Suns Response to Microsoft

Hobbes · 28-08-2001 1:50pm

Originally posted by kayos:
Yes once the CLR is implemented for various OS's.

ROFL.

MS will never write anything that will allow people to move to another Operating System.

They may write a program that will allow you to port to Windows/XP but never the other way.

Or if they do the program will be designed in such a way as to be unworkable on any other Operating System that MS doesn't own.

[This message has been edited by Hobbes (edited 28-08-2001).]

kayos · 28-08-2001 2:09pm

Ahh do MS own Free BSD I dont think so. Hobbes read up on this before you make comments on it. Like FFS you can get MS MTS stuff to work on Solaris. I know you are an experienced programmer and I would never even compare my ability to your own but I have been reading up on this and I am a beta tester for .NET. One good place for some info is http://www.oreillynet.com/dotnet/ read it you might be surprised with all thats going on. Like if you read this article http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/dotnet/2001/08/16/corel.html
You will see that .NET IS being ported to Linux and FreeBSD. Now I know Corel have got a hell of a lot of money from MS but once its ported to Corel Linux it is ported to Linux. As I said read up on it before you comment saying MS will never port to another OS which they dont own. OK so in the Corel article it says Corel will still have to pay to ship .NET with Linux but surely Sun get paid some license fee for JVM's.

kayos

Hobbes · 28-08-2001 3:12pm

Check your history.

(some bits from the Java Section.

But Microsoft not only restricted distribution of Java through the anticompetitive practices it employed to thwart usage of Navigator; it also took numerous other steps to interfere with the development, distribution, and use of cross-platform Java. Those steps "resulted in fewer applications being able to run on Windows than otherwise" and thus made no business sense except as a means of protecting the applications barrier to entry.
...
First, Microsoft pressured third parties not to support cross-platform Java. Microsoft's avowed aims were not to innovate, or to give consumers a better product, but rather to prevent Sun from creating Java APIs, especially "great" ones offering "cutting edge" developer support, and "especially ones that run well . . . on Windows."

Gates threatened to withhold Microsoft's support for Intel's next generation of microprocessors if Intel supported Sun's Java efforts. FF 404 (JA 2347).(61) Gates told Intel CEO Andrew Grove that Microsoft would agree to withhold support for one of Intel's competitors if Intel would stop assisting Sun with Java multimedia (i.e., software used to create and transmit audio and visual content). FF 406 (JA 2348); GX 290 (JA 14531). Ultimately, Intel stopped its support of Sun.

...

Second, Microsoft sought to extinguish the Java threat through technological means that "maximized the difficulty with which applications written in Java could be ported from Windows to other platforms, and vice versa."

...
Microsoft obtained a Java license from Sun, .... Microsoft's approach allowed applications to access OS features specific to Windows (i.e., to make "native calls") using methods unique to Microsoft. .... But "if a Java developer used the Sun method for making native calls, his application would not run on Microsoft's version of the Windows JVM, and if he used Microsoft's native methods, his application would not run on any JVM other than Microsoft's version."

...

Microsoft took other steps to interfere with cross-platform Java. It "designed its Java developer tools to encourage developers to write their Java applications using certain 'keywords' and 'compiler directives' that could only be executed properly by Microsoft's version of the Java runtime environment for Windows

Of course that's just the Java part. The whole point of Java is you write it on one Operating System and it works everywhere.

MS have never helped anything which could make it easier for users to move to other operating systems.

[This message has been edited by Hobbes (edited 28-08-2001).]

Trojan · 28-08-2001 3:45pm

Originally posted by kayos:
You will see that .NET IS being ported to Linux and FreeBSD. Now I know Corel have got a hell of a lot of money from MS but once its ported to Corel Linux it is ported to Linux. As I said read up on it before you comment saying MS will never port to another OS which they dont own. OK so in the Corel article it says Corel will still have to pay to ship .NET with Linux but surely Sun get paid some license fee for JVM's.

kayos

Err, didn't Corel drop the Linux project a long time (6 months?!) ago? Have they started redevelopment?

Al.

kayos · 28-08-2001 3:54pm

You are still going on about the point that MS will never allow their Techs on other OS's that they dont own even after I have given you links proving this otherwise.

The whole point of Java is you write it on one Operating System and it works everywhere.

Likewise for .NET but with more Langs making multi platform development a reality for programmers who dont know Java. MS are offering another choise.(C/C++ doesn't count as you've to compile on each platform and Different compilers do different things, I could be wrong here but that used be the way)

MS have never helped anything which could make it easier for users to move to other operating systems.

But that was past and I have shown you links that prove MS are doing mutli-platform with .NET

kayos

DeVore · 28-08-2001 4:18pm

Isnt Sun the company that involved in the "Anyone But Microsoft League".

Arent Sun the people who forced MS to recall the Office for minor flaws in the JVM, but only AFTER it had been released world wide (they surely knew beforehand and were just being w4nkers.)

Havent Sun made an art out of attacking MS.

now, ok, right or wrong, good or bad.... if you are going to play hard ball, you cant come running back to mommy when the other kid throws some punchs back at you.

I mean, playing with the big boys requires knowing the big boy rules and I cant say I feel this is much more then a cry for Sun to be the new Microsoft, supported by a large number of morons who will support anything they perceive as anti-microsoft....

... I mean, after all... they're changing the world, arent they!

pffff. Grow up Sun.

DeV.

Hobbes · 28-08-2001 4:36pm

Originally posted by kayos:
But that was past and I have shown you links that prove MS are doing mutli-platform with .NET

Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.

Based on past experiences I would at a guess say that MS would create it for linux then write it in such a way (or cost it) that it would be unworkable to use on linux or you would end up having to migrate back to XP.

Or another thing MS likes to do is say they are going to support something so that all the companies hold out for that product and don't buy what is currently available, then drop support for said product.

This is a company that has already tried to put companies out of business that have tried to do the exact thing that you claim they are doing.

Btw, MS haven't released thier licensing model yet for .NET for the open source people to work on. So they aren't even sure if that will cause problems.

Trojan · 28-08-2001 4:56pm

Originally posted by DeVore:
I mean, playing with the big boys requires knowing the big boy rules and I cant say I feel this is much more then a cry for Sun to be the new Microsoft, supported by a large number of morons who will support anything they perceive as anti-microsoft....

... I mean, after all... they're changing the world, arent they!

pffff. Grow up Sun.

DeV.

That's pure flame-bait Tom, go straight to Trolls, do not pass go, do not collect £200.

Al.

kayos · 29-08-2001 12:00am

This is odd, almost 30 posts and it hasn't degenerated into a flame-fest

That would be because this aint the CS board

.NET looks like an extension of the Java principle.
Java - write once, run anywhere.
.NET - write once (in almost any language), run anywhere.

That right? Sounds cool.

Yep thats pretty much it. I forgot to mention that the CLR for C# is being ported to FreeBSD and so far only that Lang will be supported. But this doesn't stop me writing in VB/C++/Cobol or any of the other Langs as all you have to do is

Write your prog in your given Lang
Compile to MSIL (MS intermediate Lang)
Decompile this and you will have you prog in C#
Compile and ship

All .NET langs will decompile to C# so this means you can write the bulk of you prog in say VB which means you get it writen fast. Then do the above and optimise the C# code to get it running faster but with .NET there is no real need as VB has gain a preformance boost.

What I like is the fact that Any lang can be adopted to .NET and they will all use the one runtime. It beats having to ship different runtimes with different langs. It also means no need for a JVM

for .Net JAVA

kayos

Trojan · 29-08-2001 12:35am

Hey Kealan, you did see this? Interesting.

http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/12070.html

Al.

Hobbes · 29-08-2001 12:38am

1. A programming language is not an operating system.

2. There is such thing as the "rest of the world" when it comes to programming. So learning VB or C# is going to mean dick if your going to be working on other systems.

I can write a program in Java and it's guaranteed to run on a whole range of operating systems (well write once test everywhere) + machines. Can you say the same for C# or VB?

btw, C# ported to BSD? MS are famous for fixing thier programs so they break if they are ported, what makes you think they won't do the same?

[This message has been edited by Hobbes (edited 28-08-2001).]

bonkey · 29-08-2001 2:33pm

There's been a lot of "MS sux" and "Sun sux" posts, and everyone decrying how one side or the other is so obviously to blame here. Its all a load of toss.

Who does this affect?

Let me see...

1) Developers? Nope. They will be constantly downloading the latest patched JVMs and JRE's anyway.

2) Businesses? Nope. They will have the latest JVM/JRE from their developers which they will install on the clients as needed. Hell, the code probably needs the latest patched versions.

3) Home users? Maybe. This is where Sun's real argument appears to stem from...they dont want to subject users to a 5+ (15+ with 1.4) meg download the first time they hit a java-based web-site. Hey - increasingly, this size of download is not becoming an issue.

But how many of the end-users actually ever use Java anyway. I can honestly say that I have only ever hit one web-site which used a java applet on the client-side. Everything else which could be confused as Java has been Microsoft JavaScript, or has been server-side Java. Therefore, I would seriously question the 7,000,000 pages figure given by Sun.

MS dropped Java support from their OS - big swing. The user can have it if they want it. The developer couldnt care less whether or not it was bundled (hey, I wouldnt use the MS JVM anyway), and neither could the business.

Sun took a cheap shot at MS. MS answered back with some dubious spin. The whole thing is such a non-issue its funny to see the amount of discussion it has generated.

As for the whole .NET argument..,..its a bit off topic, but please remember that the CLR is not .NET. It is a tiny fraction of .NET. .NET encompasses the development languages, thru the web-servers and associated application servers, through to the operating systems to come.

Having a platform indepenant CLR is all well and good, but unless you also support all the other stuff (some of which is open and free, some of which you have to pay licensing for, and some of which you just wont be allowed support) then .NET is never going to be platform independant.

Is .NET better than the equivalent framework that Sun are building (Jave, J2EE, Jxta etc.)? I dont know. Each has their merits and flaws. Neither is a great all-round solution for internet distributed computing.

jc

DeVore · 29-08-2001 2:55pm

Al, its not troll/flame bait.

I'm thoroughly sick of the poor Sun/bad M$ gullible **** that goes on.

Sun have been taking cheap shots at MS forever and now MS say "you know what, its our OS and you can f*ck right off with yourselves.... see how you like them apples".

I just cant abide this whinny... they wont let us play with their ball... crud.
This isnt a school playground. Grow up, this is big business and worse **** happens every day in every industry.

Anyway, ... what jc said.

DeV.

bonkey · 29-08-2001 3:57pm

This whole bash Sun / bash MS is so ridiculous.

I've looked over what I take to be the most argumentative thread between Hobbes (evil MS) and Kayos (great MS) and looked that the points both were making. Neither side has made completely accurate statements concerning the issue at hand.

Getting into a religious (or otherwise) bashing of your company of choice is all well and good, but guys....theres enough valid material out there to bash either side without getting worked up over incorrect info.

Originally posted by Hobbes:

There is nothing that can stop you from downloading Java. However the way XP is set up (and the new IE) it makes it extremly painful to download and run (if possible). But we are just talking about Browser.
MS have gone as far as making it so Java can't be linked into thier latest browser.

Not true. Downloading, saving and running software will be no more difficult than installing from CD. Opening the .exe from Sun's site would cause problems. Does anyone do that anyway?

As for not linking Java into IE6....MS have announced that there will be a plug-in release for IE6 which will allow Java to be hooked to it. It may not be there today, but thats not the same as saying it wont do it.
As Microsoft pointed out, Java is getting the same treatment as any other language here. Java may not deserve this due to having an in built security model which sorta works (as opposed to the fiasco that is ActiveX), but at the end of the day, MS are not way out of line in their actions here.

Also, the plug-in for IE6 will be released before or with XP - which is really the platform IE6 is targetted at. You can break your Java support on Win2k by going up to IE6 before the plug-in is available, but then you really only have yourself to blame for not waiting.

Originally posted by Kayos:

But that was past and I have shown you links that prove MS are doing mutli-platform with .NET

Err, I followed one of those links, and came up with the following :

Stutz says that the CLI being offered as shared source is a subset of what's in the .NET framework. The offerings include:

the ECMAscript compiler, written in C#, which runs on both platforms (Windows, FreeBSD)
the C# compiler, which also runs on both platforms
and the shared-source CLI.
It doesn't include

ASP.NET
ADO.NET
Windows Forms

Look closely at what the "platform independance" of .NET doesnt include....

1) The enhanced web-server support
2) the enhanced data support
3) the .net support for screens which do not run in a browser (aka windows).

So, you effectively get .NET on freeBSD (and maybe other platforms) as long as it doesnt have the cool .NET web server functionality, data manipulation functionality, or run a local app which has a user interface.

Errr...what? You call this "cross-platform" ? I think NOT. This is allowing some small amount of back-end integration with legacy systems, but you wont be able to write an application which has any user interaction, or which uses any of .NETs web improvements.

In other words, theres enough there that some people may use it, but ultimately, the only real .NET solution will be to develop on/for a windows OS and an IE browser.

jc

Hobbes · 30-08-2001 2:00am

Originally posted by Trojan:
Err, didn't Corel drop the Linux project a long time (6 months?!) ago? Have they started redevelopment?

Al.

I lost the news story, but Corel have sold thier Linux distro rights to another company.

Trojan · 30-08-2001 1:12pm

Originally posted by DeVore:
Al, its not troll/flame bait.

Nps, though it certainly looked suspicious.

Originally posted by DeVore:

I'm thoroughly sick of the poor Sun/bad M$ gullible **** that goes on.

Sun have been taking cheap shots at MS forever and now MS say "you know what, its our OS and you can f*ck right off with yourselves.... see how you like them apples".

I just cant abide this whinny... they wont let us play with their ball... crud.
This isnt a school playground. Grow up, this is big business and worse **** happens every day in every industry.

I'm a junior code-monkey, not a business person, but it seems fairly obvious to me that if someone takes a standard and tries to make it proprietary and take it over, then that is unfair business practise. MS does its best to destroy any competition, using any means possible. Case in point - take the Halloween papers [1] for example, never mind Java or any of that. So it is true to say these things about them, just like ABU fans have valid points when they give out about Ferguson (who also uses illegal business practises, re the Stam-PSV indcident

). Just because people jump on the bandwagon doesn't mean its wrong

So, maybe you agree at this point that MS use unfair business practise, yeah? What you are giving out about is Suns rather vocal response then? If so:

I believe you are right to a degree, Sun shouldn't be complaining as much, but I think it could be argued that SMcN is just throwing MSs' famous FUD right back at them with this letter. I don't think it's whining as much as aggressive. Also he does tend to make his views known quite loudly.

I don't think it's quite at the level of kids in the playground, but I'm sure it's a matter of viewpoint.

Originally posted by DeVore:

Anyway, ... what jc said.

DeV.

Agreed, one of the most relevant and objective posts here.

Good luck tonight Tom, and call into us in Zanzibar if you're out early, looks like a big crowd coming.

Al.

1. Think they're on ESRs site... will look for them later.

#include <disclaimer.h>

Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.

You really should you know.

Suns Response to Microsoft

Comments