| 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 |
 |
Microsoft Ordered to Carry Sun's Java | |
|
||
| Time: 17:17 EST/22:17 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
A federal judge on Monday ordered Microsoft Corp. to distribute the rival Java programming language in its Windows operating system. U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz handed down a preliminary injunction at the request of Sun Microsystems Inc. that will force Microsoft to carry Java. He said Microsoft had "leveraged its PC monopoly to create market conditions in which it is unfairly advantaged." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 163 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:46:14 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 12/23/2002 5:46:36 PM |
|
Damn, I was going to submit this. :)
Reading the pdf... Interesting... |
| #2 By 7711 (68.45.63.108) at 12/23/2002 6:32:26 PM |
| Based on his comments over the past few weeks, should we be surprised? |
| #3 By 10748 (169.3.170.206) at 12/23/2002 6:46:20 PM |
| Screw that .... charge Sun ... Isn't Java dead yet? .... |
| #4 By 1295 (68.12.57.84) at 12/23/2002 7:35:12 PM |
| The question is will MS have to stop providing their JVM or does this mean those who are downloading can choose which one they want? I don't even want java on my machine period anyway... so I'll just have to get rid of it if it installs by default. |
| #5 By 931 (66.180.122.28) at 12/23/2002 8:18:26 PM |
|
I got another question.. wtf
What happen to me as the consumer having a choice in what gets installed.? I mean when I install visual studio 2003 why would I want suns crap installed... more moron judges. |
| #6 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 12/23/2002 8:27:10 PM |
|
I think my primary complaint with the judge's writings is that he makes at least two basic flawed assumptions.
#1. That Sun's strategy of lowest-common denominator feature support is good for consumers. #2. That we have a two-party system. The first point is actually what bothers Microsoft with regards to Java. That being that said platform would become dominant, and in so doing it would negate the features of any particular OS which made it unique. The fear, obviously, is that OS features would only become supported by Java once the other competing OS vendors had implemented them...(namely Sun in Solaris since they control Java). While Microsoft's tactics with Java were perhaps questionable, the other response that they could have done would have also pissed off Sun... that being Microsoft could have ignored Java completely and not included it in IE. Would such avoidance of placed Sun in a worse or better position? Would such avoidance not be considered reasonable given Sun's intent to replace Microsoft Windows? Is a company not allowed to defend the relevance of it's product line? I think that point needs to be addressed specifically. The second point assumes that there are only two competitors in the marketplace, those being Microsoft and Sun and that Sun should be given preferential treatment because they are handicapped. I'm not exactly certain how they've defined this "market", but it appears to be defined in such a way that Java is the primary player, which seems awfully convenient. But there is in fact many different products out there on the market indended for application development both on the web and on the desktop, and it seems clear that each one of those products should then also have the same chance as Sun to succeed in the market, that is if we are to assume the Judge's basic assumption that one needs 100% desktop inclusion to have a fair chance. I'm thinking of everything from Macromedia Flash on through Compuware's Uniface and so forth. |
| #7 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 12/23/2002 9:40:38 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 less compatible 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. |
| #8 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 12/23/2002 10:39:32 PM |
| A huge "LOL" to you, toprice! |
| #9 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/24/2002 1:11:11 AM |
|
#13 - Wait, so the only support for your (wrong) version of history is some random guy posting on Slashdot? How sad.
The FACT is that Microsoft created a JVM that was 100% COMPATIBLE WITH SUN'S JAVA STANDARD BYTE CODE, and ANY application written for that standard would run COMPLETELY AND ENTIRELY on Microsoft's JVM. What Microsoft did was ADD ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONALITY to their JVM which allowed developers who wanted to target Windows specifically to utilize COM and a highly optimized execution environment. Please. Memorize this. I can't stand people CONSTANTLY rehashing the incorrect version in an attempt to show Microsoft in a bad light. Reading the literal words of the contract, Microsoft violated NOTHING. However, using the standard "good faith" style reasoning (ahha... faith and reasoning... hehe... anyway) then Microsoft violated their contract. Anyway, Microsoft will almost certainly win on appeal. |
| #10 By 37 (24.196.75.142) at 12/24/2002 6:38:41 AM |
| a quote from slashdot? ROFL! |
| #11 By 2960 (156.80.64.132) at 12/24/2002 8:13:36 AM |
|
Well now, this aughta be fun to watch :)
TL |
| #12 By 6859 (204.71.100.218) at 12/24/2002 11:06:19 AM |
|
#23, bas,
No, because most of the Slashdotters are morons who couldn't find their ass with a map, guide dog, and a GPS. There are a few of them that are ok, but many don't know crap. You'd be better served quoting Gandalf rather than Slashdot. |
| #13 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 12/24/2002 1:23:34 PM |
| Cthulhu - Sadly that's true. I'm amazed at the number of people posting to slashdot who apparently cannot think for themselves. bas would fit in there well. |
| #14 By 1896 (216.78.253.242) at 12/24/2002 2:59:24 PM |
| I am wondering if this "maximalist" Judge has any idea of how this ruling could affect the economy of this Country. The idea of the Government interfering and deciding what a Company is supposed to do could have unthinkable consequences. I am waiting to see a plethora of badly managed companies trying to have a judge fixing their problems. |
| #15 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 12/24/2002 4:02:06 PM |
|
bas - No, I think he's waging war against Java.
toprice - I think Java2Trash should be multi-platform. That is, it should run under mono and recognize how to delete various Java versions running on Linux. :-) |
| #16 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 12/24/2002 6:09:38 PM |
| #32: What other platforms? According to the courts there are not competing platforms with Windows. :) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 163 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:46:14 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
