Re: ALERT - XP COULD DISABLE JAVA IN WEB BROWSERS AND EMAIL

[Richard Curzon]

>(2) Microsoft, as a monopoly, has obligations that a mere holder of
>significant market-share does not have.

How do we know that everybody just doesn't wants some of Bill Gate's money?
****, give me some too.

Other than that, I'd like to hear some logic for a change.

Now, there are a few specific competitive pricing practices, that MS should
NOT have done, was not alone in doing, and they got stopped doing them. A
fair regulation was applied fairly.

----

But "break up the company", "legislate no browser in the OS"? Please...

Where were the Innovation Cops when Sun added a TCPIP stack to Solaris?
Tweet, you gotta leave that to the third party vendors.

The only difference now is,
- MS is agressively improving it's OS, more than other vendors
- which leads to market penetration (free market, remember?)
- which leads to
a) FREE higher OPPORTUNITY for 3rd party vendors.
BUT
b) FREE higher RISKS, including from MS competition

Sorry, that's business. If MS wants to incorporate a thing that used to be
3rd party into the OS, your banker should just ask why the contingency
wasn't in your plan, it's just another competitive risk that any decent
business plan should include. If your product is any good, MS will be
offering to buy it anyway <g>. They don't like risks either.

Imagine if the legislators stepped in at the first Univac OS. Tweet, okay,
that's it, that's all an OS can do. Rest of it's for the third party
market.

What would have happened? US would be a second rate econonmy to Europe and
Japan, that most likely what would have happened.

regards
Richard.

[Richard Curzon]

MS turned Java off by default in IE5.5, if not sooner, so this is not news.

Warning, this part has a few stages:

1. Sun made Java 1.2 so it disadvantaged MS technology of the time (COM,
DCOM) to the benefit of Sun's technology (CORBA, RMI)
2. So MS got of the Java wagon
3. Now Sun bitterly complains when MS provides a non-standard JVM.
4. While others bitterly complain that MS does not expose it's
non-standard JVM.

You can't have it both ways (or all 4 ways) Tim.

But there is a simple way to think of all this: MS is phasing out all Java.

They do not claim to support Java, other than the old J++ legacy version Sun
doesn't like. Don't look for it now, don't look for it later, don't complain
that product X doesn't do it. It's history.

Until then, they actually had more Java applets on their site than Sun,
oddly enough... <g>.

regards
Richard.

--
-----
Live without dead time - Raoul Vaneigem
May I borrow your towel, my car just hit a water buffalo - Chevy Chase
"Tim Romano" <tim_romano@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns90E3C440BF025timromano@209.1.14.192...

[Tim Romano]

"Richard Curzon" <rcurzon@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:3b58abba@news.devx.com: in response to my statements, one of which he
excerpted below:

<ROMANO> (2) Microsoft, as a monopoly, has obligations that a mere holder
of significant market-share does not have. </ROMANO>


> How do we know that everybody just doesn't wants some of Bill Gate's
> money? ****, give me some too.

To sweep MSFT's practices over the past 15 years under the rug, and to
imply that the victims of its anti-competitive practices have been lazy and
greedy good-for-nothin's, is a gross distortion of the facts.


> Other than that, I'd like to hear some logic for a change.

Then don't listen to yourself, because you won't hear logic, you'll hear
parrotings of the self-serving rhetoric Microsoft has dished out in
response to charges of abuse of monopoly power.


> Now, there are a few specific competitive pricing practices, that MS
> should NOT have done, was not alone in doing, and they got stopped
> doing them. A fair regulation was applied fairly.

"A few": not true. Besides, what does the *count* of practices have to do
with it? If count(predatory pricing practices) < n then all's well with
the world? These putatively "few" practices have killed or maimed companies
that were setting the pace of innovation and challenging Microsoft's
hegemony.


> Where were the Innovation Cops when Sun added a TCPIP stack to Solaris?
> Tweet, you gotta leave that to the third party vendors.

How is Sun's decision to leave TCPIP to third parties relevant to MSFT's
anti-competitive practices, past and present?



> The only difference now is,
> - MS is agressively improving it's OS, more than other vendors
> - which leads to market penetration (free market, remember?)
> - which leads to
> a) FREE higher OPPORTUNITY for 3rd party vendors.
> BUT
> b) FREE higher RISKS, including from MS competition

Microsoft owns the desktop. No wonder, then, that no other vendors of
desktop operating systems are able to sustain innovation, over a long
period, at Microsoft's pace. Microsoft's pace is an artificial pace, the
pace set by a front-runner who maintains its position by tripping its
competitors.

> Sorry, that's business.

Sorry, that's illegal. All may be fair in love and war, but in business,
there's the Sherman Act.


> If MS wants to incorporate a thing that used
> to be 3rd party into the OS, your banker should just ask why the
> contingency wasn't in your plan, it's just another competitive risk
> that any decent business plan should include.


It is not merely "another competitive risk" when a monopoly is present in
the market. Get a clue. It's a risk, true, but hardly a "competitive"
risk.


> Imagine if the legislators stepped in at the first Univac OS. Tweet,
> okay, that's it, that's all an OS can do. Rest of it's for the third
> party market.


Legislators are the elected representatives of the people. You speak of
them as though they had dropped from the sky. Besides, this matter is being
tried in the courts, not in the legislature. Are you questioning the
wisdom of the Sherman Act? If so, get it repealed. Until that happens, it's
the law of the land.


> What would have happened? US would be a second rate econonmy to Europe
> and Japan, that most likely what would have happened.
>
> regards
> Richard.

The are ways other than giving the green light to abuse of monopoly, to
protect the American economy against anti-competitive practices from
foreign companies.

Unchecked abuse of monopoly power is not in the best interests of the
consumer .... in the long term.

Tim Romano

[Tim Romano]

1. Sun attempted to provide a write-once-run-anywhere platform, which, if
it succeeded, would weaken Microsoft's hegemony on the desktop and provide
stiff competition in the enterprise server space.

2. Microsoft recognized that in order to stave off this threat on the
desktop, it would have to co-opt the technology and then emasculate it by
compromising its "run-anywhere" nature. Software developed using
Microsoft's so-called "java-compatible" tools would not "run anywhere"
unless special care were taken to keep the code clean of WinAPI
dependencies. This matter is the subject of the recent appellate court
findings.

3. Sun objected to this transparent strategy of emasculation, and MSFT and
Sun reached a legal settlement.

4. Microsoft is now finishing off the emasculation of java on the desktop
by not including the JVM and screwing around unnecessarily with the
security settings. An integrated JVM is analogous to an integrated (versus
add-on) hard drive on a gaming console. If a gaming console does not come
with an integrated hard-drive, but merely offers the HD as an option that
can be purchased separately, so that maybe only 1 console in 5 will have a
HD, then the chances are very low that software houses will develop game
software that depends on the existence of a hard-drive. So too with java --
if web developers and developers of push technologies cannot depend upon
there being a JVM on the desktop, they will cease to use java and choose a
technology with fewer deployment uncertainties.

Perhaps the Sun JVM will offer fewer uncertainties for a year or two, as
the .NET framework seeks mind-share and desktop space. And yet I don't
expect XP to be an overnight success; there are going to be a lot of Win2K
and Win98 machines out there for quite a while ... unless Microsoft can
figure out a way to force the world to upgrade.

Tim Romano


"Richard Curzon" <rcurzon@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:3b58ae34@news.devx.com:

> MS turned Java off by default in IE5.5, if not sooner, so this is not
> news.
>
> Warning, this part has a few stages:
>
> 1. Sun made Java 1.2 so it disadvantaged MS technology of the time
> (COM,
> DCOM) to the benefit of Sun's technology (CORBA, RMI)
> 2. So MS got of the Java wagon
> 3. Now Sun bitterly complains when MS provides a non-standard JVM.
> 4. While others bitterly complain that MS does not expose it's
> non-standard JVM.
>
> You can't have it both ways (or all 4 ways) Tim.
>
> But there is a simple way to think of all this: MS is phasing out all
> Java.
>
> They do not claim to support Java, other than the old J++ legacy
> version Sun doesn't like. Don't look for it now, don't look for it
> later, don't complain that product X doesn't do it. It's history.
>
> Until then, they actually had more Java applets on their site than Sun,
> oddly enough... <g>.
>
> regards
> Richard.
>
> --
> -----
> Live without dead time - Raoul Vaneigem
> May I borrow your towel, my car just hit a water buffalo - Chevy Chase
> "Tim Romano" <tim_romano@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns90E3C440BF025timromano@209.1.14.192...
>
>

[Richard Curzon]

>
> 3. Sun objected to this transparent strategy of emasculation, and MSFT and
> Sun reached a legal settlement.

While making CORBA/RMI an integral part of Java, and ignoring COM/DCOM, was
not partisan, was not a "transparent strategy of emasculation of MS
technology".

That difference is simple: it is an objective fact that Microsoft is evil
and Sun is good. Am I getting warm <g>?

regards

[Kunle Odutola]

"Tim Romano" <tim_romano@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns90E4DE0775B97timromano@209.1.14.192...
> 1. Sun attempted to provide a write-once-run-anywhere platform, which, if
> it succeeded, would weaken Microsoft's hegemony on the desktop and provide
> stiff competition in the enterprise server space.

Sun tried to build a competing platform on the back of a language and
virtual platform that was way cool for building cross-OS applets for
internet browsers. It was going to do this by essentially supplying Sun
replacement to everything that Windows (and others OS'es, middleware
technologies etc) already did e.g. COM, MSMQ, MTS etc.

And it was going to do all this while getting a free ride on browsers as a
channel for delivering Java platform technologies to pollute Windows and
other OSes. Being a long-time member of the "not very popular" OS club, it
gathered other members of the club (e.g. IBM) as partners along with a few
bodies like the OMG and the war began.

> 2. Microsoft recognized that in order to stave off this threat on the
> desktop, it would have to co-opt the technology and then emasculate it by
> compromising its "run-anywhere" nature. Software developed using
> Microsoft's so-called "java-compatible" tools would not "run anywhere"
> unless special care were taken to keep the code clean of WinAPI
> dependencies. This matter is the subject of the recent appellate court
> findings.

MS wanted to go a different route. Rather than build a whole new platform,
it wanted developers to be able to access the facilities of the underlying
OS platform from within Java. Ergo developers can choose to write
OS-dependent or -independent code. It did engage in stupidity (typical of
all sides) by adding stuff to the standard libraries.

> 3. Sun objected to this transparent strategy of emasculation, and MSFT and
> Sun reached a legal settlement.

Sun realised it couldn't pollute Windows as easily as it had thought and
went to the courts to see if they would help. After all, it knew that thanks
to it MS was about to be hit with a shitload of suits from the goverment....

> 4. Microsoft is now finishing off the emasculation of java on the desktop
> by not including the JVM and screwing around unnecessarily with the
> security settings.

The settings are already in present builds of IE. MS is abandoning Java. The
whole world has known that for a over year now.

> An integrated JVM is analogous to an integrated (versus
> add-on) hard drive on a gaming console. If a gaming console does not come
> with an integrated hard-drive, but merely offers the HD as an option that
> can be purchased separately, so that maybe only 1 console in 5 will have a
> HD, then the chances are very low that software houses will develop game
> software that depends on the existence of a hard-drive. So too with
java --
> if web developers and developers of push technologies cannot depend upon
> there being a JVM on the desktop, they will cease to use java and choose a
> technology with fewer deployment uncertainties.

Unless Sun finds another channel for delivering it's platform to it's target
market. MS is doing nicely for it's .NET platform (or so I'm told).

Kunle

[John Meyer]

A microsoft product blocking Java, is anybody really that surprised?
"Debbie Locker" <dlocker@possie.org> wrote in message
news:3b5584bc$1@news.devx.com...
>
> Unpublicized changes to security settings and their definitions in the
current
> beta of Windows XP could deny millions of users email and web browser
access
> to Internet content enabled through Java applets.
>
> In XP, the default security settings in Outlook and Outlook Express will
> automatically block Java applets in user inboxes.
>
> In addition, XP's security definition changes will block Java applets in
> browsers when administrators opt for high security settings. Previously,
> Java was not blocked in high security mode - a setting routinely used by
> IT administrators to protect corporate networks.
>
> POSSIE (People for Open, Safe and Secure Internet and Email) challenges
the
> disabling of Java applets. To date, no Java applet has been linked to a
> large-scale virus outbreak via email or on the web. If XP's security
settings
> that wrongly categorize Java continue, the real risk will be to innovation
> and open competition.
>
> Anyone concerned about innovation open competition should visit
www.POSSIE.org,
> or contact Microsoft directly.
>
>

[Bob]

In article <3cfa2937$1@10.1.10.29>, john_meyer@geocities.com says...
> A microsoft product blocking Java, is anybody really that surprised?
> "Debbie Locker" <dlocker@possie.org> wrote in message
> news:3b5584bc$1@news.devx.com...
> >
> > Unpublicized changes to security settings and their definitions in the
> current
> > beta of Windows XP could deny millions of users email and web browser
> access
> > to Internet content enabled through Java applets.
> >
> > In XP, the default security settings in Outlook and Outlook Express will
> > automatically block Java applets in user inboxes.
> >
> > In addition, XP's security definition changes will block Java applets in
> > browsers when administrators opt for high security settings. Previously,
> > Java was not blocked in high security mode - a setting routinely used by
> > IT administrators to protect corporate networks.
> >
> > POSSIE (People for Open, Safe and Secure Internet and Email) challenges
> the
> > disabling of Java applets. To date, no Java applet has been linked to a
> > large-scale virus outbreak via email or on the web. If XP's security
> settings
> > that wrongly categorize Java continue, the real risk will be to innovation
> > and open competition.
> >
> > Anyone concerned about innovation open competition should visit
> www.POSSIE.org,
> > or contact Microsoft directly.
> >

Doesn't bother me in the least. I have Java applets turned off in my browser
security settings and if Outlook would let me, I'd bounce all HTML email with
some sort of security error message.

Bob

[MarkN]

>I have Java applets turned off in my browser security settings.

Why? Because you don't like them? Ok. Because of security reasons? They
can't do anything unless you explicitly say they can. So if it is security
then you'd better disable all ActiveX controls. And not use IE. And not
Use MS Office. And not use Windows.

Mark

[Bob]

In article <3cfe7f4f$1@10.1.10.29>, m@n.com says...
>
> >I have Java applets turned off in my browser security settings.
>
> Why? Because you don't like them? Ok. Because of security reasons? They
> can't do anything unless you explicitly say they can. So if it is security
> then you'd better disable all ActiveX controls. And not use IE. And not
> Use MS Office. And not use Windows.
>
> Mark
>
Because 99% of the time they implement extremely annoying advertising I don't
want to see.

Bob

[MarkN]

>>
>Because 99% of the time they implement extremely annoying advertising I
don't
>want to see.
>
>Bob

Good. Glad you had a good reason.

Mark