Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Java Government Microsoft Programming The Courts Your Rights Online News

MS Moves Deliberately On Java Ruling 38

Posted by timothy from the gubmint-knows-virtual-machines dept.
Darwin X writes "So, Microsoft will finally put Sun's JRE into future versions of Windows. This article talks about how they're taking the steps to make this happen. The fun part of it is that Microsoft has released a statement that said Windows Customers are NOT required to update their machines with this. Ah, yes...gotta keep it all MS in the house..." Update: 02/03 23:07 GMT by T : However, according to this report on News.com, Microsoft has may be able to backtrack anyhow -- they've gotten a stay from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, meaning the earlier order to ship Java with Windows doesn't apply, for now.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MS Moves Deliberately On Java Ruling More

MS Moves Deliberately On Java Ruling

Comments Filter:
  • Removing their own java isn't the same as installing Sun's. Just stalling for time... "Yeah, it'll be in the 'next one'". Couldn't fit it into this one? Run out of disk space or something? Ba.
    • Removing their own java isn't the same as installing Sun's. Just stalling for time...

      Better than that, from MS's point of view. They now have an excuse to pull Jave Entirely from Windows. You notice that they pulled Java the day before they got a stay from the order demanding that they install Sun Java on Windows? Now they have Windows without Java, and it's all Sun's fault.

      Trust me.. they'll use up every day available in getting around to making the SUN version of Java available fo Windows --- when the order is finally perfected by the appeal court.

      Microsoft may not have completely killed Java on the Windows platform, but I think that they've definitely managed to knife this baby in the back.

  • In other news... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Neck_of_the_Woods ( 305788 ) on Monday February 03, 2003 @06:52PM (#5218754) Journal

    Microsoft also says:

    They don't have a monopoly.

    They don't have security problems, only lazy customers.

    They don't think you should worry about giving them your information.

    They don't think 95, 98, 2000, or XP is proprietary.

    And the grand daddy of them all, they don't think you need anything but automatic update to keep your system secure.

    • Ok, I'm as pro-Free Software as the next man, but is this post grounded in fact?

      Microsoft also says:

      They don't have a monopoly.

      Yeah, who WOULD admit they had a monopoly?

      They don't have security problems, only lazy customers.

      Hm. Well as Bill Gates months ago announced that security initiative to fix all security issues in MS Software (regardless of how well this works) it's pretty clear they DO realize this. I wonder if everyone was running linux software that's three years old (and unpatched) if Linux would be known as a insecure OS?

      They don't think you should worry about giving them your information.

      IS there a reason you should worry about giving them information? Again, I object to giving out my personal info on principle, but is there anything about giving it out to microsoft that's especially bad?

      They don't think 95, 98, 2000, or XP is proprietary.

      I guess it depends on what you mean by proprietary? Given that each of those OS's is probably in use more than Linux...

      And the grand daddy of them all, they don't think you need anything but automatic update to keep your system secure.

      I don't get it? You don't think auto-updating is good? You know there are other venues of getting patches right?

      • good lord.....laugh.

        This post was being sarcastic, no one gets sarcasim anymore.

      • yes indeed, lord help us with people like this in the world.
      • They don't think 95, 98, 2000, or XP is proprietary.
        I guess it depends on what you mean by proprietary? Given that each of those OS's is probably in use more than Linux...

        What proprietary means is, intentionally closed to prevent compatible releases from others. In Microsoft's case this comes out as undocumented and/or improperly documented APIs. Whether it is intentional or no is another story. Personally I believe in Microsoft's incompetence leading to the API cruft; they do things wrong, or they fuck them up, and they have to emulate their bugs and old behavior to support legacy applications.

    • Aren't the "only need automatic update" and the "problem is lazy customers" somewhat mutually exclusive?
  • Sounds to me like they are making all of this complicated planning (I had to read the article a few times to get what they're doing).

    With all of the SP1a, SP1b, SP2 and other crap relating to other versions of windows, users may be forced upon with a few hundred MB of downloads (depending on how they get their patches).
    • Seen this before, Microsoft is just doing what they do in court with their software now, (do it so slowly that everyone gets f**ked off and eventually leaves it(apple))

  • Summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lumpish Scholar ( 17107 ) on Monday February 03, 2003 @07:11PM (#5218868) Homepage Journal
    Sun: You've licensed Java; you can distribute it, but you can't modify it.

    Microsoft: Yes, we can; we're Microsoft.

    Judge: Now you have to distribute it.

    Microsoft: No, we don't; we're Microsoft.

    Microsoft's "move" is to today replace Windows XP Service Pack 1 with a version without a JVM, and in June to also offer a version of the service pack with Sun's JVM. So far as I can tell, even in June, XP users who've already installed the service pack won't be able to get Sun's JVM from Microsoft, unless they re-install SP1 using the new version (if they're even able to do so).

    Windows Server 2003, formerly Windows XP Server, is (according to Microsoft) "not impacted by the District Court's order and will include neither the Microsoft Virtual Machine nor Sun's JRE."

    • Re:Summary (Score:4, Informative)

      by darkpurpleblob ( 180550 ) on Monday February 03, 2003 @07:23PM (#5218969)
      Microsoft's "move" is to today replace Windows XP Service Pack 1 with a version without a JVM, and in June to also offer a version of the service pack with Sun's JVM. So far as I can tell, even in June, XP users who've already installed the service pack won't be able to get Sun's JVM from Microsoft, unless they re-install SP1 using the new version (if they're even able to do so).

      Microsoft are not trying to make it difficult for users to get Sun's JVM. The article stated Service Pack 1 users will be able to get Sun's JVM as a recommended update through Windows Update. Sun's JVM would also be available in Service Pack 2.

      The announcement [microsoft.com] by Microsoft.

    • It's very telling that Microsoft was able to get a "stay" so they can delay even longer. What I mean by that is...

      1. this court system is totally foobar, ie. it no longer functions as intended, due to major "holes"

      2. this court system is horribly corrupt

      It all must come down to campaign contributions and conflicts of interest.

      Government by and for the people? *laughs* - whatever. By the politicians for their own interests is more accurate.

      • What it really comes down to is most judges are technically illiterate. What is clear to people in the technical fields is obscure to those in the legal fields. What is obscure to those in the technical fields is clear to those in the legal fields.


    • Sun should ask or pay AOL to include the Sun JVM on all AOL CDs and Netscape downloads. Didn't Sun and AOL/Netscape collobrate on the iPlanet server suite? Don't Sun and AOL/Netscape have a common enemy, Microsoft? Instead of working the (slow) legal system, Sun should work with the existing, successful distribution channels.

      • Sun took over iPlanet. It is called Sun ONE now. Netscape(AOL) now has no part in it. The webserver is a pile of crap now. They went from 4.1 to 6.0, skipping 5, just like Netscape did with its browser. Last week I tryed to get a servlet to work in. Took me 6 hours and I just gave up. Installed Tomcat and had servlets running in 10 minutes. So now we have the iPlanet front end with the nsapi_redirect.dll pushing the servlet requests onto Tomcat. Damn what a mess.
  • I don't see where forcing Microsoft to include Sun's VM provides any benefit to the majority of Windows users. I can see where it benefits open-source developers, and where it definitely benefits Sun. But client-side Java apps are on the wane on the Windows platform and this merely adds to the bloat.

    Perhaps both VMs should be removed and only be installed at the users option, if it's necessary for software to function, but otherwise, it's useless.

    So, who benefits? This decision should have been about what's best for users, not Sun or Microsoft. There are other ways to punish MS for failing to live up to a written contract.
    • I agree with you that Sun's VM will provide little value to Windows users.

      However, this is not about MS's failure to live up to a contract. The original contract issue about MS making extentions to Java was settled out of court. As part of that settlement, MS was allowed to distribute it's version of Java for a number of years.

      It didn't occur to Sun that MS might drop support for Java altogether, so they didn't include language in the agreement to require MS to include it. When MS announced they weren't going to include Java in Windows, Sun, unable to play the contract card, opted instead to file a private anti-trust lawsuit against MS (they might have done this anyway).

      They're using this lawsuit both to obtain more money from MS and to compel MS to distribute Java. Judge Motz has been rather sympathetic toward Sun, but as we saw today, higher courts are going to take a hard look at this very unusal remedy.
  • Ok, let's take a principled stand.

    Instead of complaining about Microsoft, let's just not do any development for the M$ platform. We've got Linux and Java and we can develop using those.

    M$ doesn't owe us a living (nor have they offered to provide one for us). No one is forcing us to develop on their platform, and if they try, we can just say no. Might cut into our paychecks? Well no one said living according to principles is cheap. Just seems more productive than constantly bi-otching and moaning about them.
    • Ok, let's take a pricipled stand.

      Instead of complaining about General Motors, Ford, _Insert lazy automaker here_, let's just not do any driving, and save the earth. We've got bicycles and feet and we can get places using those.

      Car companies don't ow us anything. No one is forcing us to drive our cars, and if they try, we can just say no. Might cut into our lifestyle? Well no one said living according to principles is cheap. Just seems more productive than bitching about gas guzzling SUV's.

      disclaimer: this post is a parody, and acknowledges any copyrights and / or patents virago81 may have on original post
      • Ok, Blue..so we're back to the basic question to which it all hinges:

        Do car companies _owe_ us a car? Do doctors _owe_ us health care? Do software companies _owe_ us a living? Is it possible to force someone else to use his or her brain and talents for our benefit simply because we "need" it.

        I guess, you could force someone to do these things at the point of a gun, but I think Fascism has been tried and found wanting.
    • Assuming all the hundreds of thousands of readers on slashdot did it, I doubt that would make up a significant enough majority of programmers to make a difference, and some of us are more worried about eating right now.

      In general, I rarely recommend MS products or even give in easily to plans to use MS-based solutions when I'm involved, but sometimes, that's just the way things go, and I use the MS solution in order to avoid being naturally selected out of the programmer pool.

  • I just got the March edition of CPU and Alex St. John, a columnist for CPU and "...one of the founding creators of Microsoft's DirectX technology" complained that his company's (WildTangent) browser plugin allowing Java developers to create DirectX games. They originally developed it for both Sun and Microsoft Java, but decided to go totally with Microsoft because of size (M$ Java: 3MB vs. Sun Java: 7MB), stability, and ease of extension concerns. He said that Microsoft added extentions that made it easier for developers. So, he complains that his plugin must be re-ported to Sun Java. Personally, I think that he is complaining about what Java was originally intended to be: an OS independant way to create programs. It is understandable that he made a mistake and chose the wrong Java, but to complain about his company losing money when technology is kept standardized is rediculous.

Slashdot Top Deals

Receiving a million dollars tax free will make you feel better than being flat broke and having a stomach ache. -- Dolph Sharp, "I'm O.K., You're Not So Hot"

Close