Home > Oracle and SUN > Sun Says Microsoft Pact not a Blow to StandardsSun Says Microsoft Pact not a Blow to Standards Eugenia Loli 2004-04-06 Oracle and SUN 18 CommentsDespite a new window into Microsoft’s proprietary technology, Sun Microsystems won’t stop its call for open standards, executives and analysts say.About The Author Eugenia LoliEx-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 18 Comments 2004-04-06 11:23 pm This has only a slight bit to deal with this article. But Microsoft needs to start compiling to web standards with there web browser. I am a PHP MySQL Developer and when I build a web application 95% of the time it runs great in every browser except for IE. This is very frustrating because my site checks out on all standard tests. Then I have to go back and piratically break my css compliance to get the page working in IE. They need to fix this BS it is starting to get old. 2004-04-07 1:20 am I do not believe a word of anything that SUN says in public anymore. 2004-04-07 1:23 am I am a PHP MySQL Developer and when I build a web application 95% of the time it runs great in every browser except for IE. That’s too bad, considering sjvn on eweek admitted today that 95% of all browsers are IE. I’d recommend trying to find a development platform more compatible with cyberspace.Concerning the Sun/Microsoft situation, this is obviously an attempt to create a big boys club, and cross-patent licensing is the charge for admission. Perens admitted today this isn’t a good sign for open source, and the discovery the deal was actually hatched a year ago means there’s only more surprises on the way. 2004-04-07 3:18 am “Gartner analyst Daryl Plummer believes that the Microsoft agreement “is not going to stop Sun from pushing open standards.” It’s more likely, he says, that Sun will use better Microsoft interoperability to reinforce its message of openness” 2004-04-07 4:22 am Looks like SUN spots!Its too bad everyone does a “Deal” with MS instead of teaming up with other companies, IBM, NOVELL, APPLE, HP et cetra. Apple, Sybase, Novell, Citrix, IBM have all been burned by making a deal with the DEVIL! 2004-04-07 8:44 am Uhh, no. 2004-04-07 12:01 pm NONE of the current browsers support everything properly. If you expect to just write to the W3C standards and have everything magically work then I’m afraid you are living in fantasy land. 2004-04-07 12:16 pm Just so I have the story straight, *today* sunw is supposed to be the great champion of open standards, right?The same sunw that refuses to open source java?The same sunw that was secretly funnelling millions to scox, in order to fund scox attack on linux? 2004-04-07 12:21 pm >>But Microsoft needs to start compiling to web standards with there web browser. <<I understand your frustration. Unfortunately, msft is dedicated to going out of their way to break any standards that are not msft.Msft wants you to develop your code to run on IE, and not other browsers. Msft wants to make your choice of PHP and MySQL as difficult as possible for you. Msft hopes you will give up on open source products, and opt for a more standard msft solution. 2004-04-07 3:13 pm You need to provide some sort of proof that “Sun has been secretly funneling millions to SCO to get linux”, just blindly stating it doesn’t make it so. FYI, Sun *did* license driver code from SCO. Sun is releasing x86 Solaris 10 on opterons, and supporting JDS on x86 too. It needed a *lot* of x86 drivers, very quickly. SO it licensed them – big deal. Only total zealots think that every single company that has anything remotely to do with SCO is therefore the devil.You need to remember that not everything you read on groklaw and slashdot.org is true. Those places have vested interests, and are mostly commented on by teenaged boys. Fact is, SCO (a $40 million company) is a major threat to IBM (an $80 Billion company) because, gee, SCO might just have a case. You need to keep quiet and not rush to judgement until SCO have their day in court, something they have a right to nomatter how much zealots, IBM and Novell may frantically wish to deny them that day and thus pervert the course of justice.Finally, open standards have nothing to do with open source. If you had any understanding of these issues you would know this, and not make silly statements like “the same sun that refuses to open source java?” This is quite an infuriating statement, it suggests a complete ingratitude for the vast amounts of code Sun has already gifted the OSS community, and more, a sense of entitlement to the labour and property of others. You do not have any right to Sun’s Java. If you want an OSS Java, then write one yourself, or shut up. What is the OSS community’s problem? Can’t they write an OSS Java? is it too difficult and hard for them to come up with a decent one? Despite that Sun’s open standards ensure that every specification and standard for making a completely 100% certified and compatible J2SE and even J2EE system is out there, just waiting to be implemented? Seem the hype about the OSS development model is, well, utterly hyped – it depends on corporate handouts. Without those handouts, linux would be nowhere, so it stands to reason, I suppose, that lunix zealots get pissed off when a given company doesn’t donate things they really want their dirty hands on.Bunch of workshy communists. 2004-04-07 4:36 pm Seem the hype about the OSS development model is, well, utterly hyped – it depends on corporate handouts.I’m just letting this stand out on it’s own because it needs to stressed again, and again, and again 2004-04-07 6:37 pm >>You need to provide some sort of proof that “Sun has been secretly funneling millions to SCO to get linux”, just blindly stating it doesn’t make it so.<<Do I have to prove that the sun rises in the east? Sun secretly funnelling money to scox is not some conspiracy theory, it is a well established fact. For several months it was well known that somebody was giving scox money. But scox would not disclose who, and sunw would not step forward. It turned out to be sunw. Sunw kept this a secret for as long as sunw could. If it was an innocent and legitimate purchase, why the big secret?>>You need to remember that not everything you read on groklaw and slashdot.org is true.<<Not the comments, but groklaw mostly posts legal documents, transcripts and the like. Besides, who said I got this from groklaw or slashdot?>>Those places have vested interests, and are mostly commented on by teenaged boys.<<Now where is *your* proof? I feel certain that a lot of people who post there are seasoned professionals.>>Fact is, SCO (a $40 million company) is a major threat to IBM (an $80 Billion company) because, gee, SCO might just have a case.<<1) I don’t care about scox suing ibm. I do care about scox being paid by sunw and msft to fud linux, and to try to extort money from linux end users by making baseless claims and threats.2) Scox having a case is extremely unlikely. After an entire year, still not a speck of evidence. Still no valid legal theory. Just a bunch of bogus code samples (yes, they were *proven* to be bogus) and a bunch of idiotic statements about the GPL being unconstitutional.>>You need to keep quiet and not rush to judgement until SCO have their day in court, something they have a right to nomatter how much zealots, IBM and Novell may frantically wish to deny them that day and thus pervert the course of justice. <<Have I denied scox having a day in court? But I do object to scox being paid to make false statements in order unfairly bash msft’s competition. Imagine if a beer company falsely said that urine traces were found in their competitor’s product – would that be fair? Scox is saying that Linux is “contaminated” with UNIX code, yet scox offers no evidence – after an entire year – is that fair? 2004-04-07 7:02 pm If it was an innocent and legitimate purchase, why the big secret?Listen, man..For future reference: When you use statements like “well established fact”, you’re going to have to do better than just reiterating the original accusation or using conjecture like you did above. 2004-04-07 7:05 pm You still have to provide proof. It being “well known” is not proof. Nobody knows this “fact”, but you, it would seem.It is hardly surprising SCO haven’t put forth evidence. That’s what happens when it gets to court, not before (something that IBM and pals are desperate to stop). They would hardly release their best evidence outside a court room. Or is that what you seriously expect them to do?Perhaps Sun kept quiet aobut it because they are not required to reveal every boring littlew business transaction they make, and further, they knew what the reaction of the ungrateful zealot-crowd would be.I wonder why Sun, a company that is the leading shipper of linux ont he desktop (why, they sold 800,000 to the UK NHS just a couple of weeks ago) would want to damage Linux, anyway> This part is never explained. WHy would they damage something they have greatly helped by donating vast amounts of code and research to, and something that is at the heart of their business strategy? Huh? You need to live in cloud cuckoo-land to believe these baseless charges against Sun. 2004-04-07 7:54 pm >>You still have to provide proof. It being “well known” is not proof. Nobody knows this “fact”, but you, it would seem<<Are you too really stupid to google for yourself? Must I provide a link to “water being wet” and every other well know fact? Sorry if “nobody” know this but me, here is a direct quote:“A previously secret licensee of SCO Group’s Unix intellectual property has revealed its identity: Unix leader Sun Microsystems.”Get it now? “Previously secret” you do know what that means don’t you? Do I have to draw you a picture? Here is the link:http://news.com.com/2100-1016-1024633.html 2004-04-07 8:22 pm Well what I meant to say is that the IE is the farthest behind in compatibility. They are not even making an effort to support the css standards. So you end up having to write a site for deprecated 4 year old technology. 2004-04-07 8:35 pm I agree with Brian. MS needs to follow standards instead of implementing them half assed or half broken. If they did the web would be a nicer place for alternate browsers that actually try to conform to standards. 2004-04-07 10:08 pm That link states that Sun licensed some driver code from SCO. We know this, and we know why they would do this. What you are claiming and have not proved is that they did this to “attack linux” and that they spent millions on this. These claims are entirely baseless – you’re jumping to them from nothing. Nothing anywhere suggests that Sun have a deliberate policy to attack linux through SCO.