb on the wagon already!) |
| #5 By 531 (199.36.37.55) at 12/4/2002 1:28:21 PM |
|
#9:
... and Sun has no right to modify Microsoft's code, legally or otherwise. |
| #6 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 12/4/2002 1:46:55 PM |
|
I wish MS could just roll over and let Sun have it's way. That way, when Java dies, it's completely on merits and Sun will have no leg to stand on and complain that MS did something underhanded.
Sun will have had more opportunity than almost any other software company and still couldn't pull it off and there's no one else to blame. However, MS can't do it because it will open the door to every other mom & pop software company that wants distribution with Windows(tm). |
| #7 By 1643 (205.240.158.3) at 12/4/2002 1:56:58 PM |
|
Financialwiz, stop LYING. MS had every right to distribute a JAVA client...and it wasn't incompatible...do you not understand this or are you trying to deceive people?
Stick with the facts. "This dispute arises out of Sun’s claim that Microsoft’s products do not meet certain obligations under the parties’ 1996 Technology Licensing and Distribution Agreement, E.R. 217-43 (hereinafter "TLDA"), by which Sun licensed to Microsoft its JAVA™ Technology. The TLDA includes a broad license for Microsoft to: Make, use, import, reproduce, license, rent, lease, offer to sell, sell or otherwise distribute to end users as part of a Product or an upgrade to a Product, the Technology and Derivative Works thereof in binary form. Sun alleges that Microsoft breached compatibility obligations that are found in other provisions of the TLDA. The district court treated the case as one for copyright infringement, rather than breach of contract. Under the copyright infringement preliminary injunction standard, the district court enjoined Microsoft’s distribution of thousands of Microsoft’s present and future products without requiring Sun to demonstrate irreparable harm and based on an express discounting of the harm to Microsoft. Microsoft appeals the district court’s preliminary injunction order." Hmm, sounds like that was a Derivative Work to me…but SUN didn’t like it so it sued and MS settled because it didn’t want to waste its time with a technology it was going to trounce in the future. So, stop with your mantra that MS modified or fragmented JAVA. They added functionality, not diminished it...and they also didn't force SUN to make any changes on their part. What it gave was choice, not constraints, because anything written in "100% Sun compatible JAVA" it would work just as well in the MSVM and quite a bit faster. But it also allows DEVELOPERS, not MS, make the choice if they wanted to use the extended features (and sun didn't like that there arch-rival innovated beyond them)...and then sun whines and sues. humor |
| #8 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 12/4/2002 3:40:48 PM |
|
Hell, lets face it... the only time an average computer user ever saw client-side java was with scrolling text and online games. Other than that... it in no way affected (let alone IMPROVED) their computing experience.
Client-side Java has always been 99% hype, and 1% useful. And on the subject of who killed Java... SUN killed Java. The culmination of misteps (silly court battles, 7-second loading through Netscape, and pulling Java from the standards groups) all have one thing in common... they were all the SUN's fault. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Wednesday, December 04, 2002 at 15:41. |
| #9 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/4/2002 8:13:19 PM |
|
Just a few statements.
Microsoft was not required to ship some previous version of their VM which was Java compatible. They still ship the same VM they shipped years ago. It is just as compatible or not compatible as it ever was. There never has been a VM from Microsoft any more compatible or than the current one. Microsoft's Java tools (Visual J++) never prevented a developer from compiling pure Java source code to pure Java byte code. In other words, J++ allowed you to write fully Sun compliant pure Java applications. Microsoft's VM is fully Java compatible with the exception of JNI (Java Native Interface) and the Java RPC (I think it was called RMI). Rather than JNI to access non Java libraries (usually the libraries JNI allows access to are native OS libraries), Microsoft provided J/Direct to access OS libraries. Further, J/Direct allowed OS and similar libraries (in other words COM based apps) to call into Java libraries. In place of RMI, Microsoft opted for DCOM which the OS already supported. I think I have those facts correct. Can anybody dispute them? Just seems that if we are going to argue about breech of contract and so forth, we should agree on a common set of facts first. I posted this yesterday, but FW, seems to have missed it. FW, I'm curious, are you a programmer? Do you understand what you are talking about? I'm not asking to attack you, I'm asking to find out if you are repeating FUD attacks? Your posts read like a pro Sun news article, but it has many factual holes, not the least of which is Microsoft modifying any Sun source code. |
| #10 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/4/2002 10:37:55 PM |
|
#9 - "Me thinks it is not MS's place to distribute modified Java code without Sun's consent unless I am missing something, regardless of which you think is better."
Well, actually, part of the contract Microsoft signed when they began developing their JVM stated that they could not release a JVM that was not fully compliant with Sun's Java specs. And, in fact, that's exactly what they did. I challenge anybody to find me a single program written for a JVM other than Microsoft's that does not run on MS's JVM. They don't exist. Microsoft's JVM could run EVERY program written to the Java spec. Sun got pissed off because Microsoft used a very stupid loophole in Sun's agreement to add additional functionality to Sun's Java spec. Specifically, Microsoft added support for COM, and countless libraries that could be used while writing a Java app. It was entirely possible (and quite common) for a developer to build their Java app in J++, and run it anywhere... as advertised. But what made MS's JVM attractive to Windows developers was the COM interop, which was also used quite a bit... I used it quite a bit, for that matter. Sun saw that Java applications were being written by Windows developers to take advantage of what Windows had to offer, and got scared that they would take over, thereby killing the write once, run everywhere ideal. (In fact, they did for quite a while.) Really, what Sun wanted to do was force Java developers to write programs that could run on OS's other than Windows. They don't want to let the developer decide if they need portability... instead, they write license agreements preventing anything else. |
| #11 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/4/2002 10:38:40 PM |
| Opps... sorry BobSmith, I hadn't read your post when I posted mine... I see you covered most of my points. Stop being so fast. :-) |
| #12 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/5/2002 3:13:06 AM |
| Fast? Your post was two hours after mine. :-) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 318 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:58:05 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
