A federal judge on Wednesday ordered Microsoft to begin shipping Sun Microsystems’ Java with the Windows operating system within 120 days, after the companies fought over implementing a ruling he made last month.
Microsoft Told to Ship Java in 120 Days
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
49 Comments
2003-01-16 3:56 pm
Anonymous
Mutiny: If Java gets more accepted, the OS matters less and less.
And why it isn’t the same for C#. Plus, not to mention that C# is under a recognized standards body, while Java under some crap org named JCP.
Because C# is a Java clone with not so important improvements. Standards my ass. They basically will not stop MS to change some parts of .NET in their next release. Apart from that, only C# is under standards body. Very important parts of .NET, such as WinForms, ADO.NET, Enterprise Services Framework are not. Who would trust Microsoft after seing the things they did for years? Noone is apart from Miguel, and even he admits Mono will never be 100 percent .NET compatible. Thus, cross platform compatibility of .NET is a big air baloon.
Mutiny: Java gets more use, Java gets faster
In the past two years, have Java increase in speed phenomenonly?
Yes. Especially with Java 1.4.1’s optimizations and two new garbage collection mechanisms, it works nearly twice faster.
Mutiny: apps work on more OS’s/CPU’s
I doubt this would happen. Most ISVs wouldn’t use something like Java mainly for cross platform compatiblity. They would only use Java if it fits their business case (like faster development or more speed or something like that).
You are wrong. I can show you many counter examples.
Besides, the applications are the beacon of one’s OS capabilities. Take the Mac for example. If it cost around the same as a PC, would I buy it if it only runs Java apps? Unlikely, benefits of Macs would be lost (like their user interface).
There are things called native compiler. For instance, excelsior Jet compiles Java code into Windows executable, and GNU’s GCJ to Linux etc. Both are even able to deal with new GUI framework SWT developed by IBM. So, what are you talking about? Besides, Java is one of the main programming languages of MacOSX. MacOSX contains a basic IDE with build in Java help. Java 1.4 is about to be released for Mac OSX. Apple even created special HW acceleration bindings for Swing based programs.
CrackedButter: What people fail to realise here is that MS had an agreement with Sun to ship JVM with it (windows), then they created their own version which was incompatible with the official version.
Actually, it is compatible with Sun’s standard except in the area of JNI, which doesn’t do its job well in the first place. Why? Microsoft created something better than JNI that does the job much better.
What it means if that applications written to be cross platform would run without a hitch, but applications accessing Win32 with JNI wouldn’t run. But there isn’t any Java apps that uses JNI on Windows then that I know of.
JNI works very well. I had many successful projects with it. And, you fail to consider that it doesn’t matter if MS made something better than JNI. If you do not include JNI, you loose WORA, the most important property of Java.
Now most people (average joe) don’t care what version they run when running a business, banks and the like.
Yes, the CEOs, shareholders, executives, etc. don’t care. Why? It is the sysadmin’s job, if they don’t install a piece of software needed to run a application, it is their fault.
And believe me, if they can be considered a average joe, they shouldn’t be in that business in the first place.
CrackedButter: Some people who did banking online were actuallly forced to get the MS JVM because their Sun version was incompatible…
Blame the banks for using Microsoft extensions instead of the standard Java. Microsoft only provided those extensions for Java developers that want to target the Windows market. Why would they want to do that? Using java means fast porting, if it isn’t standard cross-platform WORA Java.
Besides, is it Microsoft’s fault or Sun’s fault that Sun has no mindshare in the UK? I’d say Sun, their PR machinery in the UK may have not be very effective. In Malaysia, the situation is the same, but I can see why – Microsoft Malaysia advertise more effectively to the Malaysian market while Sun doesn’t do such a good job. This is ironic because Sun have been advertising more using more expensive medium than Microsoft.
Rajan, MS is loosing. Can’t you see the signs? Look, god had given you a brain. Please use it. God had given you eyes. Please open them and look around.
2003-01-16 4:27 pm
2003-01-16 4:38 pm
2003-01-16 4:43 pm
Anonymous
It might be useful to consider why Sun filed a complaint (in 1997) that refers to “breach of contract”. Surely the capitalists among you must appreciate that when a company breaks its contract, this is a punishable offense. As to whether the punishment is appropriate, let’s see… Microsoft does not meet their contractual obligations to provide standard Java on Win32; Sun has a Java implementation that does run on Win32… so the court forces Microsoft to satisfy their obligation by providing Sun’s Java.
Doesn’t seem unfair to me.
Anyway, here’s a few excerpts from the (amended) 1997 complaint.
72. Publicly, Microsoft advises developers that SDKJ is a “superset of the JDK, meaning it is fully compatible with the JDK and provides functionality above and beyond what is offered by JDK.” According to defendant Microsoft, “[t]he JAVA applications created with the SDKJ will run on any platform.” Defendant Microsoft’s statements are false.
73. In fact, SDKJ has both added and deleted elements of Sun’s JDK 1.1, and fails to contain or support critical portions of Sun’s JDK 1.1 upgrade to the JAVATM Technology. In particular, Microsoft has altered and modified Sun’s set of JAVA APIs contained in JDK 1.1 by deleting the JNI. It also has eliminated the package of supplemental class libraries called “Remote Method Invocation” (“RMI” ), and has not otherwise made RMI separately available through alternative channels of distribution as required by the TLD Agreement.
…
76. In addition to the deletions to JDK 1.1 made by defendant Microsoft in SDKJ, Microsoft has also successively introduced various modifications and additions to the JAVA API for Sun’s JAVATM Class Libraries, many of which were and are to this day falsely and unlawfully included by Microsoft as “java.” methods and “java.” fields within the “java.” packages and “java.” classes of the class libraries provided in SDKJ. In particular, defendant Microsoft has deceptively modified the “java.” APIs of its SDKJ class libraries in a manner that will cause programs written by developers using such additions to fail to run on any systems platform other than Microsoft’s Win32-based systems. By deceptively adding Win32-specific and other APIs to the SDKJ class libraries, while unlawfully acting to disguise such API changes and additions as “java.” methods and “java.” fields within “java.” packages and “java.” classes, defendant Microsoft has acted to induce independent software developers who use SDKJ to unwittingly write programs using the modified SDKJ “java.” APIs expecting to achieve cross-platform functionality, but which in fact will fail to run on any systems platform or browser other than products, such as Microsoft’s Win32 version of Internet Explorer 4.0, that implement Microsoft’s unlawfully modified “java.” class libraries.
from http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/complaint.html
2003-01-16 5:07 pm
Anonymous
It might be useful to consider why Sun filed a complaint (in 1997) that refers to “breach of contract”. Surely the capitalists among you must appreciate that when a company breaks its contract, this is a punishable offense. As to whether the punishment is appropriate, let’s see… Microsoft does not meet their contractual obligations to provide standard Java on Win32; Sun has a Java implementation that does run on Win32… so the court forces Microsoft to satisfy their obligation by providing Sun’s Java.
You might want to refer to two more things, as well:
1) The complaint filed in 1997 was settled between Microsoft and Sun for a sum of money (paid by MS to Sun) and the contingency that MS may no longer develop a JVM except to plug holes in their existing JVM. This is why MS’ JVM is so far behind Sun’s in terms of version numbers and features today, and why MS no longer ships a JVM with Windows (there was no contingency in the agreement that MS had to ship a JVM, Sun apparently assumed that MS would ship Sun’s if they were not permitted to ship their own, whereas MS saw the reality that states they don’t have to ship a JVM with the OS at all, because those that care can download it).
2) This suit is a different filing, reflecting the various rulings in the DoJ + states vs. MS antitrust case (and appeals). Sun is basically using the federal antitrust case as a basis to close the holes they left in their earlier settlement, and possibly as a way to get more money out of MS.
This is an antitrust case, not a suit for breach of contract (since they settled that case, they can’t appeal or even claim that MS had been found guilty of breaching that contract, except to whatever extent the settlement places responsibility on MS).
2003-01-16 5:50 pm
Anonymous
>>>>”In that case, Sun should also sue Apple, IBM, etc. because the Java they are shipping is not all that standard, but with extensions. ”
<<<<Those companies are not convicted monopolists, such as Microsoft.
A lot of companies are not convicted because they negotiated a settlement with the government, which always include the statement that deny any wrongdoing. So are they all saints because they settled with the government.
2003-01-16 5:56 pm
Anonymous
“They shouldn’t be forced to support software they didn’t write.”
There are products shipped with Windows that MS didn’t write and doesn’t support. I don’t see why this is rally any different.
2003-01-16 6:03 pm
Anonymous
“The complaint filed in 1997 was settled between Microsoft and Sun for a sum of money (paid by MS to Sun) and the contingency that MS may no longer develop a JVM except to plug holes in their existing JVM. This is why MS’ JVM is so far behind Sun’s in terms of version numbers and features today, and why MS no longer ships a JVM with Windows (there was no contingency in the agreement that MS had to ship a JVM, Sun apparently assumed that MS would ship Sun’s if they were not permitted to ship their own, whereas MS saw the reality that states they don’t have to ship a JVM with the OS at all, because those that care can download it).”
Well, according to the conclusion, MS could put Sun’s JVM to Windows, but they cannot put new versions of their own JVM. They choose not to put Sun’s JVM, since after years, it would be ancient, stupid version. Also, they had a dumb product called Visual J++, and they had to support it as if there were many projects done with it using the idiotic MS java extensions. Sun approached to MS many times and asked to include their JVM release to Windows, but they declined, since in that way, average user would never know that s/he have fucked up, ancient, incompatible, buggy MS VM. They did not think about the comfort of their customer, but they kept on tring to struggle Java, in which they were luckily unsuccessful. Thus, this decision of the federal judge, which goes up to Billy’s ass, is very right. Congrats Judgy. : )
“2) This suit is a different filing, reflecting the various rulings in the DoJ + states vs. MS antitrust case (and appeals). Sun is basically using the federal antitrust case as a basis to close the holes they left in their earlier settlement, and possibly as a way to get more money out of MS.”
Could be nice if they can, since MS’s harm to Java up to now is incredible big. But, at least, they got their real target. Users will get modern, standard, working, nice Java implementation with dumb Windows OSs. Very good decision.
Cheers.
Kaan.
2003-01-16 8:15 pm
Anonymous
Well, that’s just your bad. You know, there still are people who think the earth is flat. They are convinced beyond any doubt that the earth is and has always been flat!
So, beyond a certain point, it’s useless to argue with them. And I am not going to argue with you, either. Whatever you say, rajan.
2003-01-16 8:32 pm
Anonymous
Of course Microsoft will appeal to overturn or delay the order as long as possible. When the clock finally starts ticking, here is what could happen:
– day 90: Microsoft releases a service pack for XP, and launches a major campaign to make sure everyone upgrades
– day 120: Microsoft releases a “Java Compliance” pack which contains lots of hairy, unrelated kernel code. Dell and HP find it unstable during testing and decide to stick with the service pack. Microsoft says they are looking into the problem; meanwhile they proclaim themselves to be in compliance with the order since they are shipping it to retail channels.
2003-01-16 9:43 pm
Anonymous
Besides, you know me, and even if you do not, by reading my post here it is pretty clear that I don’t agree in any possible way with antitrust laws, so giving a reason like this is pretty much useless to me.
I’m not giving a reason to you in particular, but to the uninformed who may think that you have a valid point.
If you and I both opened up car dealerships in the same town. You are just an average guy with an average income who got a bank loan in order to open up your dealership. I, on the other hand, have wells of money. In order to steal your business, I start selling my cars at a $500.00 loss. Since you have to make money to feed your family, pay off your bank loan, and run your dealership, your cars cost $1,000.00 more than mine. The result? I get all of your customers and you file for bankruptcy. Now, I buy your dealership and begin doing the same thing again in order to kill other dealerships. After several years, I own all the dealerships in the entire state. At this point, I can begin pricing my cars at $10,000.00 above my costs.
So, to sum it all up, I first steal your livelihood from you. Next, I steal all the other dealership’s livelhoods from their owners. Finally, I rape and pillage the consumers in my area because they can’t get a car from anyone else. Now I’m making tons of money, and I can start a new grocery store business. With all my money, I can undersell everyone in that market. Next I’ll move into real-estate and buy up all the malls, strip malls, and office buildings. If anybody tries to compete with me in the markets I own, I can just raise their rent to harm their bottom line. I will destroy company after company and consumers will suffer more and more with each market I destroy.
This is exactly what Microsoft does.
If you can’t see how this is bad and why antitrust laws are a good thing, I feel sorry for you.
2003-01-17 1:49 am
Anonymous
>>>You are just an average guy with an average income who got a bank loan in order to open up your dealership. I, on the other hand, have wells of money.
Except that the people crying foul are all billionaires themselves. In fact, for a brief time, the chairman of Oracle was richer than Bill Gates himself.
2003-01-17 12:22 pm
Anonymous
The result? I get all of your customers and you file for bankruptcy.
If that happens, I’m not a very good businessman. If you sell cars cheap, I would turn my business into a high margin niche. For example, I can sell exotic cars. The ability of this makes a good businessman.
At this point, I can begin pricing my cars at $10,000.00 above my costs.
And if I had bankrupted, this is the time to get back in business, sell my cars $99,500 cheaper, then stealing your customers. Because if you charge this high a amount, when customers don’t like it, it is easy for competing businesses to rise.
Besides, I don’t see how this applies to Microsoft
1) Microsoft is hardly the only rich company around. Take Oracle for example, one of Microsoft’s most fiercest critics.
2) The only products Microsoft charges at a lost is for products where the market wants prices like that. Take XBOX for example, Sony have been following that same very model years before Microsoft entered the market.
3) Microsoft profit-margin, unlike of your “business” is the cause of high distribution numbers. You see, software *unlike* cars decrease in cost when given to a larger audience. For example, if I spend a million dollars in R&D for a software product, and per package the distribution cost is $5. If my initial target market consist of 50,000 users, my profit margin would be 0%. If 100,000, my profit margin 60% If my target market is 500,000, the highest profit margin if I charge $25 per box is 72%. While if I had a userbase of 5 million, the profit margin 79.2%. Now if my market is a 1 billion, my profit margin would be 79.996%. See the difference?
Next I’ll move into real-estate and buy up all the malls, strip malls, and office buildings.
Even though you have a lot of money, you can’t force people to sell their property. Take means other car dealership don’t really have to sell their property to you. They can keep it.
If you force someone to sell it, the only way to do it is via a illegal way, meaning it is illegal even without antitrust laws.
This is exactly what Microsoft does.
Your analogy sucks. First off is being a car dealership is very different from a software marker. One difference is that you don’t make the car, while MS makes the software. So in other words, if anyone wants to sell cars, they can do it. But if anyone wants to sell their own version of Windows, they can’t.
Plus, the very fact that you can’t buy all the property in one state shows your analogy doesn’t work again. It doesn’t even work in the software world. Microsoft integrated NetShow with Windows on year 2000. It is now 2003, yet Real is still the market leader even with a inferior product (until recently). In three years, Netscape share fell so fast before that nobody thought such a fall would be possible.
Netscape and Be can survive if they want to. It would mean much harder work then it would be if Microsoft wasn’t a monopoly. But it doesn’t mean that it is impossible to compete with Microsoft.
Unless you didn’t know, one of my biggest dreams if to open a software company competing directly with Microsoft’s biggest cash cow. If I was opportunistic, I would support antitrust action against Microsoft because I stand to gain. But why I don’t?
Last week I found a rather informative book (full of statistics, not just a mere opinion) at my bookshop. I found it on Amazon, I highly suggest you read it. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0945466250/qid=104280…
If you can’t see how this is bad
Yes it is bad. And the only way for something like this can happen in real life if a government supports your company (i.e. giving it less taxes, helping it buy up all the valuable land in the state, etc.). This is government-sponsored monopolies and is very different from Microsoft. I don’t support government-sponsored monopolies.
and why antitrust laws are a good thing
Okay, what about cheap oil? Standard Oil manage to cut cost and therefore charge lower prices at still high profit margins while its competitors can’t. How did consumers benefit from more expensive oil?
And to mario, it is pretty easy to prove that the earth is round via scientific methods. It is also very easy to prove that Nigerian syariah law doesn’t follow human rights standards and is barbaric in nature. But it is extremely hard to prove antitrust laws favour consumers via statistics, economic analysis etc. It is like asking how old the earth is. Everyone you ask you give you a different answer.
The people that say the earth is flat and Nigerian syariah law is good are religious fanatics that can’t except truth. Yet there are thousands of books writen by economists, philosophers, businessmen, etc. that don’t agree antitrust laws. They are not fanatics.
2003-01-17 12:27 pm
Anonymous
Yes, Microsoft broke the contract. Sun sued. Sun was about to win. Sun settled out of the court. The settlement can be easily one that favours Sun. Did Sun still make Microsoft keep to their original contract? Nope.
2003-01-17 6:28 pm
Anonymous
You know Rajan, you just don’t get it. The reason for antitrust laws is that without them the underhanded rich get richer and the poor go out of business (please note that I’m not saying all rich people are underhanded).
You responses to my post suck. If you don’t get the need for antitrust laws already, then there is no point in explaining it to you over and over as I have seen people do in the past.
I’m just grateful that you aren’t in charge.
2003-01-18 1:21 pm
Anonymous
Okay, let me explain where I’m coming from. I like business. It is one of my favourite subjects. Like I said, one of my biggest goals is to build a company competing directly with Microsoft Office. And like I said, I have everything to gain with antitrust laws (except when I get “too” big, something I don’t really hope).
But do I support it? Nope. I spend months researching it. My conclusion? It is the sore loser’s law. Take for example all the antitrust suites against Microsoft, they all made classic stupid disasterous business mistakes.
Or Rockfeller’s competitors, they had the potential of playing Standard Oil’s game against them, but did they even try to cut cost and reduce their prices? Nope. (Okay, they did try, but it was all half-assed).
The analogy given by you is economically impossible. If someone is rich enough to not only make a $500 lost on each car, but willing to loose money on other business expenditure due to the lack of profit, why must they start off in one location? Why not take on the whole state at once? I mean, it is not like they can make profit off one location then expand.
But just say it is possible, can you name me one successful company that does something like that? Giving their main product at a lost? Nope, I can’t think of any. Most companies adopt these model to sell a supplementary product. For example, Microsoft gave IE away free to consumers because they wanted to sell Windows. They sell XBOX at a lost to make money from software royalties. But does Microsoft sell Windows or Office at a lost?
Besides, may I remind you many of the business behemonts didn’t start off at a glorius beginning as you might suggest. Microsoft during its early years is like today’s Ximian. Other big company’s office boy. They main profit came from IBM.
Suprise suprise, today they are worth more than IBM. Should Microsoft be penalized for that?
You know Rajan, you just don’t get it.
Oh yes, I get it. Prove it to me that I don’t.
The reason for antitrust laws is that without them the underhanded rich get richer and the poor go out of business (please note that I’m not saying all rich people are underhanded).
Is Sun poor? Or AOL? Are they? Didn’t AOL push SBC to the side with their money? Besides, Microsoft became from poor and unprofitable to rich and extremely profitable. Many “poor” people manage to be profitable, many rich people manage to get bankrupted.
You see, business isn’t for everyone. Business is hard work. It is not setting up a lemonade stall outside your house, squeze some lemons and sell them at 5 cents a glass. It takes a lot of planning, a lot of marketing, a lot of right decisions. That’s the reason why I like business, it is very challeging.
Marketing, a quality Be and many, if not all, Linux distribution don’t carry, is also a very hard thing. It isn’t PR, it isn’t advertisement. It is from the drawing boards. A good marketer is one that sells something their potential customer wants. A great marketer is one that sells something their potential customer before that didn’t know they needed.
In Malaysia, there are two big retail behemonts, Giant and Makro (nice pun to their names, heh?). Many small retail shops have complained that they steal business from them. Yet there is a growing amount of small business that were once grocery shops and sundry shops that manage to find niche profitable markets and expand from there.
This is survival of the fittest.
You responses to my post suck.
Actually, your response to my post suck. You never answered ANY of my arguments, and all you can say is rehashed pro-antitrust statements.
If you don’t get the need for antitrust laws already, then there is no point in explaining it to you over and over as I have seen people do in the past.
I’m a person that changes in argument when proven wrong. PainkilleR that posted here was a individual from osOpinion. He changed my opinion on a lot of things with the debates I had with him. Why? He manage to prove me wrong. Your arguments are the exact carbon copies of my argument then.
I’m a pragmatic person. There is so much proof against antitrust laws. For example, telecomunications experts find that regulation in the business created at the ruling of the Ma Bell case is actually hurting the sector rather than helping it. Plus the split brought in power a lot of Mini Bells that were more vicious in nature than Ma Bell.
But don’t think I’m all that pro-monopoly. I’m 100% against government-sponsored monopolies. Like KPN of the Netherlands. Or Telekom Malaysia of (obviously) Malaysia. Or Telkom of South Africa.
2003-01-18 3:34 pm
Anonymous
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8683-2003Jan17.html
Why? These airlines are using this as a competitive advantage in a post-Sept 11 volatile airline business. Other airlines can follow suit and build similar alliances – nothing is stoping them. And how is this alliance can actually be bad for consumers?
2003-01-19 2:44 am
Anonymous
How does this help the desktop linux user who wants to play pool on yahoo. A special java is required for linux, but you can log onto yahoo and play pool without any problems with IE. Why is IE so easy and mozilla so un-effective?
2003-01-19 7:35 am
Anonymous
“Okay, what about cheap oil? Standard Oil manage to cut cost and therefore charge lower prices at still high profit margins while its competitors can’t. How did consumers benefit from more expensive oil?”
I’m sorry, but you have a rather tenuous grasp of the history of Standard Oil.
Rockefeller won because he was backed by what remains to this day to be the world’s richest financial consortium, the Rothchilds.
His competators couldn’t match his prices because they were too busy sulking in the smouldering remains of their refineries that Rockafeller’s agents burned down, or consoling their employees who had been physically beaten by Rockefeller’s agents.
2003-01-19 2:19 pm
Anonymous
Rockefeller won because he was backed by what remains to this day to be the world’s richest financial consortium, the Rothchilds.
Yes, I never denied that. However, did Standard Oil charged at a lost for each gallon of oil they sold? Hell no, they had a rather high profit margin.
His competators couldn’t match his prices because they were too busy sulking in the smouldering remains of their refineries that Rockafeller’s agents burned down
If you mean physically brunt down, that would be illegal even without antitrust laws. Oh well, I know what you mean. It isn’t easy going against giants like Rockfeller. But it is possible.
or consoling their employees who had been physically beaten by Rockefeller’s agents.
Hehe :-). Well, it seems they had enough time off their hands crying about what went wrong that they could take legal action against Rockfeller.
Some form of Standard-Java should be on all systems.
I suppose it’s a good thing that Java will certainly have a level playing field with .NET, but I’m a little apprehensive about the idea of having Java (desktop) apps eerywhere. Right now, my computer runs pretty fast … I’d like to keep it that way.
If M.S only have to release their 1.1.7 compaible VM then I frankly dont see the point. Does anyone know what version M.S are going to ship?
I think that it’s unfair, but well they are getting what they deserve. (Well, an out of business sign is what they deserve, but this is a start).
And if you distribute said system without Java, you should be forced to include it.
i need to deploy my applications with JRE. . . no more “chunky” deployments. . . i think.
will the JRE (or whatever java package) be included in the next service pack???
🙂
Wow, is this reasonable? To force a company to bundle someone else’s product with yours? I mean, why not bundle Linux with Windows? Does the end justify the means?
They shouldn’t be forced to support software they didn’t write. That just brings more bugs in Windows, right?
Plus, Microsoft’s implentation is out of date/obsolete…
Read the heading, they are bundling SUN’s version of Java, meaning, it will be the latest one.
That was the whol reason this suit was bought forward. The fact remains that it was all very well including a ancient JVM, but what use is it? so SUN decided to take Microsoft to court again to get them to a more up to date version of a JVM, namely theres (SUN’s).
I don’t understand how this will help Sun. Java on the desktop, so far, has been a failure.
By the way, what happened to all of those Java compilers Sun was talking about a few years ago?
Go read the fucking court decision before you run your
mouth about including Java.
If Microsoft doesn’t want to ship Java, they should not have written a JVM in the first place. If, way back in the day, they did nothing with Java, and just let Sun distribute it themselves, they would not be in this predicament. But they did. And, not only that, they modified the way it worked, by incorporating Windows specific code. Not to say that they did a bad job, their VM was fast, and integrated well with Windows, but there lies the problem. It’s their own fault. They made they bed, now they must lie in it.
MS’ JVM has always been “a few versions” behind Sun’s. This is actually good news. Anyone who thinks Java has no place on the desktop has never worked for a large company, or, for sure, the Government.
Contractors write apps for the government in truckloads. We have apps that run on Novell, Microsoft, Solaris, and NT. They are written in C, Assembly, Perl, VB, ASP.NET, Java…the list goes on.
Let me just say, between the damn JInitiators, MS JVMs, and Sun’s JVMs, Java has been a pain to get working. This is going to add some long overdue standardization.
Is it just me, or are these suits against Microsoft getting weirder and more pointless by the minute?
Are they next going to sue to make all the Linux distros include the Sun JVM? Currently you have to download the JVM and install it yourself; kind of like the way it should be on the Windows OS. I’ve been a Java developer since late ’97, back when people thought Java had a place on the desktop. Now we know it’s great on servers, don’t see how putting it in the next release of Windows is supposed to do anything. People who are interested in Java go out and get it themselves.
.NET is a take off of JVM. Sun wouldn’t let MSFT modify the JVM to include MS Windows only extentions because it was designed to be system independant.
MSFT has 95% of the desktop. If 95% of the computers have the latest .NET VM installed and a buggy and outdated JVM, then which platform do you think people will write for?
Since MSFT has control of the desktop market, this lets Sun compete on even terms. ie: all the desktop systems have the latest .NET VM and JVM; thus, let the developper decide which one to use.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the .NET CLR isn’t included “on the CD” for any of the current (2000/XP) MS OSes, not even in the Service Packs.
And you don’t think .NOT will be included in a service pack or the next version? MS is planning to take over yet another technology.
This is a little preemptive strike.
It is an odd decision, but it is really the only thing the government has done to help the industry. If Java gets more accepted, the OS matters less and less.
In my overactive visions….
Java gets more use, Java gets faster, apps work on more OS’s/CPU’s, repeat. More technology advances can then happen without being tied to all the hardware and software backwards compatibility. Your phone and desktop run the same software, you pick the best OS for your needs instead of what your software runs on, etc.
The OS/platform won’t be much of an issue anymore, but let’s hope Sun doesn’t get nasty like MS did.
Mutiny
“If Java gets more accepted, the OS matters less and less.”
In a sense java is an OS. Sure its platform independent and portable, but its still an os (of sorts anyway). btw I don’t understand this ruling at all, but then again the entire series of sun suits has seemed weird to me. It seems like they can’t decide what they want.
You can’t include java by this date. What you’re not including it? You’re trying to kill it off. Now you have to include it, but not a liscensed version of it, it has to be our version.
This is just ridiculous. Now everyone can sue Microsoft if they want their software to be included. What is the basis of such a ruling? And why ship the JVM only on Windows? Force all the other OSs to carry it as well. And all other VMs in existence. Maybe a way for Smalltalk to gain in market share?
So far I only heard about “shipping” the JVM. Maybe MS just dumps it on the CD somewhere and doesn’t let anyone know about it…
I’m a programmer and I would like to see my apps in other operating systems and CPU’s, including new hardware technology (like phones, PDA’s) etc… without making new software to run in other operating systems. Imagine your software running in other device (hardware) without modifications…
Hardware and Software are compatible:)
What people fail to realise here is that MS had an agreement with Sun to ship JVM with it (windows), then they created their own version which was incompatible with the official version.
Now most people (average joe) don’t care what version they run when running a business, banks and the like. They get the MS version and are not bothered, soon the MS version takes over the Sun version and because people say “I’ll get the MS version, its only MS” very soon MS takes Java off Suns hands because people don’t realise or don’t care which version they have as long as it works.
Over in the UK, Sun has no mindshare in the public but MS is all over the place, people will just go with what everybody else has got. “I’ll just install the MS version, who is Sun”?
Some people who did banking online were actuallly forced to get the MS JVM because their Sun version was incompatible…
Its frightening that your product can slip away so easily because MS include a little version of their own.
I hope MS bend over even further and take whatever else is coming. These people who also say that they should include other things with windows like linux, don’t talk crap. If MS break an agreement then they should pay. They are only being FORCED now because they couldn’t do it honestly before.
Some form of Standard-Java should be on all systems.
In that case, Sun should also sue Apple, IBM, etc. because the Java they are shipping is not all that standard, but with extensions.
Darius: I suppose it’s a good thing that Java will certainly have a level playing field with .NET
In that case, why not make Microsoft ship Cocoa/Carbon/Qt/GTK+/FOX/Motif/every single thing to level the playing field. Heck, for WordPad, to level the playing field, they should also bundle AbiWord.
Or how about this, why not make IBM and Sun ship .NET with their systems. Then their market has a level playing field between Sun and Microsoft, right?
Aitvo: I think that it’s unfair, but well they are getting what they deserve. (Well, an out of business sign is what they deserve, but this is a start).
What they deserve is praise and recogniction for their success, but all they got is lawsuits by sore losers using a very unfair law.
shark: i need to deploy my applications with JRE. . . no more “chunky” deployments. . . i think.
I need to deploy applications with Python, should Microsoft be forced to bundle it? If you are deploying it for your computers, I don’t see how downloading and installing Sun’s VM is so hard. If you are selling Java apps, I don’t see why it is so hard to include the VM in the installation, like most Java apps do, right?
nxtw: They shouldn’t be forced to support software they didn’t write.
The ruling never said Microsoft should support Java VM.
Just bundle it.
nxtw: Plus, Microsoft’s implentation is out of date/obsolete…
Mainly because of a earlier settlement that forbid Microsoft from making new releases except those to fix bugs and security holes.
MS’ JVM has always been “a few versions” behind Sun’s.
Same with Apple’s. Should Sun take them to court?
Anyone who thinks Java has no place on the desktop has never worked for a large company
Anyone who thinks Java can’t be deployed by the large company themselves is being plain ignorant.
Joe Powers: Sun wouldn’t let MSFT modify the JVM to include MS Windows only extentions because it was designed to be system independant.
And then why do they let other companies do exactly that without so much as a warning? Take Apple for example, there is Cocoa extensions to it that doesn’t use JNI, why isn’t Sun suing?
Joe Powers: then which platform do you think people will write for?
If they are going to decide what they are going to write for using this method, then the answer would have to be .NET. People that is remotely interested with Java either know their customers would have to install it themselves or bundle it with the app itself.
But even if Sun’s JVM is bundled with Windows, I personally would see more desktop apps using .NET compared to Java. Reason: MS Visual Studio .NET.
Joe Powers: Since MSFT has control of the desktop market, this lets Sun compete on even terms.
Then why not let other companies promising similar solutions compete on even terms! Why not Windows bundle stuff like Qt, Python, FOX, wxWindows, etc.?
Mutiny: This is a little preemptive strike.
Pre-emptive stikes failed to stop a lot of terrorist attacks, would this even work?
Mutiny: If Java gets more accepted, the OS matters less and less.
And why it isn’t the same for C#. Plus, not to mention that C# is under a recognized standards body, while Java under some crap org named JCP.
Mutiny: Java gets more use, Java gets faster
In the past two years, have Java increase in speed phenomenonly?
Mutiny: apps work on more OS’s/CPU’s
I doubt this would happen. Most ISVs wouldn’t use something like Java mainly for cross platform compatiblity. They would only use Java if it fits their business case (like faster development or more speed or something like that).
In other words, unlikely.
Besides, the applications are the beacon of one’s OS capabilities. Take the Mac for example. If it cost around the same as a PC, would I buy it if it only runs Java apps? Unlikely, benefits of Macs would be lost (like their user interface).
CrackedButter: What people fail to realise here is that MS had an agreement with Sun to ship JVM with it (windows), then they created their own version which was incompatible with the official version.
Actually, it is compatible with Sun’s standard except in the area of JNI, which doesn’t do its job well in the first place. Why? Microsoft created something better than JNI that does the job much better.
What it means if that applications written to be cross platform would run without a hitch, but applications accessing Win32 with JNI wouldn’t run. But there isn’t any Java apps that uses JNI on Windows then that I know of.
Now most people (average joe) don’t care what version they run when running a business, banks and the like.
Yes, the CEOs, shareholders, executives, etc. don’t care. Why? It is the sysadmin’s job, if they don’t install a piece of software needed to run a application, it is their fault.
And believe me, if they can be considered a average joe, they shouldn’t be in that business in the first place.
CrackedButter: Some people who did banking online were actuallly forced to get the MS JVM because their Sun version was incompatible…
Blame the banks for using Microsoft extensions instead of the standard Java. Microsoft only provided those extensions for Java developers that want to target the Windows market. Why would they want to do that? Using java means fast porting, if it isn’t standard cross-platform WORA Java.
Besides, is it Microsoft’s fault or Sun’s fault that Sun has no mindshare in the UK? I’d say Sun, their PR machinery in the UK may have not be very effective. In Malaysia, the situation is the same, but I can see why – Microsoft Malaysia advertise more effectively to the Malaysian market while Sun doesn’t do such a good job. This is ironic because Sun have been advertising more using more expensive medium than Microsoft.
Those companies are not convicted monopolists, such as Microsoft.
Ahh, so it is wrong for a convicted monopolist to maintain their competitive egde over their closest rival, Apple? Besides, you know me, and even if you do not, by reading my post here it is pretty clear that I don’t agree in any possible way with antitrust laws, so giving a reason like this is pretty much useless to me.
Just like if I say; Why should Amina Lawal of north Nigeria die? and you answer because she is convicted under a stupid old law as someone who commited zina. Would that make Amina Lawal’s death penalty anymore justified?
May I now sue Microsoft for not having an Erlang run time on its standard installation set?
IMHO Sun has only the right that Microsoft does not sabotage the use of Java under Windows. This can be ensured by Microsoft providing Sun with early betas of the Operating System and opening up part of the source necessary for plugging in Java… as any other language/run time supplier should have.
But to distribute that stuff?
Sun even forbids to put it on magazine CD-ROMs, because of their own control attitude..
Regards,
Marc
Are you people idiot? How many times told I’ve lost the count.
Sun did not sue MS for extending JAVA.
Sun sued MS for not including parts of Java, which were IN the Java language specification, such as RMI, but called the product Java. MS always had one strategy, called WORW, not WORA: Write Once Run on Windows. They did not include RMI, since it would open the doors with interoperability with other platforms.
IBM’s, Apple’s Java implementations contain all the required parts, and contain extensions over it. There is no problem.
Please learn it. It has been years, your heads are still under the earth.
YOU ARE LYING, SINCE I’VE TOLD THIS TO YOU MANY TIMES.
In that case, Sun should also sue Apple, IBM, etc. because the Java they are shipping is not all that standard, but with extensions.
There is no problem with Apple’s, IBM’s Java implementation. They contain all the required parts of Java Language Spec. They have extensions over it. Sun did not sue MS for extending Java. They sued MS for not including required parts, such as RMI.
Darius: I suppose it’s a good thing that Java will certainly have a level playing field with .NET
In that case, why not make Microsoft ship Cocoa/Carbon/Qt/GTK+/FOX/Motif/every single thing to level the playing field. Heck, for WordPad, to level the playing field, they should also bundle AbiWord.
Because, it is irrilated. MS is monopolist, and use its monopolist status to sink rival firms, as it did with Netscape. How? By distibuting the programs / similar (inspired) technologies free with their OS, from which other firms are earning their money.
Or how about this, why not make IBM and Sun ship .NET with their systems. Then their market has a level playing field between Sun and Microsoft, right?
OK, tell MS to write .NET implementation for Solaris, I’m sure Sun will distribute it. But I’m not sure MS will ever do it. : ))))
What they deserve is praise and recogniction for their success, but all they got is lawsuits by sore losers using a very unfair law.
Their success is by chance. They are not successful in terms of they have 95 percent of the client ground now because their programs are great. They all suck except for Office. Things are changing anyway. Here in Europe, Linux desktops are popping like mushrooms.
I need to deploy applications with Python, should Microsoft be forced to bundle it? If you are deploying it for your computers, I don’t see how downloading and installing Sun’s VM is so hard. If you are selling Java apps, I don’t see why it is so hard to include the VM in the installation, like most Java apps do, right?
Yes, but in that case, the same thing should be done to .NET runtime. Users who are interested should go and download it in the future. But the problem is MS’s inclusion of its ANCIENT FUCKED UP JVM with their Windows release to sabotage Java. How can an average user know what JVM they are using? Is there a window saying that after installing Windows? Of course not! So, please come to your senses!
The ruling never said Microsoft should support Java VM.
Just bundle it.
Which is great, otherwise MS would probably create another fucked up Java version.
Mainly because of a earlier settlement that forbid Microsoft from making new releases except those to fix bugs and security holes.
Wrong. Sun approached MS many times and asked for inclusion of their new Java implementation with new Windows releases. MS, as expected, declined. Go and read Sun’s site before throwing up. If MS cared about its customers more than their urge to kill Java, they would. And I’m sure you find it very ethical.
MS’ JVM has always been “a few versions” behind Sun’s.
Same with Apple’s. Should Sun take them to court?
No, but that is not the same thing. 1. Apple is not monopolist. 2. There are no JVM implementation prepared for Macs by Sun. 3. Sun had aggreements with both companies, Apple did what it promisses, MS, as expected, lied to Sun, and broke the treatment. That is why Sun sued MS, and thats why MS had to aggree. They did it, because courts take time, and time is on their site. Same as Netscape case. MS is a disgusting company.
Anyone who thinks Java has no place on the desktop has never worked for a large company
Anyone who thinks Java can’t be deployed by the large company themselves is being plain ignorant.
Anyone who thinks MS’s attitude towards Java was ethical is clearly a lier.
Joe Powers: Sun wouldn’t let MSFT modify the JVM to include MS Windows only extentions because it was designed to be system independant.
And then why do they let other companies do exactly that without so much as a warning? Take Apple for example, there is Cocoa extensions to it that doesn’t use JNI, why isn’t Sun suing?
Because, ONCE AGAIN, SUN DID NOT SUE MS FOR EXTENDING JAVA, BUT SUED MS FOR NOT INCLUDING SOME PARTS, THUS SPOILING JAVA’S WORA PROMISS.
Joe Powers: then which platform do you think people will write for?
If they are going to decide what they are going to write for using this method, then the answer would have to be .NET. People that is remotely interested with Java either know their customers would have to install it themselves or bundle it with the app itself.
But even if Sun’s JVM is bundled with Windows, I personally would see more desktop apps using .NET compared to Java. Reason: MS Visual Studio .NET.
I am sorry Rajan, but .NET is something like 8 years late. : ) It is not Cross Platform compatible anyway. Apart from that, Visual Studio.NET is a horrible bloated slow as pig piece of shit. I tried it while learning .NET. It simply sucks. Even doesn’t have refactoring support. Try Eclipse. Its backed by 30 industry giants, and free as in beer, and it simply ROCKS!.