12-30-2002, 10:13 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Microsoft Ordered to Bundle Java
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.
"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."
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?
|
| |
|
|
|
12-30-2002, 10:37 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 94
|
|
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-30-2002, 10:39 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 735
|
|
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-30-2002, 10:44 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
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 
|
| |
|
|
|
12-30-2002, 10:50 PM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,768
|
|
Fully implemented JDK is bad
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?
__________________
Jonathan (JonnoB)
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke
|
| |
|
|
|
12-30-2002, 10:53 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 86
|
|
Re: Microsoft Ordered to Bundle Java
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-30-2002, 10:56 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
Re: Fully implemented JDK is bad
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JonnoB
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgyee
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
|
| |
|
|
|
12-30-2002, 11:01 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 153
|
|
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!
|
| |
|
|
|
12-30-2002, 11:11 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by johncj
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)
|
| |
|
|
|
12-30-2002, 11:20 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jmulder
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
