Microsoft Ordered to Bundle Java [Archive]

Jason Dunn

12-30-2002, 10:13 PM

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,108202,tk,dn122302X,00.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.pcworld.com/news/article...n122302X,00.asp</a><br /><br /></div>Scott McNealy and his cronies are at it again, this time forcing Microsoft to distribute the Sun Java engine with Windows. Sheesh. :roll: I can't remember the last time I went to a site that actually required Java - I don't even have the VM installed on this computer. If a site offers something only in Java, I leave. Java on the client side is dead, though it seems to be living on in the server market if those .jsp pages I see everywhere is any indication. The market should decide if Java comes bundled with Windows - if every Web site used it, the demand for it would be enormous, and there would be merit for this case from Sun. Instead, it's just Scott McNealy whining again about how "unfair" it is that Microsoft decides which technology to promote and bundle with their own operating system.<br /><br />"Microsoft must distribute Java technology from Sun Microsystems in every copy of Windows and Internet Explorer that it ships, a U.S. federal judge has ruled. U.S. District Judge Frederick Motz on Monday approved a preliminary injunction sought by Sun that forces Microsoft to upgrade its operating system and browser products with Java software that uses the latest version of the technology."<br /><br />What's silly about this is that if the Java VM were as light and simple to install as the Flash 6 client, this would be a non-issue. If a site required the Sun Java VM client, it would download as an ActiveX control and the user would have instant access to it. Instead, it's a cumbersome process of going to the Sun site, downloading the software, closing your Web browser, installing it, then heading back to the site you started at that was asking for Java. It's not hard to see why this scenario isn't attractive to the market is it?

johncj

12-30-2002, 10:37 PM

Uh... Don't you mean Scott McNealy? I know all these ABM'ers (Anybody But Microsoft) are hard to tell apart sometimes, but Ellison runs Oracle. McNealy runs Sun.

klinux

12-30-2002, 10:39 PM

I like the ideals behind java (one thing working on multiple platforms) but pragmatically speaking, it does not work in an environment where people are demanding instant grtification e.g the web. It is simply too slow. I loathe going to a site where one has to wait for the java applets to load.

Janak Parekh

12-30-2002, 10:44 PM

Besides, applets on the web are really a so-so medium. The only useful application I've seen as an applet is an SSH client, which I can use to access my server merely by putting up the applet on a webpage, instead of having to download the client to every machine. In that case, Java everywhere is useful-- but it could be implemented in other ways.

Having Microsoft being forced to bundle a VM also raises a host of other questions, such as which version of Java they're forced to support (they only support 1.1 right now, which is basically outdated).

I think they're forcing this down Microsoft's throat as a remedy for their "monopolistic behavior". Not sure I agree that this is the way to be going about it...

--janak

p.s. Yes, it is Scott McNealy & co., not Larry. Not that Larry minds the decision, though ;)

JonnoB

12-30-2002, 10:50 PM

A fully implemented Java environment would be the worse thing to happen to windows. A fully hardware aware JVM would open up the flood gates of virus writers to script bad things because you could access kernal mode hardware via java. This would be worse than the .vbs problems that MS seems to have trouble controlling. Can you imaging if MS is not in control - who is responsible for security then... so you think Sun will care if Java is used to carry virii that cripples the Windows OS?

sgyee

12-30-2002, 10:53 PM

This Java thing really angers me quite a bit.

I'll give a great case in point. Many IT shops use Cisco gear, and they also use Veritas for their backup software.

In order for Veritas to work properly on remote management machines, Java Runtime v1.3 has to be installed. Unfortunately, the same machine that has Java 1.3 on it can't run the Cisco web based management console. It requires a higher version of Java.

Of course, Java VM Runtime 1.4x seems to have different class setups than 1.3. This means that I can't upgrade from 1.3 to 1.4 if I still want to manage Veritas, or if I want to manage a Cisco box, I have to forego Veritas.

Other gripes - One of our users erroneously thought that loading one version of Java over another version would update the version. Not really. In the Windows world, it kind of makes sense....upgrade from Word 97 to Word 2000, and it is a true upgrade. Upgrade from Java 1.4.0 to 1.4.1, and it's a separate version from 1.4.0.

Another great example. Load JVM 1.3.x onto your machine. Go to www.javaonthebrain.com in Internet Explorer or Netscape. Watch the frog eat roving flies. Load JVM 1.4.1, get a big red X where the frog used to be when you go to the same site, with an error that the class can't init.

If McNealey and his Sun Cronies want to play in the consumer marketplace, he needs to get his products to not only be backwards compatbile, but also be able to load on most machines without the end user doing a full frontal lobotomy of their PC to load it properly.

Janak Parekh

12-30-2002, 10:56 PM

A fully implemented Java environment would be the worse thing to happen to windows. A fully hardware aware JVM would open up the flood gates of virus writers to script bad things because you could access kernal mode hardware via java.
Java has its problems, but this is not one of them. You need signed applets to be able to overcome the sandbox and do hardware access, and this doesn't need any more "fully implemented" environments than what currently ships with any Internet Explorer. You can also get signed ActiveX controls that can gain arbitrary access onto the system.

If Larry Ellison wants to play in the consumer marketplace, he needs to get his products to not only be backwards compatbile, but also be able to load on most machines without the end user doing a full frontal lobotomy of their PC to load it properly.
Don't blame Larry for this, blame him for Oracle. Yes, Bill (Joy) and James (Gosling) really should take the blame for rejiggering the API so much - it should be stabilized by now. Their behavior towards deprecation is frustrating at times.

--janak

jmulder

12-30-2002, 11:01 PM

After speaking with a Microsoft Consulting Services person here (an admittedly biased source), I am led to believe that Sun also expects Microsoft to write the JVM for windows (since Sun's own JVM doesn't perform).

Talk about a free ride! I figure, if Sun wants MS to include an up-to-date JVM with windows and a court orders that it be so, then fine (just so long as I can uninstall it...after all, MS is required to allow me to uninstall IE). But to require MS to expend resources writing a competitor to their own product is just wrong!

Jason Dunn

12-30-2002, 11:11 PM

Uh... Don't you mean Scott McNealy? I know all these ABM'ers (Anybody But Microsoft) are hard to tell apart sometimes, but Ellison runs Oracle. McNealy runs Sun.

Uh...I thought they were the same person? They SOUND the same... :lol: (thanks - fixed)

Janak Parekh

12-30-2002, 11:20 PM

After speaking with a Microsoft Consulting Services person here (an admittedly biased source), I am led to believe that Sun also expects Microsoft to write the JVM for windows (since Sun's own JVM doesn't perform).
The JRE/JVM 1.4 is actually pretty good, but it's absolutely huge, and the MS JVM's have generally performed better, which is the greatest irony of all. ;)

--janak

KyleC

12-30-2002, 11:42 PM

It seems like Microsoft is now being run by the government. If somebody want's something changed in Microsoft products they don't go to Microsoft. Instead, they go to court with Microsoft and the judge would (almost) always grant them their request - usually at the expense of Microsoft. I'm sorry, but the image of a big bully hardly fits Microsoft. Instead, Microsoft fits the scapegoat. If you've got finantial issues, sue Microsoft. If your product isn't doing as well as you'd like in the market, sue Microsoft. It's a mentality like this that really gets my goat.

Janak Parekh

12-30-2002, 11:45 PM

It's a mentality like this that really gets my goat.
That's the problem when you get tangled with the government and especially the DOJ. ;)

Andy Grove's "paranoia" over at Intel avoided the public humiliation and hassle that Microsoft has endured. When the DOJ warned Intel, Andy put his foot down and documented the education of people at Intel about "monopolistic behavior", sat down with the DOJ, etc. etc. and has managed to keep out of the spotlight.

Microsoft took a much more belligerent stance. Whether or not they're monopolistic, there is a cost when you fight the gov't.

--janak

JonnoB

12-31-2002, 12:13 AM

A fully implemented Java environment would be the worse thing to happen to windows. A fully hardware aware JVM would open up the flood gates of virus writers to script bad things because you could access kernal mode hardware via java.
Java has its problems, but this is not one of them. You need signed applets to be able to overcome the sandbox and do hardware access, and this doesn't need any more "fully implemented" environments than what currently ships with any Internet Explorer. You can also get signed ActiveX controls that can gain arbitrary access onto the system.

One of the complaints that Sun had against MS was that the MS JVM was not a full implementation and did not include kernal-mode like access to hardware. MS, rightfully so - indicated the inherent security risk in an approach that let third parties access to a level of the system that they were not in control of.

Sun has an OS. They should stop whining and just compete with MS at the OS platform level. The government has stepped in and stopped MS from being punitive to system builders who choose other platforms. If Sun wants to beat MS, they should try it Solaris/Linux/etc+Java vs Windows+.Net and see who wins. Let the market decide.

Sometimes, the market decides it wants a virtual monopoly - as long as it was acheived through anti-trust safe means.

Estaban

12-31-2002, 12:15 AM

Like most tools there are scenarios where Java on the client makes some sense:

Developing a client processor intensive business application. IT often has the machines locked down and new apps can not be added unless you have admin priv's. Getting a couple of users to demo an app can open up a lot of doors.

...and of course ... a lot of us are going to be writing apps in J2ME as its looking like the client app platform of choice for smartphones (a'la Nokia, a'la Sprint, a'la Qualcomm).

this is not an advertisement for Java but its not without merit.
R/ Estaban

JonnoB

12-31-2002, 12:23 AM

Fax software, backup software, and more....

These are all tools built into the Windows OS, yet I can buy these utilities as applications to run on Windows. People buy these apps because they want more - they win on being better. Java, and any other bolt-on utiltity, language, application, tool, etc should work to be so much better that PC manufacturers want it, need it.

MS did not include fax, backup, etc software before. If I made backup software, should I sue MS to include my 'lite' backup software because it is not fair? It is my responsibility to make my product more desirable. If I make an email app for the Pocket PC, should I sue MS to include my application because it is unfair for them to have Pocket Outlook? Do a better job than Microsoft and you will win. Simply look at what Quicken has done to MS Money... PC builders bundle it and Intuit is continually beating MS - why? Because it is better.

Java, for all of its promise, is still not significantly better than other approaches. Maybe it could be, but it is not yet - maybe never will be.

Janak Parekh

12-31-2002, 12:28 AM

One of the complaints that Sun had against MS was that the MS JVM was not a full implementation and did not include kernal-mode like access to hardware. MS, rightfully so - indicated the inherent security risk in an approach that let third parties access to a level of the system that they were not in control of.
Ah, OK, I get your point. Sun wants DirectX-like API's. Still, the Sun sandbox model is a much better way of controlling this than, say, ActiveX, so I still don't see Microsoft's point as their own controls can access direct hardware and at a much rougher granularity. (.NET fixes this to some extent.)

Sun has an OS. They should stop whining and just compete with MS at the OS platform level.
Ah, but they can't, at least at the consumer-end. That's why they whine so much. MS built a JVM but omitted RMI and JNI; Sun wasn't happy with it, so MS said "screw it". Sun, with its pants caught down, complained.

Sometimes, the market decides it wants a virtual monopoly - as long as it was acheived through anti-trust safe means.
... which is where all the debate lies. :)

--janak

jweitzman

12-31-2002, 12:41 AM

Hey, do any of you MS apologists want a job in Microsoft's PR department? One of the reasons MS spent so much time, effort, and money on PR in this whole antitrust battle is that most people don't understand antitrust law. They benefit from it everyday, but when it is applied people say "why can't they just compete and let the market decide?"

The whole point is that if a monopoly exists there IS NO MARKET and there IS NO COMPETITION. Microsoft was found to have monopoly power in the PC operating system market. Even if it gained that monopoly legally, it is not allowed to use a monopoly to compete unfairly in other markets.

What Sun claims is that the market for Java and Java-like environments would have looked much different if Microsoft had not used its monopoly power to destroy that market. Nothing can undo that, but the court can try to restore the market by forcing Microsoft to give Java a chance to compete.

All the other stuff everyone said above about the merits of Java is fine. If the market is restored and Java fails, so be it. The job of antitrust law is to try to restore competition, and this remedy, while imperfect, is a fair attempt.

JW

JonnoB

12-31-2002, 12:55 AM

I wouldn't call myself an apologist... but I am near-purist when it comes to capitalism. I believe the court was correct when it found MS used illegal coersion in its approach to punitive damages to PC makers who 'diverted.' That said however, the court has taken it too far and is now legislating and defining how MS should partner.

I believe that MS should not be allowed to punish companies in who they do business with, but other companies should not use the court to force MS to bundle or otherwise enhance the distribution of their own software.

To be equitable, the remedies proposed against MS can apply to any company that makes software that may compete with components integrated into the OS (think browser) or who may benefit from inclusion in the OS for distribution. Should another company make a java like language (write once, run everywhere language), should MS also be forced to include it? If so, where does it stop... if not, why does Java get a leg up on other competition?

The Sun implementation of the JVM should be good enough... MS does not have to make a JVM. If a PC company wants to bundle the Sun JVM, fine. If they do not, fine. MS should not be forced to carry it. Sun can develop it for the Windows OS like any other Windows add-on. As long as MS is prevented from taking any preventive action on java bundling, all is fair. End of story.

Rirath

12-31-2002, 12:59 AM

Hey, do any of you MS apologists want a job in Microsoft's PR department?

All the other stuff everyone said above about the merits of Java is fine. If the market is restored and Java fails, so be it. The job of antitrust law is to try to restore competition, and this remedy, while imperfect, is a fair attempt.

:evil: What a colossal waste of time, money, and energy. There's so many companies that should be in awe of MS, and thankfully some are. Not near enough though. I just hope MS can hold strong through all this until it either passes or fades away. If MS is ever ruined by all this garbage, the world will lose something truely amazing. Feel free to call me an MS apologist, I'd gladly defend them. I can't imagine computing today without them. All these complaints against MS usually boil down to jealousy, greed, and/or stupidity. :|

ChrisW

12-31-2002, 01:46 AM

MS has done some underhanded things, like the issue with Stac about 8 years ago. However, they were sued and compensated Stac. Case closed.

Just where did this idea of a "right to compete" come from? There exists no such right, as far as I know. Surely we don't expect the big automakers to give me access to their plants so I can break into the auto business.

The anti-competitive complaints we hear recently are BS. This isn't MS being unfair, it's the market evolving. When you hear Sun complaining about access to markets, what you should really read into it is complaints about changing barriers to entry. Back in the golden age of software, there was no barrier to entry. One guy in his basement could grab literally an entire market segment. Sun wants it to stay that way, but the fact is that the s/w market now requires significant investments in development and marketing. There's no way around it in the marketplace, so Sun (and others) are looking for a shortcut through the courts.

Kirkaiya

12-31-2002, 03:31 AM

Okay, without taking any real position on this issue either way (I'm kinda ambivalent about it), I *am* going to make a few points.

I can't remember the last time I went to a site that actually required Java - I don't even have the VM installed on this computer.

Well, for starters - Sun's complaint isn't really so concerned with Java Applets on web-pages, although this is where most of us commonly see Java being used on the desktop. There are, in fact, full fledged applications, including some that some of you probably use, that rely on a JVM being in place.

One app that I use for Peer-to-Peer transfers is a Gnutella client, called Limeware. It's written in Java, which is why if you don't have a current JVM, the Limeware installer downloads it for you (which is fine for broadband users, but annoying for those on dialup).

Sun's point is that Microsoft has leveraged their Windows monopoly (a legal monopoly, i might add) to restrain the market for Java applications. If you've heard all the hype about .NET applications (what?? You've been living in a cave on mars and didn't?), well, .NET applications ALSO compile to a bytecode, and then execute in a managed environment in a virtual machine. Sound familiar?

I like VB.NET, and I've been using it a lot, but had there been less issues with the varios Java VMs, I might have chosen that as my app platform of choice. I think Sun had a legitimate complaint, since first Microsoft licensed Java, then created an incompatible version of the JVM that violated the licensing agreement, and then chose to instead support "J++", which is a windows-specific java implemention (not a full one, though).

Anyway. I just wanted to clear up this misconception that Java is just for Applets - there are Human Resources apps, networking programs, games, and other things all written in Java. Java, like .NET applications, are in fact MORE secure than ActiveX controls, in that active X controls can directly call the Win32 API, whereas Java runs in the VM, and it's access is managed (.NET has been lauded for a similar architecture).

Finally - all this about competition is great - but the Sherman Antitrust act was used to force Ma Bell to open up her networks to other long-distance companies, and there is STILL resentment among bell employees in the Central Offices (the switch offices) about this. After all, in THEIR OWN buildings, they are forced by law to allow competitors to come in, and install equipment that competes with their own equipment (I've seen this in Bell South, when I was consulting for them). And Ma Bell was broken up under the agreement, into 7 RBOCs and a long-distance company.

I think Microsoft has gotten off fairly easy, considering that they were found to be a monopooly, and found guilty of using that monopoly in a predatory way to reduce consumer choice.

I don't necessarily care about the JVM issue so much, and I love Microsoft's products, and love my PPC, but puhleaasseee - don't turn into the Mac-Faithful of the Windows world, and turn a blind eye to anything that Microsoft does wrong (some Mac people, and some Palm people, are close to a cult, in believing "their" company is always right - companies are businesses, and exist to make a profit and a product/service, for the most part).

Anyway - if Sun wins on appeal, it'll be nice to have all new computers ship with a recent version of the Java VM, and one that isn't half-assed, like Microsoft's JVM.

MS has done some underhanded things, like the issue with Stac about 8 years ago. However, they were sued and compensated Stac. Case closed.

Just where did this idea of a "right to compete" come from? There exists no such right, as far as I know. Surely we don't expect the big automakers to give me access to their plants so I can break into the auto business.

The anti-competitive complaints we hear recently are BS. This isn't MS being unfair, it's the market evolving. When you hear Sun complaining about access to markets, what you should really read into it is complaints about changing barriers to entry. Back in the golden age of software, there was no barrier to entry. One guy in his basement could grab literally an entire market segment. Sun wants it to stay that way, but the fact is that the s/w market now requires significant investments in development and marketing. There's no way around it in the marketplace, so Sun (and others) are looking for a shortcut through the courts.

Janak Parekh

12-31-2002, 03:40 AM

I don't necessarily care about the JVM issue so much, and I love Microsoft's products, and love my PPC, but puhleaasseee - don't turn into the Mac-Faithful of the Windows world, and turn a blind eye to anything that Microsoft does wrong (some Mac people, and some Palm people, are close to a cult, in believing "their" company is always right - companies are businesses, and exist to make a profit and a product/service, for the most part).
I don't think you'll have any problem with that here. Check out Ed's growing collection of parodies, if anything. ;)

Anyway - if Sun wins on appeal, it'll be nice to have all new computers ship with a recent version of the Java VM, and one that isn't half-assed, like Microsoft's JVM.
Of course, if MS makes it, which version do they have to be compliant with? And what API's? 1.4 is a huge engineering feat that would take forever to duplicate. And would MS really ship Sun's own JVM?

--janak

Kirkaiya

12-31-2002, 04:12 AM

Check out Ed's growing collection of parodies, if anything. ;)

I LOVE the parodies - and I don't suspect Ed of drinking too deeply of the Kool-aide yet.. lol

Of course, if MS makes it, which version do they have to be compliant with? And what API's? 1.4 is a huge engineering feat that would take forever to duplicate. And would MS really ship Sun's own JVM?

I didn't see that in the news story I read on Yahoo (that Microsoft will be forced to build the JVM). I kinda doubt that, in fact, so if somebody here has read thru all the legalese of the ruling, and could let us know, it would be great.

As for shipping Windows with the Sun JVM - I could see that happening; the RBOCs being forced to allow competitor's equipment in their own buildings is sort of anologous, and don't forget, at one point, Microsoft was *paying* Sun a licensing fee just so they could include a JVM with Windows.

Windows also comes with built-in support for "open" standards like TCP/IP (and it didn't always, if you remember back to Win 3.10), and (now) an XML parser. Maybe this will play out with the OEMs "bundling" the Sun JVM with Windows, which is probably what Sun should have been aiming for anyway (like AOL used to pay OEMs to load AOL onto new computers, although Microsoft tried to withhold licenses from OEMs that did it, until the courts ruled that was illegal).

Anyway - I don't think Microsoft should ever be forced to re-engineer Java 1.4 - I suspect the court order applies to the Sun-developed JVM.

And hey, people - this is Win-Win for us (pun intended!!!): new computers will have a modern Java implementation, and if it's windows, it'll also have the .NET framework. So we'll all have more choices in the apps we can run, and developers will have a more even field of choices to develop in.

The more I think about it, the more I think it's win-win for consumers - or at least not a loss for anybody, since the JVM will only "fire up" if you launch a Java app, similar to the .NET framework. And with our giant 60 GB hard-drives, a 50 MB JVM is a pittance.

Janak Parekh

12-31-2002, 04:31 AM

I kinda doubt that, in fact, so if somebody here has read thru all the legalese of the ruling, and could let us know, it would be great.
Yes, I don't have the patience for it either. :)

As for shipping Windows with the Sun JVM - I could see that happening; the RBOCs being forced to allow competitor's equipment in their own buildings is sort of anologous, and don't forget, at one point, Microsoft was *paying* Sun a licensing fee just so they could include a JVM with Windows.
Nevertheless, it was their own JVM.

Windows also comes with built-in support for "open" standards like TCP/IP (and it didn't always, if you remember back to Win 3.10)
Of course, MS TCP/IP for WfWG 3.11 :D,

and (now) an XML parser.
Again, both MS-implemented. The TCP code was BSD-based, of course, but MS adopted it and internalized it. An external Sun JVM is quite different. Would Sun give them the source? And under what license?

Maybe this will play out with the OEMs "bundling" the Sun JVM with Windows, which is probably what Sun should have been aiming for anyway (like AOL used to pay OEMs to load AOL onto new computers, although Microsoft tried to withhold licenses from OEMs that did it, until the courts ruled that was illegal).
This makes a bit more sense to me. I still question it from a perspective of support, however, and whether all OEM's would adopt it.

Anyway - I don't think Microsoft should ever be forced to re-engineer Java 1.4 - I suspect the court order applies to the Sun-developed JVM.
And yet, I've seen posts on this discussion stating otherwise. A "correct" reading would be most helpful. It would be a massive cost for MS to implement and support 1.4, and I think a lot of people find that concept unfair. Giving OEM's the right to bundle is a lot more palatable, but admittedly with problems too.

And hey, people - this is Win-Win for us (pun intended!!!): new computers will have a modern Java implementation, and if it's windows, it'll also have the .NET framework. So we'll all have more choices in the apps we can run, and developers will have a more even field of choices to develop in.
This is true, to some extent. It would be nice to have a standardized JVM with Swing on all computers :) However, even if MS were forced to do this for their next OS (or would the ruling require them to retrofit?) it will take forever and ever before we could assume such functionality. Heck, a ton of people still use Netscape 4.78, to which I can unequivocally say: :pukeface:

--janak

ChrisW

12-31-2002, 04:42 AM

Sun's point is that Microsoft has leveraged their Windows monopoly (a legal monopoly, i might add) to restrain the market for Java applications....

...had there been less issues with the varios Java VMs, I might have chosen that as my app platform of choice. I think Sun had a legitimate complaint, since first Microsoft licensed Java, then created an incompatible version of the JVM that violated the licensing agreement, and then chose to instead support "J++", which is a windows-specific java implemention (not a full one, though)....

Finally - all this about competition is great - but the Sherman Antitrust act was used to force Ma Bell to open up her networks to other long-distance companies, and there is STILL resentment among bell employees in the Central Offices (the switch offices) about this. After all, in THEIR OWN buildings, they are forced by law to allow competitors to come in, and install equipment that competes with their own equipment (I've seen this in Bell South, when I was consulting for them). And Ma Bell was broken up under the agreement, into 7 RBOCs and a long-distance company.

1) Any marketer with any brains uses his current strength to shore up support in the future. Sun's complaints (and others, like Netscape and Oracle) centered around MS leveraging its position to dominate market slices. The problem with that is it assumes a single static definition of the market, which is incorrect. In fact, the changes that Sun etc. complained about reflect MS responding to customer demand for consolidation of various segments of the market. If the customer says that procuring and installing various utility and support software is cumbersome, then MS encompasses those featuers in the "OS" product. This isn't predatory grabbing the utility market; it's a fundamental change in the larger s/w market. When I was younger we actually got deliveries from a milkman, but he didn't have any fundamental right to serve this market. When consumers wanted consolidated sales of all food commodities, they milkman went away. This isn't predation on the part of grocery stores.

2) IIRC, anything Sun's VM could do, MS's could do too (setting aside the falsity of Sun's "write once run anywhere" claims, which never worked even with their own VMs). MS added a few nifty features to lure users (DirectX support for games was one, I think). Netscape was guilty of this themselves, adding such ill-advised non-standard "features" as "BLINK" and layers, in an attempt to lure HTMLers. Why is it fundamentally immoral for MS to pursue this strategy while every other business in the world is virtuous for expanding the product's utility for customers?

3) ATT is a bad example. MS is a self-made monopoly, while ATT was essentially a government dictated (and regulated) one. Today we get much better phone service than pre-1984, but this can be attributed (partly) to ATT's inability to innovate and experiment with products and services while leashed by government regulations. The breakup freed competitors to try all sorts of alternatives, and to invest money in risky r&d. This paid off in spades for stockholders AND consumers. Now go back and re-read my point #2 about companies expanding on the standard service to try winning new business.

(Another reason for better service today is more choice. However, MS doesn't have the stranglehold on the market that it's made to appear. They hold vast majorities of the Office Suite market, because all competitors suck. They hold a large majority of desktop O/S, but this is shrinking slowly without court help and in any case is unrelated to Sun's market. They DO NOT hold a majority in any server products--where Sun competes-- that I'm aware of, unless you split hairs with funny demographics)

Janak Parekh

12-31-2002, 04:46 AM

2) IIRC, anything Sun's VM could do, MS's could do too (setting aside the falsity of Sun's "write once run anywhere" claims, which never worked even with their own VMs).
This was not true of the MS JVM that Sun initially sued about. MS deliberately left out JNI and RMI, tools that Sun used to access C++ code and support RPC-like network calls, respectively. That's what started the whole fun. Whether or not MS was allowed to do this is up to the contract, and has been in dispute, and found in favor of Sun.

3) ATT is a bad example. MS is a self-made monopoly, while ATT was essentially a government dictated (and regulated) one.
... which is what MS is becoming, and that's what we're debating about. ;)

However, MS doesn't have the stranglehold on the market that it's made to appear.
These perceptions vary widely, of course. A lot of the fear is also stemmed from the belief that MS's actions will eventually gain them a stranglehold.

--janak

ChrisW

12-31-2002, 05:08 AM

{ATT was essentially a government dictated (and regulated) monopoly}... which is what MS is becoming, and that's what we're debating about. ;)

...A lot of the fear is also stemmed from the belief that MS's actions will eventually gain them a stranglehold.
Exactly. Am I the only one that sees the irony here? On the one hand would-be competitors force the gov't's hand in court to regulate MS. On the other hand, those very regulations will entrench and institutionalize MS. Your quip, with which I completely agree, has those opposed to MS hoist on their own petard.

And what do we get for the trouble? An industry in a rut, that can't innovate without govt sanction (and we know the path that leads down.... 1-gallon toilets).

For consumers, MS, and competitors, any regulation in this direction is lose-lose-lose all around the table.

Janak Parekh

12-31-2002, 05:48 AM

For consumers, MS, and competitors, any regulation in this direction is lose-lose-lose all around the table.
I wish it were so easy :) If MS is completely unfettered, and their main Palladium and other DRM plans go through, any average consumer will have to use Windows and MS technologies; that is, I perceive the potential threat to be real, and if it is the industry is headed for a much worse situation than it is now. On the other hand, the current Administration agrees that MS should be less regulated than more to boost the industry, and bundling Java is a weird, likely unsuccessful, way of regulating MS's monopoly.

Mind you, I can't blame MS here for their attempt to take over the world. Every company tries that; they want to maximize value, and MS has certainly been successful at doing so. What irks me is that MS has been fiercely independent and combative in this situation, unlike Intel, who flies under the radar and tries to build a consensus, and as such avoided much of the punitive damages that MS is just now going through.

Anyway, a million people have debated this before us and haven't gotten anywhere, so I'm going to avoid the general argument, focus on the specifics, and will leave it to the flamers in the newsgroups. :)

--janak

mobileMike

12-31-2002, 07:01 AM

In order for Veritas to work properly on remote management machines, Java Runtime v1.3 has to be installed. Unfortunately, the same machine that has Java 1.3 on it can't run the Cisco web based management console. It requires a higher version of Java.

Of course, Java VM Runtime 1.4x seems to have different class setups than 1.3. This means that I can't upgrade from 1.3 to 1.4 if I still want to manage Veritas, or if I want to manage a Cisco box, I have to forego Veritas.

First, you should be able to run all 1.3 JVM applications with 1.4. Yes they have different classes but the old ones have been deprecated not removed to let developers know not to use them anymore.

Second, you can install as many JVMs on a single PC as you want. I normally have several versions. I keep the latest version for everyday/normal use and then I keep 1.1.8 version for when I want to do development for Jeode's JVM which is shipped with iPAQs.

- mike

Janak Parekh

12-31-2002, 07:08 AM

First, you should be able to run all 1.3 JVM applications with 1.4. Yes they have different classes but the old ones have been deprecated not removed to let developers know not to use them anymore.
In theory. Certain API's have changed subtlely.

Second, you can install as many JVMs on a single PC as you want. I normally have several versions. I keep the latest version for everyday/normal use and then I keep 1.1.8 version for when I want to do development for Jeode's JVM which is shipped with iPAQs.
This is true. Java installs a Control Panel applet that lets you choose which JVM you want to use for applets.

--janak

heliod

12-31-2002, 07:12 AM

The big problem with Sun's Java comparing to the Java provided today by Microsoft in XP SP1 is the size and the complexity.

Many software companies have been preparing their software to support Microsoft's Java only, since they believe the regular user doesn't want to deal with Sun's JVM.

I think this is the situation these guys want to change using a strategy that they are the first to condemn when Microsoft uses it.

If I were in Microsoft's place, I would provide it with Windows, but use Default Install=No, so that only users that really need it would install it.

mobileMike

12-31-2002, 07:15 AM

DaleReeck

12-31-2002, 07:19 AM

I, for one am FOR monopolies. If we had true monopolies, then we wouldn't have 5 different storage card formats. CF, SD, Sony, Sony II (coming) and multimedia card. How about video? VHS, BetaMax, 8mm, Hi8, SuperVHS and various flavors of DV. Hope you didn't invest too much in that Hi8 camera now that it's crap compared to DV. If we had true monopolies, we wouldn't have had different video card requriements for games (remember 3DFX vs. NVidia?)

While monopoly breaking is great for business, it's lousy for the consumer. I keep hearing about how competition makes prices lower but that's bullcrap. Otherwise, PocketPC's wouldn't still cost 300 dollars. The iPaq 5450 wouldn't cost more than a lot of desktop PC's. Companies still collude among themselves to keep prices artificially higher despite "competition".

Imagine if there were truly more than one OS option. What about software developers? Are they going to spend the money and resources (and thus raise prices) by having to program their apps for different OS's? Unfortunately, creating for different platforms isn't always as simple as throwing the code into a different compiler. You would need people skilled in that particular platform, increasing manpower needs. That means development costs more money. Guess where that extra jack is coming from? Not form the company's coffers, that's for sure. End result, higher prices. The small mom and pop software people (like much of the PDA software community) could never afford the time, people and resources to develop for multiple platforms. So they would pick one. The one they pick doesn't happen to support YOUR particular choice of OS? Oh well, better luck next time selecting your hardware product.

Not having monopolies also stagnates development. Companies get lazy because, now instead of building a better product, they can just sue their competition. People forget that Windows networking was well behind their competitors in Novell and SCO. But Microsoft kept making their product better until it could match up well to, and eventually surpass, the other platforms. I mean, people aren't stupid. They picked Microsoft because, though it was hardly perfect, it was overall better than everyone else. Its not like millions of people worldwide fell for some slick MS marketing campaign. MS developd their collective a$$es off while Novell and SCO just sat there and expected their good name and, in Unix's case, their internet presence, to replace innovation. People don't realize it, but Microsoft could be toppled, probalby within 5 years. All we need is someone to figure out how to do it better than Windows. If you build a better OS, the people will follow. Any takers? Naw, we'll just sue them to give our underdeveloped product a few more years of life.

Technology needs monopolies so that everyone is on the same page. What if the IEEE was declared a monopoly? How about the internet with competing protocols? The internet wouldn't exist as we know it without monopolies. Unfortunately, the people driving these paranoid monopoly lawsuits (ie, Massachusetts) don't have a clue about technology. Having politicians write technology legislation is like trying to have engineers write medical or drug regulations.

mobileMike

12-31-2002, 07:20 AM

Second, you can install as many JVMs on a single PC as you want. I normally have several versions. I keep the latest version for everyday/normal use and then I keep 1.1.8 version for when I want to do development for Jeode's JVM which is shipped with iPAQs.
This is true. Java installs a Control Panel applet that lets you choose which JVM you want to use for applets.
--janak

Usually there is a .BAT file to start Java applications on Windows. This BAT file is then associated with an icon in the UI. It is common for this BAT file to contain the CLASSPATH and the location of the JVM to be used.

- mike

mobileMike

12-31-2002, 07:23 AM

The internet wouldn't exist as we know it without monopolies.

Please explain.....

- mike

JonnoB

12-31-2002, 07:24 AM

These are all tools built into the Windows OS, yet I can buy these utilities as applications to run on Windows. People buy these apps because they want more - they win on being better. Java, and any other bolt-on utiltity, language, application, tool, etc should work to be so much better that PC manufacturers want it, need it.

Your mixing tools (read applications) with libraries (frameworks). Sun is trying to promote Java but it is difficult when users must first download a huge framework. Microsoft already includes base C++, VB libraries (MFC,...) and will soon include the .NET framework.

Once all these frameworks are packaged with Windows then developers can compete equally at the application level. Speed to market, performance, look-n-feel, functionality.

- mike

The same could be said of other frameworks then. Should MS be forced to install other 2D, 3D, and sound rendering libraries that compete with DirectX? Perhaps 3DFX before their demise should have forced MS through the court system to bundle GLiDE? Perhaps MS should be forced to include the Novell authentication system (eDirectory/NDS) in addition to its own?

If MS develops the OS, they should decide what is the default configuration. Users of the OS (end users and PC builders) can decide to bundle the OS or not and if to bundle it, what to include in additional components, etc.

MS was justly corrected in preventing them from making punitive the act of preventing competing components (like AOL inclusion)... but to force MS to bundle framework bits into the OS that they do not control is silly.

If Java is great, the market will demand it be included and PC builders will react. MS can no longer stop this, so let the free market bear out what people want.

mobileMike

12-31-2002, 07:32 AM

Would Sun give them the source? And under what license?
--janak

You can have access to all the Java source today. There is also discussion that the souce is heading toward a GPL like licence.

- mike

Pony99CA

12-31-2002, 07:50 AM

Not having monopolies also stagnates development. Companies get lazy because, now instead of building a better product, they can just sue their competition. People forget that Windows networking was well behind their competitors in Novell and SCO. But Microsoft kept making their product better until it could match up well to, and eventually surpass, the other platforms.

Your Orwellian NewSpeak is fantastic! You say, "Not having monopolies stagnates development," and then promptly prove yourself wrong. Read what you just said -- Microsoft wasn't a monopoly in networking, so they had to compete to get ahead. So not having a monopoly encouraged development.

Monopolies don't prevent innovation, but they don't have to encourage it, either, as there's nowhere else to go. And, if there's nowhere else to go, the monopoly can charge what they want. Whether the monopoly still innovates or does charge fair prices isn't the issue -- the issue is what they could do. A fair competitive landscape keeps the pressure on so that innovation occurs and prices aren't kept artificially high.

The important thing to remember is that, until somebody abuses their monopoly, nobody gets punished. Microsoft abused theirs, now they're getting punished.

Steve

mobileMike

12-31-2002, 07:50 AM

The same could be said of other frameworks then. Should MS be forced to install other 2D, 3D, and sound rendering libraries that compete with DirectX? Perhaps 3DFX before their demise should have forced MS through the court system to bundle GLiDE? Perhaps MS should be forced to include the Novell authentication system (eDirectory/NDS) in addition to its own?

If MS develops the OS, they should decide what is the default configuration. Users of the OS (end users and PC builders) can decide to bundle the OS or not and if to bundle it, what to include in additional components, etc.

MS was justly corrected in preventing them from making punitive the act of preventing competing components (like AOL inclusion)... but to force MS to bundle framework bits into the OS that they do not control is silly.

If Java is great, the market will demand it be included and PC builders will react. MS can no longer stop this, so let the free market bear out what people want.

I think this is where the problem with Microsoft being a monopoly comes into to play. People believe (right or wrong) that if something is not part of Windows then it is not "standard" and should not be used. When it is used, people complain/argue: "Why are you using Java?"

This is a valid question but not because Microsoft did not include it with the OS. This is when a monopoly can limit change.

I think it would have been better for Sun to encourge OEMs to include Java now that Microsoft has lost some of it's power over them.

Pony99CA

12-31-2002, 08:09 AM

Your mixing tools (read applications) with libraries (frameworks). Sun is trying to promote Java but it is difficult when users must first download a huge framework. Microsoft already includes base C++, VB libraries (MFC,...) and will soon include the .NET framework.

Once all these frameworks are packaged with Windows then developers can compete equally at the application level. Speed to market, performance, look-n-feel, functionality.

The same could be said of other frameworks then. Should MS be forced to install other 2D, 3D, and sound rendering libraries that compete with DirectX? Perhaps 3DFX before their demise should have forced MS through the court system to bundle GLiDE? Perhaps MS should be forced to include the Novell authentication system (eDirectory/NDS) in addition to its own?

If MS develops the OS, they should decide what is the default configuration. Users of the OS (end users and PC builders) can decide to bundle the OS or not and if to bundle it, what to include in additional components, etc.

MS was justly corrected in preventing them from making punitive the act of preventing competing components (like AOL inclusion)... but to force MS to bundle framework bits into the OS that they do not control is silly.

If Java is great, the market will demand it be included and PC builders will react. MS can no longer stop this, so let the free market bear out what people want.
The difference is that Microsoft did include Java in their OS, then they removed it when they started their .Net initiative (and C#). Doesn't that look like a huge red flag to you?

During the federal anti-trust trial, Microsoft whined that they couldn't unbundle their browser, media player, etc. because they were tightly integrated into the OS. Big deal. Anybody could artificially bundle, say, MP3 functions in the same DLL as something critical like process handling, then rightly say removing that "MP3 DLL" would break the OS.

In Windows 95, Internet Explorer was shipped as part of the Microsoft Plus Pack. It wasn't integrated into the OS. Windows Media Player wasn't bundled, either, at one time. So there was a time when they could have easily separated the functions. If they used good software engineering practices like component-based development, minimizing coupling and maximizing cohesion, they should be able to unbundle them.

Microsoft also complained that removing those components from the OS would hurt developers. That may be true, but their hypocrisy was exposed when they removed the Java VM from Windows XP, which could also be said to hurt developers. Doesn't that seem like another red flag?

It seems to me that Microsoft could keep the OS infrastructure in place -- the media handling functions, the Internet handling functions, etc. -- while removing the clients that the user uses without penalizing developers. Keep the COM and DLL files that implement that APIs and remove the EXE files that the user invokes.

It doesn't seem like rocket science to me, and, if Microsoft made it too difficult to do, it's their own fault. Like you, I'm a software developer, and I'd love to hear why this can't be done. Wouldn't you?

Steve

Kevin Daly

12-31-2002, 12:09 PM

I have no problem with Java per se, I think it's a fine language, but I'm tired of Sun's tactics (litigation instead of innovation).
I found some of Motz's comments to be quite bizarre, in that he seemed overly keen on protecting Java from any kind of competition from .NET - Client-side Java is a victim of its own crappiness, and server-side Java is doing very well and likely to continue to do so.
Richard Green's remarks were either ignorant (hard to believe, considering his position) or deliberately deceptive:'"The availability of a Java-powered Web services network will create a lot of interest" in Java-based server products, Green said.'
...this makes no sense, because assuming that widely agreed standards are used (SOAP etc.), web services are platform-agnostic (it's not quite that simple, but close enough). You can develop web services with Java and consume them from a .NET client, or consume .NET web services with a Java client.
So any interest in Java-based server products is not going to be influenced by whether Microsoft provides a Sun JVM with Windows and IE.
To put it another way, the man is telling porkies to gullible journalists (who can be counted on to nod sagely and lap it up).
All I can say is, "Hurrumphhh".
And possibly, "Bah!".

mobileMike

12-31-2002, 12:30 PM

I found some of Motz's comments to be quite bizarre, in that he seemed overly keen on protecting Java from any kind of competition from .NET - Client-side Java is a victim of its own crappiness, and server-side Java is doing very well and likely to continue to do so.

Server-side Java is successful because no one needs to install a JVM except for the providers (developers) maintaining the servers. Since developers could use other languages, it seems Java is a very popular language with them.

Client-side Java is failing because of mass distribution. No language/library will be able to compete with Microsoft's preinstalled alternatives. .NET will "win" on the client side because it is already installed (if it is better or not is irrelevant).

Those realizing Client-side java will not prevail and who do not want to use .NET turn to web-based clients (not Java applets). Even though a "thicker" client would provide a better user experience. Many companies providing services use this approach.

Kevin Daly

12-31-2002, 02:07 PM

Client-side Java is failing because of mass distribution. No language/library will be able to compete with Microsoft's preinstalled alternatives. .NET will "win" on the client side because it is already installed (if it is better or not is irrelevant).

I must regretfully point out that that observation is,er, not entirely congruent with observable reality. Client-side Java *had* mass distribution for a long time and didn't take off.
There were reasons for this that had nothing to do with Evil Scheming Microsoft. To whit, including but not limited to the following:
1) For a long time it was slow. Slow to download and slow to run. Oh how I loathed that little grey box...
2) Lack of compelling applications. It really needed something more useful than Oh-No-Not-Another-Applet-To-Make-Text-Go-All-Wavy, or The Pretty But Pointless Reflective Thingy.
As far as I can tell the only reason for this was lack of imagination on the part of developers (or possibly the download size of anything that would have been useful).
3) Crappy user interface. First the Supremely Awful AWT, which really offered no better layout than raw HTML did (so why not have a simple life and use HTML? So we did..). Then the Swing library which was a big improvement on AWT, but still not as good as the Windows UI and not even suppported by Sun's allies.
The sort of thing that Sun took MS to court over (creating a version of Java with numerous extensions that allowed it to take advantage of native Windows features) might very well have made Java much more acceptable to users (and Windows developers).
4) Java applications (as opposed to Java applets) were not well integrated into the Windows UI, making them look like DOS-based kludges.
5) Applets offered little or no advantages to users over IE DHTML once that was released, and were much slower to load of course. A paranoid cynic might assume that the reason AOL took so long to release a version of Netscape with a decent DHTML implementation was to avoid upsetting Sun.

Client-side Java might also have done better if it had made up its mind what it wanted to be from the start...AND if it had got out from under Sun (since some of the best ideas in relation to Java have come from other companies. Take the Eclipse project as a semi-trivial example)

mobileMike

12-31-2002, 03:08 PM

I agree almost completely with what you (Kevin Daly) say.

Applets are worthless.

Java was slow but is much faster now.

It was distributed with Windows but at a time when it was slow and lacked Swing.

Sun should have released control but they did not (I have read this should happen soon though). Even still the Java Community Process is a big improvement from the start.

Today, you can make a Java application look exactly like Window applications. Probably 95% of users would not know they are running a Java application.

IMHO: If the current release of Java was the first release of Java and included with each shipment of Windows it would have taken off on the client-side.

It seems it doesn't only take Microsoft several tries to get it right, but Sun also. Unfortunately only with Microsoft's code can garuntee improvemets will ship with the OS and updated with their update manager. Even though Java may be shipping today with Windows, until it has a garunteed future of being there it will not have an equal chance as .NET.

One more thing...
I think Java does not need help when it comes to store bought (packaged) software. It is just as easy to include the JVM on the CD. It is at a great disadvantage though to anyone providing downloadable software which is where the future is heading.

ChrisW

12-31-2002, 03:10 PM

Server-side Java is successful because no one needs to install a JVM except for the providers (developers) maintaining the servers. Since developers could use other languages, it seems Java is a very popular language with them.

Client-side Java is failing because of mass distribution. No language/library will be able to compete with Microsoft's preinstalled alternatives. .NET will "win" on the client side because it is already installed (if it is better or not is irrelevant).

This isn't true at all, at least not in the case of my company. We used to have java applets on our web ecommerce system. We eventually pulled them because the promised "write once run anywhere" is a load of crap. We found that AWT events fired differently depending on platform, even using the Sun VM all around. We couldn't support all users with the degree of quality we wanted, so we canned the whole thing.

On the server side we've had the same problem with 3rd party stuff we've purchased and used. One of the server apps we use requires a particular JVM, and for reason I don't understand, that VM can't co-exist with the VM required for other apps. So we need a separate server for that oddball application. But we can deal with that with some grumbling, since the cost of the additional server is less than the cost of not having the software. The same logic can't be used on the client side.

Indeed, I've heard many others in the industry joke about Java being "write once debug everywhere". Is it crazy to think that Java's failure on the desktop is due not so much to MS's aggressive tactics but to one of Java's main "features" being bunk?

Janak Parekh

12-31-2002, 04:41 PM

Janak Parekh

12-31-2002, 04:43 PM

The difference is that Microsoft did include Java in their OS, then they removed it when they started their .Net initiative (and C#). Doesn't that look like a huge red flag to you?
Actually, they removed it when Sun litigated Microsoft for omitting JNI and RMI in their VM. Sun then launched a new lawsuit asking MS to put a JNI+RMI version back. Microsoft finally did so, and if you may remember had to bundle extra CD's with versions of Windows to include the "correct" virtual machine. C# and .NET were still on drawing boards, and not even called that, back in those days.

It seems to me that Microsoft could keep the OS infrastructure in place -- the media handling functions, the Internet handling functions, etc. -- while removing the clients that the user uses without penalizing developers. Keep the COM and DLL files that implement that APIs and remove the EXE files that the user invokes.

It doesn't seem like rocket science to me, and, if Microsoft made it too difficult to do, it's their own fault. Like you, I'm a software developer, and I'd love to hear why this can't be done. Wouldn't you?
W2K SP3 and WXP SP1 already do this, AFAICT, or at least something very close to it.

--janak

Janak Parekh

12-31-2002, 04:51 PM

I, for one am FOR monopolies. If we had true monopolies, then we wouldn't have 5 different storage card formats.
Sure we would. Witness Sony evolving from tape cassettes, to CD's, to Minidiscs, to Memory Stick, to Memory Stick Duo, to high-capacity Memory Sticks.

If we had true monopolies, we wouldn't have had different video card requriements for games (remember 3DFX vs. NVidia?)
Sure, we'd be stuck with yesterday's technology. ATI vs. nVidia is the best thing that's happening for the consumer in the graphics industry.

While monopoly breaking is great for business, it's lousy for the consumer. I keep hearing about how competition makes prices lower but that's bullcrap. Otherwise, PocketPC's wouldn't still cost 300 dollars.
No, if there was a monopoly there wouldn't be any PPC that costs less than $299. There's still only one.

Companies still collude among themselves to keep prices artificially higher despite "competition".
Where in the PPC world do you have evidence of this?

Imagine if there were truly more than one OS option.
Uh, there is, and I'm very glad there is. You know, if MS had been a monopoly all along, we'd still be using NetBEUI, wouldn't have the Internet, etc. If you look at 2k and XP's networking code, it's BSD code. This is legal, and it's a wonderful thing, because we had different people working on different problems, on different OS's.

Unfortunately, creating for different platforms isn't always as simple as throwing the code into a different compiler. You would need people skilled in that particular platform, increasing manpower needs. That means development costs more money. Guess where that extra jack is coming from?
Where is it written that an app must exist for every platform? That's the idea of standardized protocols and data formats -- let people write different apps for different platforms that interoperate. The idea of abstraction layers is fundamental to Computer Science. Nothing we have today would have existed without competition and abstraction.

Not having monopolies also stagnates development.
I'm not going to argue this further than what Steve said, except to say: do you remember the 70's with the minicomputer monopolies? *shudder*

The internet wouldn't exist as we know it without monopolies.
This is ridiculous. The Internet existed long before any monopolies got involved in it. If you want a broad monopolistic network that existed alongside the Internet, it was CompuServe. Guess what? It was a hugely expensive and, ultimately, a massive failure.

Unfortunately, the people driving these paranoid monopoly lawsuits (ie, Massachusetts) don't have a clue about technology. Having politicians write technology legislation is like trying to have engineers write medical or drug regulations.
Now this, I might agree with, but for completely different reasons from you. ;)

--janak

ChrisW

12-31-2002, 05:11 PM

Indeed, I've heard many others in the industry joke about Java being "write once debug everywhere". Is it crazy to think that Java's failure on the desktop is due not so much to MS's aggressive tactics but to one of Java's main "features" being bunk?
It's closer than any other language in this respect, given the broad array of diverse platforms. I can take the code from my repository, right now, and run it on both Windows and Linux, right now, and it works fine; I didn't have to do anything special.

You may be right today, I've heard that swing fixed this a lot. But at the time everything was going on, it was definitely NOT true. This all happened at the time of AWT, and I have direct experience with these problems: they did exist.

Also, I have tons of stock C++ code that can run on virtually any platform; this doesn't make C++ cross-platform. The places where this breaks down is where the code communicates with the outside world (UI, database, etc.). GUI libraries like MFC don't port well at all, and this applies to AWT as well.

Java's big problem is that the API shifted a lot from 1.1 to 1.2, and then a bit from 1.2, to 1.3, and finally to 1.4. The VM weirdness you're talking about probably relates to things like Sun repackaging the Swing libraries.

Which again disproves the cross platform thing. If Sun can't even keep their own platform straight, how can anyone fault MS for not doing so?

Jason Dunn

12-31-2002, 05:27 PM

Well, for starters - Sun's complaint isn't really so concerned with Java Applets on web-pages, although this is where most of us commonly see Java being used on the desktop. There are, in fact, full fledged applications, including some that some of you probably use, that rely on a JVM being in place. One app that I use for Peer-to-Peer transfers is a Gnutella client, called Limeware. It's written in Java, which is why if you don't have a current JVM, the Limeware installer downloads it for you (which is fine for broadband users, but annoying for those on dialup).

I'm a Limewire user as well, which is why my laptop is the only computer in my network that has the Java VM installed. I don't know what you think about Limewire, but it's slow as heck for me (compared with pure Windows apps), and the UI is cumbersome (because it doesn't follow the Windows UI). Now if there were 100's more applications like Limewire that were popular, this would be a very different discussion. If major applications were Java-based (like, oh, Sun's StarOffice) the market would be demanding the Java VM be included. But there aren't - Limewire is the only Java-based application that I've ever used on my computers. Doesn't that say something? :lol:

Face it: Java was a failure and never delivered on it's promises. It's only very recently with XP that Microsoft has stopped including a Java VM - we've had Java VM's on our machines for YEARS, without the courts getting involved, and did Java get anywhere? Nope.

I'm sure there are corperations that use Java-based client apps, and I know that some banks use Java-based apps, but Enterprises will install an approved Java VM themselves, regardless of what Microsoft does/doesn't include. On a mass market level, Java is a failure - and no lawsuit can change that.

Janak Parekh

12-31-2002, 05:33 PM

Which again disproves the cross platform thing. If Sun can't even keep their own platform straight, how can anyone fault MS for not doing so?
My point is, Java is suffering far more from versioning platforms now. If you find 1.4-compatible code that doesn't use JNI on Solaris, it's likely today you'll have no problems with Windows.

Your other points are noted and I do largely agree. :)

On a mass market level, Java is a failure - and no lawsuit can change that.
... because Sun tried to bludgeon it early upon the market. The sad part is, Java now is not such a horribly slow and unstable technology - it does work and client-side applets could be really useful for things like thin clients. Sun jumped the gun a little too much (for the coders out there, the Collections API in java.util, and the massive changes in AWT/Swing are the classic examples). MS took a lot more time with .NET, and if you look at the API of the .NET Framework it's quite polished and an amazing 1.0 release.

--janak

Jason Dunn

12-31-2002, 05:36 PM

Hey, do any of you MS apologists want a job in Microsoft's PR department?...What Sun claims is that the market for Java and Java-like environments would have looked much different if Microsoft had not used its monopoly power to destroy that market. Nothing can undo that, but the court can try to restore the market by forcing Microsoft to give Java a chance to compete.

Instead of insulting us, why don't you try to prove your point instead of hiding behind big bad words like "apologist"?

We've had Java VM's installed on our machines for years. If memory serves, didn't Netscape 2.x and upwards come with a Java VM? I remember working with Java applets as a Webmaster for several years - I went out and bought an expensive package of applets so I could add these cool menu systems to my sites. I encountered Java-based games, applets, and all sorts of "cool" stuff. But ultimately everything was slow, ugly, and cumbersome (not every applet worked with every Java VM, whcih drove me nuts).

Then something interesting happened - Flash and Shockwave killed the Web-based Java games overnight. They went poof. And a few years later, they killed most of the "gee whiz" applets that did photo presentation and other multimedia embedding. Webmasters realized how lame it was for someone to visit their site and have to wait for a client side Java VM to load before a navigation menu would appear - so people like myself stopped using Java on our Web pages. There are still some cool things that Java can do, but so much of it can be done better and faster with DHTML, JavaScript, Flash, and a host of other technologies that simply won the hearts and minds of Web developers - and it had nothing to do with Microsoft.

The battle of Java vs. world was fought years ago, and Java lost. If anything, Sun should be suing Macromedia, but they know they'd lose - it's easier to whine and moan about "big bad Microsoft".

So, please, if you have something tangible to contribute to this conversation, do so.

Jonathan1

12-31-2002, 05:39 PM

OK I know this is going to get more then a few flamish responses but my take on it is pretty simple.

If MS is going to have its hands in so many cookie jars (Read: OS market, office suite market, server market, whatnot) it should be pushing all standards not just its own. I’m sorry but guys if you own a 90%+ market share of the desktop OS market you can’t be treated like any other company. This is a fact that most people fail to realize. MS pushes their own agenda, which is fine as long as it doesn’t use its OS market share to push that agenda. (Which we know NEVER happens) :roll: There is NO way for anyone to compete against Microsoft when they use that market share.

It’s as simple as this fact: MS’s distribution network is unimaginably larger since MS has Automatic Windows Update, new PC sales, corp sales. All to push whatever format they want. What does Sun have to rollout Jave to the masses?

What the judge realized is that the only way to level the playing field is the use that 90%+ market share to level that playing field. Its nowhere near a perfect solution. I don’t think there has ever been a time in history where a company has ever been forced to carry its competitors product but at no time in history has there been a company like MS. MS is a different breed of animal. You can’t “play by the rule book” for them since they themselves tossed out the rule book long ago. They require different and unique solutions. As unpopular as the solution was I’m of the mind of breaking them up but that’s a diff discussion. What it boils down to is that I think the judge make the correct call on this. If you compare it to old school business practices you will automatically howl unfair! How cold they! If you look at it from a competition standpoint this is a REALLY good thing. *shrugs* That's how I've felt since the beginning of MS being on trial. Nothings going to change that short of MS changing their business practices which will never happen

Jason Dunn

12-31-2002, 05:56 PM

Jason Dunn

12-31-2002, 06:04 PM

Java's big problem is that the API shifted a lot from 1.1 to 1.2, and then a bit from 1.2, to 1.3, and finally to 1.4. The VM weirdness you're talking about probably relates to things like Sun repackaging the Swing libraries.

I'm not a developer, so smack me upside the head if I'm off-base here, but changing an API in a .x release seems completely insane to me. Don't APIs have to remain fixed in order to provide a stable user experience? If I downloaded a Windows Update that changed an API and all of a sudden several of my programs stopped working until their developers released a new version...that doesn't sound like a good scenario, and if that's what happened with Java, is it any wonder why it failed?

Jonathan1

12-31-2002, 06:08 PM

My install of Windows XP didn't come with Flash 6 or Shockwave, but when I go to a site that needs that operating environment I have the choice to download it or not. Since the download of both is quite simple (although Shockwave is certainly bigger than Flash 6), as a consumer I have the choice of whether or not I want to add those platforms onto my PC.

Jason. Do you think Longhorn is going to come with the .NET framework built in? Do you think you will have much choice when you buy a new computer to NOT get Longhorn and the .NET framework? The .NET framework as it stands is a 20MB install. Just go http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/default.asp?url=/downloads/sample.asp?url=/msdn-files/027/001/829/msdncompositedoc.xml

There and you will see the file size. Vs. Java’s 8MB install file size that can be found here: http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.1/download.html

You can't compare Java to Flash or Shockwave. A more = comparison would be C# and Java. If memory serves isn't C# part of the .NET framework? Anyone?

Janak Parekh

12-31-2002, 06:11 PM

Don't APIs have to remain fixed in order to provide a stable user experience?
In short, yes. It's better to view Java's releases as different versions of Windows, say 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, and so on, rather than the patches you get via Windows Update. The problem with this is, OTOH, that Java VM's are supposed to seamlessly exist under the scenes.

To mitigate the factor, Sun did add the notion of "deprecation", which they could tag code with so that developers knew to refresh their code for the next releases, and tried to keep most of the old API functional. But they have broken things, with yelps of pain from the development and user community. Again, part of the reason is because they rushed out with the 1.0 product. Ask any Java developer about the time they took out System.getenv...

--janak

ChrisW

12-31-2002, 06:27 PM

OK I know this is going to get more then a few flamish responses but my take on it is pretty simple.

If MS is going to have its hands in so many cookie jars (Read: OS market, office suite market, server market, whatnot) it should be pushing all standards not just its own.

There it is again, the idea that there's some natural law that makes desktop OS, office suites, servers, utilities, etc., separate and distinct markets. This is WRONG. The market is precisely what the market defines itself as. If customers want consolidation, and company(s) provide it, then the new conglomeration is what the market is.

Neither Sun nor any other entity can (morally) say that there should exist a separate market segment, and get the courts to enforce this. Otherwise, as in a previous post, I'd still have milkmen delivering dairy products to my door.

Second, for several years now MS *has* been the champion of standards. While Sun has arrogantly held onto Java, MS has gotten the .Net CLR standardized. And versions of Netscape before 6 couldn't handle CSS, DOM, etc. worth a darn while throwing in non-standard junk like BLINK and layers (not to mention so buggy that it crashes when looked at cross-eyed).

I’m sorry but guys if you own a 90%+ market share of the desktop OS market you can’t be treated like any other company....

What the judge realized is that the only way to level the playing field is the use that 90%+ market share to level that playing field.

Your statement about "can't be treated like any other company" carries a ton of assumptions. The biggest of these are that (a) there's some entity that's powerful enough AND wise enough to do the treating, and (b) that any treating is necessary, whether is like other companies or not.

When was it that we accepted the failure of capitalism and free markets, and officially adopted socialism? :x

jweitzman

12-31-2002, 07:05 PM

Instead of insulting us, why don't you try to prove your point instead of hiding behind big bad words like "apologist"?

Read the rest of my post, I think I made my point. The post right after yours makes it again. The lawsuit does not address whether Java is any good. That's not the point of antitrust law and not something courts should or do decide.

The point is to restore competition when there is a finding that one company illegally restrained competition. Too many people here are skipping over that point and arguing about the merits of Java vs. MS's version. Different debate. Someone even argued monopolies are good! Hey, maybe dictators are good, too! Mussolini made the trains run on time....

This is NOT about who has the better product! This is about whether the consumer had a *real* chance to decide which product was better. You may argue that the court was wrong and that Microsoft did not leverage its monopoly in restraint of trade. Fair enough, maybe the court was wrong.

But it is the court's job to determine that. It cannot be decided by the marketplace because the whole point is to determine whether the marketplace was allowed to exist! Both sides get to argue what the definition of "market" should be, so they can argue and present evidence that a Java-like environment isn't a separate market from the OS or from some other type of product. They argue the facts and court does its best to decide based on the application of law to those facts.

The government is not "regulating" Microsoft. The courts are attempting to restore a market to a condition it would have been in had there been no illegal conduct. Their choices are limited since by definition the market is impaired (oops, sorry for the big bad word, I mean "messed up"). These remedies have a limited lifespan and are designed to correct the situation then go away.

mobileMike

12-31-2002, 07:37 PM

I agree that the .NET framework is a better comparison. It is available now but I don't download it because there are not enough programs which warrent the hassle. If it came with my OS then I would be trying out the new applications as they became available. I guess most "normal" users (not the average PPCT reader) would do the same. This means .NET will not gain acceptance until it is part of the OS are installed automatically by a OS update.

I believe Java would work the same.

Now skipping the correctness of the topic...
If Java was/is provided with the OS, would you remove it? Remember you have that +80GB hard drive.

Kirkaiya

12-31-2002, 07:52 PM

I, for one am FOR monopolies. If we had true monopolies, then we wouldn't have 5 different storage card formats. CF, SD, Sony, Sony II (coming) and multimedia card. How about video? VHS, BetaMax, 8mm, Hi8, SuperVHS and various flavors of DV.
{excerpted} ...

ROFLMAO - that's funny. So, you're basically in favor of an economy like the former Soviet Union, where everthing was a monoploy, and they STILL had like, 8 different ways of doing things.

I, and i suspect most people, LIKE having choice. Five different Flash Memory formats? True, true... But if there was a monoply, then there would have been no incentive to create anything beyond the first format - meaning we'd all be carrying around PCMCIA flash-cards to fit into our 2 pound PDAs.

Look at what Palm did with a near-monoply on PDAs for the first 3 years... what, you say? Nothing at all? That's right - they had very little innovation, until competition forced them to do it.

The price you pay for satisfying your craving for stability with Monopolies is the complete loss of innovation. The fear of being put out of business, and the drive to produce a profit, is what makes companies take risks, and push the envelope.

With a monopoly in Flash memory, to take just one of your examples, I certainly would not be holding a postage-stamp-sized 128 MB SD-card in my hand.... Christ, look at the economy of England, and see what even a few state-owned monopolies can do (and the Brits realized this, and sold off a lot of their state-owned enterprises, just like China has done. In the end, competition among the species produced us, and competition among ourselves produces human progress in ever endeavor)

Kirkaiya

12-31-2002, 07:56 PM

Your Orwellian NewSpeak is fantastic!

Ahh, how I wish I had thought to say that!!! It's NewSpeak, exactly!!!!

lol.. thank you, piggy!

Kirkaiya

12-31-2002, 08:18 PM

You can't compare Java to Flash or Shockwave. A more = comparison would be C# and Java. If memory serves isn't C# part of the .NET framework? Anyone?

C# is, in fact, a Programming Language which Microsoft developed (it leverages quite a bit of Java syntax, actually). C#, like VB.NET, Cobol.NET, and J++.NET, compiles into a "pseudo-code", which is sort of in between source code and final a final executable.

In Java, this "intermediate" code is called bytecode. For .NET applications, this code is called, "Microsoft Intermediate Language", or MSIL for short.

In both cases (Java bytecode, and MSIL) this pseudo-code is then executed in a "virtual machine" - that is, a software implementation of a hypothetical computer for which the pseudocode would be "native executable". The virtual machine then translates (compiles, in this case) the pseudocode into native code for whatever platform you're on.

One exception to this in Java is that somebody (Fujitsu? or Motorola? can't remember) actually built an actual "java machine" - that is, it wasn't virtual, it implemented Java in hardware, and so was both blazingly fast, and impossible to upgrade...

Anyway - with .NET, of course, you can add references to COM objects that directly manipulate the Win32 API, so you can, with effort, skirt the virtual machine (or ".NET framework", as it's called).

So - Java is one language implemented on a variety of operating systems, and .NET is several languages implemented on a (smaller) variety of operating systems (that's right - .NET applications can run on Win9x and Win NT (2k/xp) operating systems).

mobileMike

12-31-2002, 08:28 PM

that's right - .NET applications can run on Win9x and Win NT (2k/xp) operating systems.

Let's not forget Linux (http://www.go-mono.com/).

Kirkaiya

12-31-2002, 08:34 PM

ChrisW

12-31-2002, 09:04 PM

Your statement about "can't be treated like any other company" carries a ton of assumptions. The biggest of these are that (a) there's some entity that's powerful enough AND wise enough to do the treating, and (b) that any treating is necessary, whether is like other companies or not.

Umm... no, there are NO assumptions he made there. In fact, pretty much the only "entity" with the power (I'll avoid any comments on wisdom, lol) to "treast Microsoft" is the Judicial System of the United States government....

...the Federal government is, in fact, powerful enough to deal with companies, although I also have doubts about their wisdom to do so in an equitable manner

Precisely the assumptions I was alluding to. You implicitly acknowledge the fallacy in the second half of my (a) clause by laughing at the government's so-called wisdom. While Article I section 8 of the Constitution gives the US Gov't authority to regulate interstate commerce, I think we can all agree that they've demonstrated such poor understanding of technological issues that they're as likely to do harm as to do good.

My (b) clause actually refutes the rest of your argument:

And, the last time I checked, the courts (upheld by 2 Federal Appellate courts) declared that Microsoft IS a monopoly, and therefore DOES have to abide by different rules when it comes to the particular market they hold a monoply in.

These same courts, with which you obviously disagree, also decided that there WAS some "treating" necessary

To stop there would be to render this entire thread moot, so we may as well pack up and go home. What's been argued here, for the most part, isn't whether particular statutes were violated, but deeper issues of right and wrong. The discussions have largely looked at whether MS can rightly be blamed, or if the courts were wrong and MS is a convenient scapegoat for Sun's own blunders.

And again, you've acknowledged that our courts aren't always very good at seeing right/wrong through their own activism on top of arbitrary regulations.

The judge in this latest Java ruling didn't, in fact, side with Sun in their case - he only issued an injunction that says that UNTIL the case can be brought to court and litigated

That's mostly true, but such injunctions aren't granted unless (a) the court sees a significant chance of the injunction standing in the final judgment; and (b) failure to do so, assuming (a), would cause irreparable harm in the interim. By (a), the judge is temporarily siding with Sun, although not actually deciding in their favor. We've already determined in previous discussion that (b) is not satisfied: it was acknowledged that the damage is already done, and the action is designed to bring thing to (putative) rights -- NOT to prevent an imminent harm.

So, you're basically in favor of an economy like the former Soviet Union, where everthing was a monoploy

And so to avoid this situation, you'd like to put in place a system wherein the dominant producer in the market must work according to a stricter set of rules defined by the government, and all of its actions are scrutinized by the country's legal authorities? Oh wait, did I just describe the situation that the prosecution is trying to CREATE with Microsoft? Or that of a socialist nation? I can't seem to tell the difference.

Kirkaiya

12-31-2002, 09:50 PM

Chris W - I'm not going to bother doing the "take out of context, and try to refute point by point", since I think that tactic is more inflammatory, and less useful, than simply attempting to take what I said in it's totality.

Getting into the "my point (a) refutes section b of your point (c)" is pretty pointless (pun intended).

I rest by what I said - the laws in the U.S. do, in fact, apply different rules to monopolies than to other business entities. I didn't claim the government *wasn't* wise, I simply avoided any judgement on their wisdom.

Free market economies in all the industrialized countries have "anti-trust" measures in place, and we're no exception. They exist to avoid the situation where one player who has become so overwhelmingly dominant in a market can use their position to stop competition in other markets. You're free to disagree with the law - you can vote for a politician who promises to overturn it, in fact - but until then, this *is* a land where we pride ourselves on the rule of law.

Case in point - although Gore may have felt the courts made the wrong decision in the election debacle, he accepted their judgement, and conceded (and had the ruling gone the other way, I have no doubt that Bush would have shown the same respect for the rule of law).

Sometimes, of course, our courts make (what we think are) stupid decisions - but we've collectively decided to live with those decisions, or to change the laws that the courts are enforcing/interpreting.

Jonathan1

12-31-2002, 09:59 PM

There it is again, the idea that there's some natural law that makes desktop OS, office suites, servers, utilities, etc., separate and distinct markets. This is WRONG. The market is precisely what the market defines itself as. If customers want consolidation, and company(s) provide it, then the new conglomeration is what the market is. [/quote

Did I ever say distinct markets? No I’m talking about leveraging the monopoly you have in one market to gain a huge competitive advantage over the likes of Sun. Using such power is wrong. If MS’s market share was say 40%/60% could they have nearly as big of an impact against its competitors? Highly doubtful. But with a 90%+ market share MS can push any initiative they want and make it work. Tell me. How many Windows computers shipped this year? How many

[quote]Second, for several years now MS *has* been the champion of standards.

Champion. Ya. Its called embrace and extend. Champions of such rewritten works as MS version of Kerberos, Their version of Java that added “features” that Sun never implemented. Microsoft is a standard’s nightmare. You would think that a company as big as Microsoft wouldn’t be classified as proprietary but that is just what they are. They don’t play well with any system other then MS’s stuff. This just goes back to having too many hands in the cookie jar. They have a vested interest to make things not work with non Microsoft products.

While Sun has arrogantly held onto Java, MS has gotten the .Net CLR standardized. And versions of Netscape before 6 couldn't handle CSS, DOM, etc. worth a darn while throwing in non-standard junk like BLINK and layers (not to mention so buggy that it crashes when looked at cross-eyed).

And notice that IE it really only available on one platform. Windows. The version of IE on Apple is so pathetic it can actually crash the OS. While Opera and Mozilla are available across the board.

Your statement about "can't be treated like any other company" carries a ton of assumptions. The biggest of these are that (a) there's some entity that's powerful enough AND wise enough to do the treating, and (b) that any treating is necessary, whether is like other companies or not.

It’s called the judicial system. Unfortunately as you pointed out they are about as clueless as you can get on the topic of technology. But if not them who? Let the market govern itself? Even if we end up with MS owing EVERY portion of the computer industry? Choice is a good thing don’t you think? It brings competition, lowers prices, and forces a company to stay on their toes. MS has non of this yet, Linux maybe but not for a while. Check that a LONG while.

When was it that we accepted the failure of capitalism and free markets, and officially adopted socialism? :x

LOL! That is what the governments intention is when they bring antitrust charges!!! To promote a free and open market that is not controlled by one company! The government has to step in simply because it time and again its found that large company’s have no business ethics. (Enron, WorldCom??) That’s another topic altogether though.

ChrisW

12-31-2002, 11:07 PM

Chris W - I'm not going to bother doing the "take out of context, and try to refute point by point", since I think that tactic is more inflammatory, and less useful, than simply attempting to take what I said in it's totality.

Huh? So you're excusing yourself from having to create a reasoned, logical, comprehensive defense. Instead, you feel that it's more useful to ignore important points and create a fuzzy, feels-good-with-no-substance platform.

I rest by what I said - the laws in the U.S. do, in fact, apply different rules to monopolies than to other business entities. I didn't claim the government *wasn't* wise, I simply avoided any judgement on their wisdom.

And then I said that I'm not disagreeing about laws and court decisions, I'm disagreeing about right vs. wrong. But you've chosen to ignore this part of my post.

Moving right along, you most certainly DID say that the gov't is not wise: "I also have doubts about their wisdom".

They exist to avoid the situation where one player who has become so overwhelmingly dominant in a market can use their position to stop competition in other markets.

One more time. MS is dominant in what had previously been one of several separate markets. Those markets consolidated, and MS's dominance generalized over the, broader market. It is not true that MS conquered other markets. They brought those into the fold to create a broader larger market. There are no longer other markets, in part because of MS's actions, but only in the context of what the customers were asking for and buying.

If MS’s market share was say 40%/60% could they have nearly as big of an impact against its competitors? Highly doubtful. But with a 90%+ market share MS can push any initiative they want.

So Sun is like a defenseless infant here? No. Ten years ago they were incredibly dominant in workstations and servers. But due to their own incompetence -- failure to anticipate the market, predatory pricing due to proprietary hardware (yes, Sun!), lousy innovation overall, they've hemorrhaged market share. Now that they've squandered that asset, they run to mommy saying that it's not fair that the kid down the block is bigger, and can play ball better than them.

Champion. Ya. Its called embrace and extend. Champions of such rewritten works as MS version of Kerberos, Their version of Java that added “features” that Sun never implemented. Microsoft is a standard’s nightmare.

Here's the double-talk again. You claim you want to give customers a choice and to encourage innovation in the market. Yet when MS innovates (like their extensions to the Java language) so that the customer has a real choice rather than choosing the cheapest of a commodity, you call foul. And I reiterate: Sun has been holding Java close to its vest. They've lost tons of market because of ridiculously priced proprietary hardware. While MS has submitted much of the .Net platform for standardization, done a better job (until *very* recently) supporting CSS, DOM, etc. The fact is that Sun's the standards bad guy. But MS, believe it or not, has such an unbelievably awful marketing team that they can't communicate this.

IE it really only available on one platform. Windows. The version of IE on Apple is so pathetic it can actually crash the OS. While Opera and Mozilla are available across the board.

So what? Is it REQUIRED that all competitors make cross-platform a marketing strategy?

LOL! That is what the governments intention is when they bring antitrust charges!!! To promote a free and open market that is not controlled by one company! The government has to step in simply because it time and again its found that large company’s have no business ethics. (Enron, WorldCom??) That’s another topic altogether though.

So we're to trust the ethics of the government courts, who answer to no one? And the legislators, who answer to people with attention spans that can only handle sound bites? You'll have to excuse me. I live in New Jersey, where 2 months ago Senator Torricelli left in disgrace after his long string of (I don't want to say bribery) ethical lapses, followed by the State Supreme Court allowing the Democratic party to violate campaign laws to replace him as a candidate at the 11th hour. Right now I'm a bit cynical about the gov't's ability to tell right from wrong.

Sorry it's OT, but I can't resist: How did the gov't protect us from the ethical lapses of Enron and WorldCom? Was it gov't inspectors that found the accounting problems? No, they didn't. All they did was moan about it after the fact. What eventually exposed these problems and, in the case of Enron, killed the company because of it, was the market itself.

Kirkaiya

12-31-2002, 11:35 PM

Moving right along, you most certainly DID say that the gov't is not wise: "I also have doubts about their wisdom".

*sigh* There's no way I'm getting into another flamewar with yet another person who seems to care more about flames than the actual topic, but I would like to point out the complete disregard for logic in that quote.

You're saying that because I have doubts about something, I therefore think the opposite is true? So.. if I have doubts about my religion, therefore, I'm a complete athiest? Or, if I have some doubts about my relationship with a girlfriend, then I therefore did say that the relationship is over?

You're pretty over-the-top there - having doubts about the government's wisdom is not, in the ENGLISH language, equivalent to saying the government is not wise.

This is my last response to any comments you make, so feel free to "flame on, Garth"

st63z

01-01-2003, 02:43 AM

The JRE/JVM 1.4 is actually pretty good, but it's absolutely huge, and the MS JVM's have generally performed better, which is the greatest irony of all. ;)

1.4 was working well, but 1.4.1 is crapping out on me a lot more for some reason... can't figure it out...

Pony99CA

01-01-2003, 03:34 PM

They exist to avoid the situation where one player who has become so overwhelmingly dominant in a market can use their position to stop competition in other markets.

One more time. MS is dominant in what had previously been one of several separate markets. Those markets consolidated, and MS's dominance generalized over the, broader market. It is not true that MS conquered other markets. They brought those into the fold to create a broader larger market. There are no longer other markets, in part because of MS's actions, but only in the context of what the customers were asking for and buying.

Kind of like the Soviet Union brought Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc. into the fold, eh? Remember how the Soviets claimed the Aghani government asked them in? :lol:

To be serious, you're simply wrong. There are two markets when speaking of operating systems and office software. If there weren't, Microsoft Office would come bundled with Windows. QED

LOL! That is what the governments intention is when they bring antitrust charges!!! To promote a free and open market that is not controlled by one company! The government has to step in simply because it time and again its found that large company’s have no business ethics. (Enron, WorldCom??) That’s another topic altogether though.
So we're to trust the ethics of the government courts, who answer to no one? And the legislators, who answer to people with attention spans that can only handle sound bites? You'll have to excuse me. I live in New Jersey, where 2 months ago Senator Torricelli left in disgrace after his long string of (I don't want to say bribery) ethical lapses, followed by the State Supreme Court allowing the Democratic party to violate campaign laws to replace him as a candidate at the 11th hour. Right now I'm a bit cynical about the gov't's ability to tell right from wrong.

No, the government is not perfect -- it's composed of imperfect people, just like Enron, WorldCom, Microsoft and every other organization. But it's who we have to trust unless we change the laws.

Steve

ChrisW

01-01-2003, 07:48 PM

u're saying that because I have doubts about something, I therefore think the opposite is true? So.. if I have doubts about my religion, therefore, I'm a complete athiest? Or, if I have some doubts about my relationship with a girlfriend, then I therefore did say that the relationship is over?

First, I'm sorry if you perceive every disagreement with you as a flame. Believe it or not, it's possible to have a rational disagreement, with much contention, but no malice whatsoever. I apologize if I inadvertently communicated flame in your direction.

Our society is remarkably repressed in its communication, and we must deal with many euphemisms. Consider:

"I don't like spinach" => "I dislike spinach"
"I can't drive 55" => "I can only drive much faster than 55"
"Mother is no longer with us" => "Mother isn't with anyone; she's dead"

It's difficult to communicate the real meaning sometimes, especially when we're not face to face. I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that the fact that you mentioned your doubts twice, once accompanied by "lol" indicating (to me) an ironic tone, that you were using a euphemism. My apologies.

You certainly indicate that you have doubts, and maybe had I read your underlying meaning better, I could have worked on those doubts rather than being so direct.

While we're on the topic of euphemisms:

Socialism describes a system in which the government controls the means of production. We continue to tell ourselves that our economy is capitalist, we use the euphamism of "regulating market defects" to avoid admitting that there isn't a single market in the country that's not controlled to some degree by the government. This is clearly illegal in many cases, because while the Constitution (as I mentioned earlier) vests the fed. gov't the power to regulate INTERstate commerce, the 9th and 10th Amendments clearly make INTRAstate commerce off limits.

Anyway, given that our government is controlling ("regulating") nearly every market in the nation, shouldn't we scrap the fancy language and admit that we're socialists? And change the Constitution to allow what we're already doing?

MS is dominant in what had previously been one of several separate markets. Those markets consolidated, and MS's dominance generalized over the, broader market. It is not true that MS conquered other markets. They brought those into the fold to create a broader larger market.
Kind of like the Soviet Union brought Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc. into the fold, eh?
No. Because a country is a concrete object, necessary to compel by force. A market is completely abstract. There doesn't exist any physical manifestation to compel. A market is made up of the actions of all it's willing participants. If a company makes a product that no one buys, there is no market. If consumers clamor for a product with no producers, again there exists no market. If MS "took over" a market, it must have been consensual, at least to the degree that it was the best possible of all options available to the consumer.

No, the government is not perfect -- it's composed of imperfect people, just like Enron, WorldCom, Microsoft and every other organization. But it's who we have to trust unless we change the laws.

This is exactly the opposite of the truth. We don't *need* to trust Enron executives, because we have the power to put them out into the streets at our whim. As I said above, a market is the consensus of all engaged in it. If the customer, for any reason, doesn't like one of the players, they are free to disengage from that segment of the market. This is exactly what happened to Enron and WorldCom -- the gov't didn't help us one iota.

Government officials, on the other hand, CAN'T be trusted. I don't mean this as a dig at our officials, but as a recognition of how the system works. If we want to ensure that our system continues to work, we -- each and every one of us -- must ask our officials all the difficult questions. I'm sorry, I can't look up the quote now on my crappy dialup line, but one of the Founding Fathers said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

In theory, if we don't like what an official is doing, we can get rid of them. But that almost always means waiting until the next campaign cycle. And recent campaign finance "reforms" now forbid issue-oriented ads against a candidate within 60(?) days of the vote, so they've protected themselves against watchdogs educating the public about why an official should be put out. Even worse, the courts answer to no one. Judges aren't elected, and have immunity, even if they act illegally. The only way to get rid of a bad judge is to kill him (I say hyperbolically for emphasis).

So who do we trust our markets to? Ourselves, in a system we can enforce ourselves as necessary? Or to bureaucrats that don't understand the market and can't be gotten rid of if they screw up?