| 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 |
 |
Rival: Web Services Need Protection | |
|
||
| Time: 09:57 EST/14:57 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Applications, information and other services delivered over the Internet could threaten Microsoft Corp.'s desktop operating system monopoly and are therefore worthy of antitrust protections, a Sun Microsystems executive says. Many companies, including Microsoft, are rushing to offer Internet services — from instant messaging (news - web sites) programs to entire business software suites — online rather than through stores. Microsoft wants penalties in the company's antitrust case to only cover the consumer desktop market. Nine states want the remedies extended to cell phones, instant messaging and interactive television. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 328 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:15:58 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/9/2002 10:05:27 AM |
|
In other words... Sun didn't see this technology coming, and wants Microsoft to be crippled until they can get Java to catch up.
|
| #2 By 20 (68.53.242.24) at 4/9/2002 10:05:27 AM |
|
Man, they're really digging the bottom of the barrel on this one.
Don't worry Scott, MS has already planned for the inevitable takeover of web services which is why they're pushing .NET so much. They realize, unlike you, that the desktop will become almost completely irrelevant and everyone will consume services anywhere anytime from any software. .NET is there, where is Sun? Last time I checked, there STILL isn't a good web services/SOAP/WSDL implementation for Java. Apache Axis is about the best around and it's STILL in "Alpha". How sad. |
| #3 By 20 (68.53.242.24) at 4/9/2002 10:06:09 AM |
| #1: lol, yep! |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/9/2002 3:03:58 PM |
| Well, judging from the CNET news.com article, it seems like solid evidence and arguments today from Schwartz--discontinuing ActiveX for Mac, charging 3 grand for ActiveX for Solaris; the MSN site lockout earlier this year (even though Opera and Mozilla could render the pages); passport, MSN Explorer... We hear about the speed of the .Net CLR, but how would it run on another platform? How would MS Web Forms be implemented (would they be just as bad as Java GUI tools)? In other posts today, some of you are complaining about MS forcing a migration to subscriptions--well, it's inevitable because their growth is slowing or dependent on new markets--can't you see that MS's lead in web services in predicated on the fact that they can force them on you (even of they are desirable...) or in some cases undesirable or completely pointless for most consumers. |
| #5 By 135 (209.46.107.141) at 4/9/2002 3:39:54 PM |
|
Ahh, judging from sodajerk's response he is trying to confuse the issue just like the guys from Sun.
hint: The purpose of using a standard like SOAP is to improve cross platform communications which eliminates the issues you speak of. Why is Sun so against this? Why does Sun want to lock you into proprietary Java only solutions? |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/9/2002 4:26:22 PM |
| soda, who's trying to confuse the issue? I didn't say anything about SOAP--as far as I know, no one opposes SOAP. Everyone is working with SOAP. I mentioned MSN and MS Web Forms. Considering Web Forms are exclusively MS technology, I don't see how a .Net application is going to be built with an MS GUI across platforms. Nobody bothers to explain that one--never mind the fact that we haven't really seen any of this stuff on a platform besides MS's. |
| #7 By 135 (209.46.107.141) at 4/9/2002 5:11:46 PM |
|
jerk, Web Forms is cross platform on the client. It's only tied to MS at the server side. Is that wrong? I don't see why, it's no different than how Cold Fusion, JSP, etc. are tied to their server side products.
|
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/9/2002 5:56:19 PM |
| Server-side dependecies are fine, standard fare--but not exactly cross-platform are they? If I can't develop a .Net app with a gui for another platform, then it's not exactly the dream they say it is... But we still get to hear softies say how SWING sucks and Web Forms are great... well, there's a reason--they only work on Windows. |
| #9 By 1845 (12.254.230.230) at 4/9/2002 6:09:14 PM |
| Jerk, that still has nothing to do with web services. Web forms != web services. |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/9/2002 7:15:03 PM |
|
I pick a small example of how .Net is not cross platform and people go crazy. Yes, MS has some form of a plan to port .Net to other platforms, but what are they exactly... They couldn't convince Apple to port it to Mac, they couldn't get their own MacBU to do it (they don't want to even implement features of .Net in Mac apps!)... so they PAID possibly the worst developer of software in the world to piece together something for BSD--it's still in its infancy... we don't really know how it runs on BSD nevermind how it will run on MacOS... Mono is a failure waiting to happen--either MS will start shifting .Net code on Mono, or Mono will have to use some GPL code... whatever, but I think it's ironic that Linux is where .Net would be most successful... and these are just theories--I'd like to see them succeed, but as far as I can see, .Net is far, far away from being cross-platform. And I'm especially curious about what the performance and feature set will be of these implementations.
#21 I'm fully aware that Web Forms are client-side neutral--I'm also aware that they are using Window Server resources on the backend to generate the GUI (which is my issue and problem) and that SWING does so by creating platform independent graphic widgets on the client--hence the drawback, but it's still an issue that MS hasn't faced... Having an open spec doesn't create a cross platform platform; it simply means it's theoretically possible--but since it really wasn't designed to perform platform neutrally, I doubt that it will ever become truly "cross" -platform. I totally agree with Schwartz that a quote-unquote "web service" is a much broader category than MS, yes, 100%. FTP is certainly a web service, why wouldn't it be? People have been building web services for years, XML has been around for a few years, SOAP has been around for a couple--the idea that "web services" is specifically "a next-generation, server-based application" is ridiculous--the only thing next generation about them is what Schwartz was trying to say--a web service is platform agnostic, new services coming down the line will exchange data without too much engineering of both ends of the data relationship, but in order to do so, and to be a "web"-related (remember that thing that TBL invented to be completely platform agnostic) service it should be platform agnostic even on the server end. I don't think that means MS can't use the term--I simply think it means that they are trying to coopt the term, to give it its own meaning, and to dominate this newly developing market. |
| #11 By 135 (209.46.107.141) at 4/9/2002 7:54:46 PM |
|
sodajerk - No claim has been made that .Net executes cross platform. The claim is that it is cross platform interoperable, that is you can consume a .Net web service running on IIS from an app of some sort running on an IBM mainframe. Similarly you can render Web pages using ASP.NET and consume them with a web browser running on a Macintosh.
So to attack .Net for something it never claimed to do is a strawman argument and is irrelevant to the discussion. It is only important in the context of my world that we are seeing a fundamental shift of how one develops applications for the Windows platform. If this fundamental shift also occurs on other platforms, all the better, but who cares? As far as Sun's claim that ftp is a web service and your agreeing to that, again it shows a lack of understanding of what is really being discussed here. ftp is most certainly an internet service, as is WWW, gopher, telnet and many other things. But web services describe something more specific(an RPC, DCOM, CORBA like interop standard over http), and the point is that Sun clearly doesn't understand why they are signifigant since they do not understand. |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/9/2002 7:56:41 PM |
|
#26, Schwartz was making two arguments--services are broader than how MS defines them and also, more specifically, they should be platform agnostic. THat's pretty simple and clear. Do you think that B2B data exchange now is NOT a web service? Messaging, alerts--NOT a web service? Most services won't require SOAP depending on what devices are being communicated with---does that mean it's not a web service? UDDI is one of those things that receives little attention as well--how important is UDDI and is it really going to be significant? Many companies are building web services without UDDI so I definitely don't know that web services are necessarily that...
No, just because MS can generate a lot of press and fury doesn't mean that their .Net implementation of standards already established is specifically what is meant by web services. Web services have already been evolving for several years and will continue to do so beyond the ever-vague, ever-evolving ".Net"--so I don't see why anyone would agree with MS's definition. |
| #13 By 4209 (64.78.96.11) at 4/9/2002 8:24:57 PM |
| Why does it need to be cross platform. MS can design anything they want to and make it only run on there Servers. Linux does the same thing and so does Mac. Do you see Mac OS anything running on anything other than a Mac there SodaJerk. What diference does it make as long as all clients can access it. And if they can't then that is MS's loss. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/9/2002 8:36:35 PM |
|
kill, you've got to be kidding--they didn't coin the phrase web service, they were NOT nearly the only developer of XML. I see XML all over the freakin place, kill--I don't have to look at .Net--my year old Mac OS X is, I would estimate, about 80% compromised of XML configuration files. I can't say that for dll hell. Most work being done with XML is being performed within niches to develop their own scema vocabulary. MS has already failed a couple of times to promote their schema over other schema--the financial one, I can 't remember their name, is losing to the schema developed by Oracle, the NASD, the SEC, and several other financial institutions. I wonder why? No one owns or is the largest contributor to XML, because XML is Xtensible (Get it) for a reason: to accomodate all sorts of vocabs MS doesn't know crap about. Ultimately, much of XML won't necessarily involve technological data structures...
And I know the article you point to; I can point you to another article that says even the guys at MS coding for the Mac don't won't to implement .Net features. I'm sure MS will pull some of it over to the Mac--they have to, Apple is MS's perpetual defense, but I find it more significant that their own employees either don't like it, or realize that their consumers won't like it. Hell, MS hasn't made any announcement yet, for all I know, Steve (The real one) will be on stage with Bill and Apple will help MS port .Net for all I know... But it's also just as likely that Apple will buy Gobe and say screw Office too. MS wanting to bring .Net to the Mac is nothing without any results, without any real substance. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 at 21:08. |
| #15 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/9/2002 8:37:22 PM |
|
Soda, I'm aware that MS doesn't specifically claim that--but that was the intention by opening the spec, right? They do say that it is cross platform also, certainly. A lot of crap gets thrown around about .Net--I'm sure quite a lot of people completely miss the "for consumption" part. Your world is transformed by an environment that's multi-language, great. It's not multi-platform, which is fine for a platform that believes it's the only platform--Don't you see how this does start to get to Sun's point: it's "cross platform" but you can only develop and deploy it on windows, and in fact, it'll run better and have more features on the client too. Baloney--that's not cross platform. And this argument is made frequently enough without the qualifiers, disclaimers, and small print--nevermind that it is discussed so vaguely that any precision is lost in the piles of crap and PR. I certainly hear from plenty of people here--that when I say it's not cross platform, their response: "It's an ECMA open standard." So what? Apparently, alot of people can be confused easily so it is an important point. And if "web services" are XML, SOAP, WDSL, and UDDI then why do we need .Net for web services... These are all open standards: did you ever consider that your world is about to be transformed specifically because MS can achieve this goal if it disregards all other platforms (I'm telling you--cellphones are key and some of their stuff is coming together, but they will still get killed in this category) and only focuses on its own. And that it's own community is 95% of the community so those who didn't already know about "web services" can be thrown into and "upgraded" to .Net even though I would say 60% of the computer tasks I perform don't need or benefit from "web services," and I am an extremely webcentric kind of guy.
If web services are "interop standards" why is XML part of web services--XML is a data descriptor language. Is C#, J#, .Net server, Web Forms, the CLR, etc.. a vital part of MS's web services? Funny, none of those things are interop standards. Hmmm. Is RDF a part of MS's web services? No, why not, it's the W3C's standard for semantic information exchange... Hmmm... No, Schwartz knows exactly what he is talking about when he says that, in fact, ftp is as much a web service as many of these newer developments--can I transfer files of any file type to a file store of any platform via the internet with ftp, certainly, and that sounds like the type of services we use the web for and it provides. And MS's definition only serves its purposes--another reason why I am discussing platform neutrality because I am at least certain of one thing, that "web" services should preserve the basic values and characteristics of the web. |
| #16 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/9/2002 8:44:10 PM |
|
Not to sound dismissive, but I really have no interest in arguing about development topics with you sodajerk only because I do not have the time or inclination to be your teacher.
My recommendation is for you to start to learn how to use google.com to do some research before engaging your fingers in typing up this nonsense. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/9/2002 8:59:11 PM |
| Ahh, yes, that's the soda I'm used to... starts an argument ("Ahh, judging from sodajerk's response he is trying to confuse the issue just like the guys from Sun.") but he can't finish it. Tries to claim better reasons, but don't worry, I don't care, that you can't refute my points. Have a good day, run away. |
| #18 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/9/2002 9:44:29 PM |
|
Anon, I'm not an idiot--I don't think ftp represents what we are deeming "web services" today; I do think we are talking about a phrase that is being defined for a court of law, and that it shouldn't be Microsoft's definition, particularly when someone like Allchin refuses to state he understands the meaning and use of the word "module," but then precedes to further split meanings by saying a "component" is differnet than a "module." Am I fuly aware of the context and reasons for everything that was said in court today--No, but I think you are more stupid to say Sun and Schwartz are stupid for saying ftp is a web service and that's that. Try to have a more nuanced understanding of what people are saying for christsake.
Again, you are assuming crap I didn't propose to suggest... you are only talking about data, but MS is talking about alerts, my services, running applications, clientside implimentations of this data that I entirely expect to be cross platform (the data that is), I take that for granted. If I was at home, I could be using Watson--I've already got web services at home that can gobble up all sorts of data from all sorts of sources--that doesn't mean Watson will run on your PC. I don't think XML is only to describe data, only in so much as methods, objects, etc are data. This isn't the interoperation of disparate data though, it's the elucidation of descriptions that when used with OTHER protocols, services, etc. that creates an interoperable component model. I don't get your last point at all. Is it a point? I've been saying all along that XML, SOAP, WSDL, UDDI are what's important, that MS has no ownership or proven expertise beyond anyone else with these standards. My whole point is: it comes down to the platform implementation of these standards, and that MS's implementation will get them in trouble because it is designed to only work on Windows, is designed to extend windows dominance, and is predicated on that existing dominance in order to have any chance of success. |
| #19 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/9/2002 9:58:23 PM |
|
#37, even accepting its inanity, I cannot follow the logic jumps made in a single clause of your post so I won' point out the complete lack of a connection between 1990's TCP/IP and this situation now... Or your stupid FUD point ... or your point about WS-I... What does it mean?
To set an analogy: Microsoft is spending all its timing in court trying to say: these remedies are wrong because they come from people we don't like. Big freaking deal, even if you prove that, you haven't PROVEN anything. PROVE to me that these alternative remedies are BAD, are WRONG and then you've proven something. Until then, I don't care who or where or when it comes from, as long as it's not the wrong thing. (Do you get it? No? Well, I couldn't expect that.) |
| #20 By 20 (68.53.242.24) at 4/9/2002 10:56:50 PM |
|
Just to set a few people straight:
- The only MS/Windows-specific stuff in the .NET core library are those assemblies prefixed with "Microsoft" and "Microsoft.Win32". Everything else (yes, Web Forms, yes Web Services, yes Window Forms, yes sockets, yes Database) can and is being implemented on other platforms (one other possible exception might be System.Data.OleDb, but possibly not). - Microsoft all but created and implemented the concept, design, and framework for Web Services. Microsoft sits on the standards boards for XML, XML Schema, SOAP, WSDL, and about a billion other XML-related standards. Hell, I think Microsoft was the originator, innovator, and sole producer of the XML schema spec. It has since been added to and enhanced by IBM and others (to the benefit of all, including Microsoft). Microsoft and IBM created WSDL (formerly DISCO and something else). Saying that MS is somehow going to take over Web Services and make it proprietary is not only completely moronic, I would seriously question the motives of anyone who suggested such a notion. MS has gone beyond the call of duty to make Web Services completely standard and by the book, and to date has the most complete implementation of the aforementioned standards. IBM probably comes a close second with Sun not anyone on the radar. Perhaps if Sun were anywhere within 200 miles of any of these specs, I might take their claim a little more seriously. |
| #21 By 20 (68.53.242.24) at 4/9/2002 11:04:06 PM |
|
It is completely obvious now, after having read the article more thoroughly, that Sun is completely devoid of innovative thought and competition in the marketplace.
The better part of valor, the humble route, would be to completely ignore Microsoft and claim that Sun will prevail against any competitor big or small. Sun will continue to innovate and bring more value to customers in many ways. Then, you'd list the ways. The problem with Scott and consequently Sun is, they have no list. They have no list of innovations. They've missed so many bandwagons, it's not silly. They are about 6 technologies behind the curve and falling rapidly. The only recourse they have no is to attack Microsoft at every turn and accuse crimes where there are none to keep everyone's eye on Microsoft and not Sun's lack of... well, anything. |
| #22 By 3339 (64.175.43.69) at 4/9/2002 11:10:10 PM |
|
daz, XML was developed in 1996 as a natural extension of SGML which had been around for over a decade. The working group was compromised of 60 members, two of whom were from Microsoft. We all should know that XML-RPC/SOAP is one of the few service specs that can largely be attributed to one person, Dave Winer; I don't see why MS should get the credit for throwing money at him, when even Dave can't explain why he ever worked for MS. UDDI is almost exclusively the work of Ariba. Peruse w3c and you'll see that webMethods has contributed as much if not more to web services specs than Microsoft, never mind small open projects like Jabber, CommerceOne, Ariba, Fujtsu, IBM, Oracle, Daimler Chrysler, DevelopMentor, HP, Lotus, IONA, and on and on and on... NICE TRY, but weak, but I guess I can't blame you for listening to the crap that MS spews your way though. Oh wait, you should know better. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 at 23:35. |
| #23 By 3339 (64.175.43.69) at 4/9/2002 11:23:42 PM |
|
kill, let's count the ways that that is weak:
1. that's only one remedy proposal of many 2. that remedy proposal no longer even exists 3. trying to argue that MS never did anything to hurt consumers is irrelevent--it doesn't show how these remedies cripple MS, or impair the marketplace or consumer choice; the court has already decided what MS is guilty of... 5. the Court has said the point is: it's impossible to evaluate the possible "futures" which could have resulted if MS wasn't a monopoly and that it is impossible to determine the harm caused to consumers and the marketplace (a very typical result in monopoly cases). 4. the idea that forcing MS to do some work and correct their illegal actions is harmful is ridiculous; they must face the burden of their own actions 5. a modular windows with full capabilities to install/reinstall would in no way be inherently more unreliable than the product already is 6. the millions of 3rd party software application providers ARE Microsoft's competitors (in their eyes) This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 at 23:51. |
| #24 By 20 (68.53.242.24) at 4/10/2002 12:28:36 AM |
|
sodajerk: You read as well as you reason.
First, I never said that MS invented XML, nor did I say they are solely responsible for it. I merely said that MS has played a huge role in the development of XML-related technologies including Web services and everything around it. Don't take my word for it, go to the W3C and look for yourself. Look at the names/companies on the top of the XML standards, XML Schema, WSDL, SOAP, and many of the other standards there. I never said anything about UDDI, however, MS (among many others) have contributed to it significantly in the past. Creation and contribution are two things. MS may not have created all the technologies, but they have had a strong hand in advancing almost all of them. There's no MS FUD to be had. Simply look at the specs and look at the names and companies of the contributors. Facts, sodajerk, facts. You should try them, they might help you embarass yourself less. Oh and a modular windows with piecemeal on/off switches would so ruin Windows. Windows XP is a fine piece of software with no stability problems that I've ever seen or heard. Many of the features in Windows XP use IE in the background. IE, or rather the renderer in IE (which accounts for 99.9999% of IE's functionality) is used in just about every feature in Windows XP. Open My Computer and see the drives segmented according to type and the function bars on the left? All HTML rendered using IE's renderer. Not to mention media player which is integrated in many different places. Forcing Microsoft to un-integrate those things would not only ruin most of the features in Windows XP, it WOULD lead to great instability -- something MS has spent many millions of dollars on perfecting in Windows XP. |
| #25 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/10/2002 12:47:45 AM |
|
sodajerk - Ahh, you misunderstand once again. I do not run away from arguments. I simply have the maturity to realize when the horse is dead.
Your lack of understanding of Microsoft, Windows, and numerous other things in the tech world is without peer. As numerous others here keep pointing out, you do not know what you are talking about and it is quite clear to those of us with a miniscule of knowledge. Christ, I play a better devil's advocate position than you because I'll research a bit about a topic before spouting off. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 328 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:15:58 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
