More good news!

[Kent]

You may have to copy and paste the link into the address field of your browser.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../microsoft_sun

Should have been within 30 days rather than 120.

[Bob]

You celebrate too soon. Think ahead a little. M$ has. By pulling the Java
runtime from Windows and forcing this lawsuit, M$ has created a precedent.
Laws tend to work through precedents. If M$ loses all they have to do is
put the java runtime back into Windows. If they win, they make it a little
harder for xp users to run java programs. But _after_ this decision, if M$
sees a drop in Windows sales, there's a precedent for M$ to sue, forcing
competitors to create and include a .NET runtime with every copy. Stupid
move on Sun's part.

"Kent" <kp@kp.com> wrote:
>
>You may have to copy and paste the link into the address field of your browser.
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../microsoft_sun
>
>Should have been within 30 days rather than 120.

[Mike Mitchell]

On 16 Jan 2003 08:54:49 -0800, "Bob" <bob@stupidmo1ve.com> wrote:


>You celebrate too soon. Think ahead a little. M$ has. By pulling the Java
>runtime from Windows and forcing this lawsuit, M$ has created a precedent.
>Laws tend to work through precedents. If M$ loses all they have to do is
>put the java runtime back into Windows. If they win, they make it a little
>harder for xp users to run java programs. But _after_ this decision, if M$
>sees a drop in Windows sales, there's a precedent for M$ to sue, forcing
>competitors to create and include a .NET runtime with every copy. Stupid
>move on Sun's part.

No, no! Sun didn't try to muscle in on .Net and "Sunify" it. That's
the diff. They will *never* need to put .Net in their products, except
by choice.

MM

[james]

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bqae2v8aofgt1rppehf3ij3hetkq786ueg@4ax.com...
> On 16 Jan 2003 08:54:49 -0800, "Bob" <bob@stupidmo1ve.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> No, no! Sun didn't try to muscle in on .Net and "Sunify" it. That's
> the diff. They will *never* need to put .Net in their products, except
> by choice.
>
> MM

So, other than Sun crying because they have lost market share to Microsoft,
why should Microsoft be forced to add Java to "their" operating systems ?
It's not like consumers have exactly missed Java in Windows XP. And
there's nothing stopping anyone from downloading the JVM from Sun and using
it in WinXP if they want to.
So, Sun should not have any more choice to have their products in Microsoft
OS's than Microsoft should be allowed to force Sun to use their products.
Seems like a one way street to me. Build a poorly designed product (Sun's
JVM) and then force the competition to add it to their products wheather or
not they want to.
I think that the Courts should force Crysler to use Ford's DuraMax Diesel
engines in their Dodge Pickups. After all, Ford's engine might be better
than the Cummins Diesel engines that Dodge currently sells.
And anyway, that way, Ford still makes money from their engines. Wheather
the consumer wants it or not.
And while I'm thinking about it, maybe Coca Cola should be forced to sell
Pepsi too !!!!!!!!
james

[John Butler]

Sun's business model seems to be based around suing others, particularly
Microsoft, for money or advantage. Why one vendor should be forced by the
courts to carry another vendor's products, makes no sense to me whatsoever.

They can stick their shitty, slow Java VM where the sun don't shine. I've
seen a couple of spanking Java 1.4 apps, and they still suck and are slow.

Whatever, doubt it will impact on Microsoft, in the long run...and if it
makes crazed Java zealots happy, then fine. But Sun's continuous lawsuits
are tedious....I think they have more laywers than technologists and I hope
they go down in flames real soon now. Open source is a good thing and keeps
MS on their toes and encourages an open market. Sun doesn't ...it spends all
it's time trying to work out why no-one is buying it's overpriced hardware
anymore and thinking up ways of blaming Microsoft for it's woes and abysmal
share price.

rgds
John Butler

[Kent]

An even more idiotic move was just made when you took the time to craft this
response. Stupid move on your part.

"Bob" <bob@stupidmo1ve.com> wrote:
>
>You celebrate too soon. Think ahead a little. M$ has. By pulling the Java
>runtime from Windows and forcing this lawsuit, M$ has created a precedent.
>Laws tend to work through precedents. If M$ loses all they have to do is
>put the java runtime back into Windows. If they win, they make it a little
>harder for xp users to run java programs. But _after_ this decision, if
M$
>sees a drop in Windows sales, there's a precedent for M$ to sue, forcing
>competitors to create and include a .NET runtime with every copy. Stupid
>move on Sun's part.
>
>"Kent" <kp@kp.com> wrote:
>>
>>You may have to copy and paste the link into the address field of your
browser.
>>
>>http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../microsoft_sun
>>
>>Should have been within 30 days rather than 120.
>

[Kent]

James,

Take the time to go back and read the decision that the juge wrote, you'll
see how moronic your post is.

People never really got a chance to expieriece what they are missing. That
is because Microsoft worked hard to derail java. That is why Sun has taken
this suit as far as they have. Microsoft has made it clear that they will
rule the Windows application market by what ever means necessary and they
illegally used their monopoly power to damage Sun and Java. This has been
determined by a court of law.

Kent

"james" <jamesw2@mesh.net> wrote:
>
>"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:bqae2v8aofgt1rppehf3ij3hetkq786ueg@4ax.com...
>> On 16 Jan 2003 08:54:49 -0800, "Bob" <bob@stupidmo1ve.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> No, no! Sun didn't try to muscle in on .Net and "Sunify" it. That's
>> the diff. They will *never* need to put .Net in their products, except
>> by choice.
>>
>> MM
>
>So, other than Sun crying because they have lost market share to Microsoft,
>why should Microsoft be forced to add Java to "their" operating systems
?
>It's not like consumers have exactly missed Java in Windows XP. And
>there's nothing stopping anyone from downloading the JVM from Sun and using
>it in WinXP if they want to.
>So, Sun should not have any more choice to have their products in Microsoft
>OS's than Microsoft should be allowed to force Sun to use their products.
>Seems like a one way street to me. Build a poorly designed product (Sun's
>JVM) and then force the competition to add it to their products wheather
or
>not they want to.
>I think that the Courts should force Crysler to use Ford's DuraMax Diesel
>engines in their Dodge Pickups. After all, Ford's engine might be better
>than the Cummins Diesel engines that Dodge currently sells.
>And anyway, that way, Ford still makes money from their engines. Wheather
>the consumer wants it or not.
>And while I'm thinking about it, maybe Coca Cola should be forced to sell
>Pepsi too !!!!!!!!
>james
>
>

[james]

Kent, you might think my response is "moronic" but, what makes you think
that people have missed anything by Microsoft not including Sun's JVM from
Windows ? As I said, it's not like it cannot be downloaded and used
anyway.
And anyone building apps that depend on Sun's JVM can certainly include it
in their installation software. So, I don't see your point at all.
Yes, Sun did win that little victory in court against Microsoft. But, I
doubt that it will make any difference to the average user.
What I think is Moronic, is that any company feels that it is neccessary to
force another company to include their product in a competitors product. I
have read the court decision and there is nothing there that convinces me
that it is right. It's all about money . Wheather it's Microsoft's money
or Sun's. And Sun couldn't compete with Microsoft in any way so they
decided to sue their way into Microsoft's pocketbook.
Any software written that needs Sun's JVM will work with Windows XP as long
as it is included in the installation package. So, I don't see that
Microsoft has prevented anyone from using it.
james

"Kent" <kp@kp.org> wrote in message news:3e276cfa$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
>
> James,
>
> Take the time to go back and read the decision that the juge wrote, you'll
> see how moronic your post is.
>
> People never really got a chance to expieriece what they are missing.
That
> is because Microsoft worked hard to derail java. That is why Sun has
taken
> this suit as far as they have. Microsoft has made it clear that they will
> rule the Windows application market by what ever means necessary and they
> illegally used their monopoly power to damage Sun and Java. This has been
> determined by a court of law.
>
> Kent
>
> "james" <jamesw2@mesh.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:bqae2v8aofgt1rppehf3ij3hetkq786ueg@4ax.com...
> >> On 16 Jan 2003 08:54:49 -0800, "Bob" <bob@stupidmo1ve.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> No, no! Sun didn't try to muscle in on .Net and "Sunify" it. That's
> >> the diff. They will *never* need to put .Net in their products, except
> >> by choice.
> >>
> >> MM
> >
> >So, other than Sun crying because they have lost market share to
Microsoft,
> >why should Microsoft be forced to add Java to "their" operating systems
> ?
> >It's not like consumers have exactly missed Java in Windows XP. And
> >there's nothing stopping anyone from downloading the JVM from Sun and
using
> >it in WinXP if they want to.
> >So, Sun should not have any more choice to have their products in
Microsoft
> >OS's than Microsoft should be allowed to force Sun to use their products.
> >Seems like a one way street to me. Build a poorly designed product
(Sun's
> >JVM) and then force the competition to add it to their products wheather
> or
> >not they want to.
> >I think that the Courts should force Crysler to use Ford's DuraMax
Diesel
> >engines in their Dodge Pickups. After all, Ford's engine might be better
> >than the Cummins Diesel engines that Dodge currently sells.
> >And anyway, that way, Ford still makes money from their engines.
Wheather
> >the consumer wants it or not.
> >And while I'm thinking about it, maybe Coca Cola should be forced to sell
> >Pepsi too !!!!!!!!
> >james
> >
> >

[bob]

Admit it, you're just jealous, arent' you? You just wish you had thought of
it first. Now M$ gets the last laugh after all. And so do I--at your expense.

"Kent" <kp@kp.com> wrote:
>
>An even more idiotic move was just made when you took the time to craft
this
>response. Stupid move on your part.
>
>"Bob" <bob@stupidmo1ve.com> wrote:
>>
>>You celebrate too soon. Think ahead a little. M$ has. By pulling the Java
>>runtime from Windows and forcing this lawsuit, M$ has created a precedent.
>>Laws tend to work through precedents. If M$ loses all they have to do is
>>put the java runtime back into Windows. If they win, they make it a little
>>harder for xp users to run java programs. But _after_ this decision, if
>M$
>>sees a drop in Windows sales, there's a precedent for M$ to sue, forcing
>>competitors to create and include a .NET runtime with every copy. Stupid
>>move on Sun's part.
>>
>>"Kent" <kp@kp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>You may have to copy and paste the link into the address field of your
>browser.
>>>
>>>http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../microsoft_sun
>>>
>>>Should have been within 30 days rather than 120.
>>

[Jason Sobell iGadget]

> People never really got a chance to expieriece what they are missing.
That
> is because Microsoft worked hard to derail java. That is why Sun has
taken
> this suit as far as they have.

Hmm....
Sun licenses Java to MS as long as they remain compatible.
MS ships with JVM 1.1.4 (I seem to remember) which by this time was
superceded by Sun.
Sun complained that the MS version was Windows only (as used on >80% of all
desktop machines).
Sun authorises MS to distribute that version for another 7 years.
MS removes JVM from Windows XP but makes it an automatic download option.
Sun sues MS and forces them to put it back in there.

Imagine if Sun had spent all those hundreds of millions of dollars
developing new products, hardware and software, or simply improving Java to
make it run faster and graphically better in the Windows environment.
In the midst of all this, Macromedia Flash has rocketed past Java for web
animation and interactive tasks, removing much of the need for
cross-platform capable applets, one of the key areas Sun complained about.

It sure looks as though Sun worked hard to derail themselves. I suspect the
only input by Microsoft was in the form of calculated prods to the already
badly tottering carriage of Sun.

Cheers,
Jason

[Bob]

In article <3e2749db$1@tnews.web.devx.com>, nospamjrbutler@btinternet.com
says...
> Sun's business model seems to be based around suing others, particularly
> Microsoft, for money or advantage. Why one vendor should be forced by the
> courts to carry another vendor's products, makes no sense to me whatsoever.
>
> They can stick their shitty, slow Java VM where the sun don't shine. I've
> seen a couple of spanking Java 1.4 apps, and they still suck and are slow.
>
> Whatever, doubt it will impact on Microsoft, in the long run...and if it
> makes crazed Java zealots happy, then fine. But Sun's continuous lawsuits
> are tedious....I think they have more laywers than technologists and I hope
> they go down in flames real soon now. Open source is a good thing and keeps
> MS on their toes and encourages an open market. Sun doesn't ...it spends all
> it's time trying to work out why no-one is buying it's overpriced hardware
> anymore and thinking up ways of blaming Microsoft for it's woes and abysmal
> share price.
>
> rgds
> John Butler
>
John,

You are correct about Sun. They are a hardware company. The are having the
same problems that DEC did. DEC was a hardware company that happened to
produce some very good software. After things started going downhill, the
software folks got very frustrated because they had very little control over
the features they could add to the software. Software marketing basically
stopped, even in areas where there were direct 3rd party competing products.
As the end neared, some software groups resorted to paying for marketing from
their development budget.

I suspect that Sun's software groups may be headed in this same direction.
Given this kind of situation, who will produce better software products, the
software division of a struggling hardware company, or a successful dedicated
software company?

Bob

[Jay King]

Ms removed it because of a previous lawsuit with sun.

Sun has some major issues... like trying to be a software company..

"Jason Sobell iGadget" <iGadget_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e27b95f$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
| > People never really got a chance to expieriece what they are missing.
| That
| > is because Microsoft worked hard to derail java. That is why Sun has
| taken
| > this suit as far as they have.
|
| Hmm....
| Sun licenses Java to MS as long as they remain compatible.
| MS ships with JVM 1.1.4 (I seem to remember) which by this time was
| superceded by Sun.
| Sun complained that the MS version was Windows only (as used on >80% of
all
| desktop machines).
| Sun authorises MS to distribute that version for another 7 years.
| MS removes JVM from Windows XP but makes it an automatic download option.
| Sun sues MS and forces them to put it back in there.
|
| Imagine if Sun had spent all those hundreds of millions of dollars
| developing new products, hardware and software, or simply improving Java
to
| make it run faster and graphically better in the Windows environment.
| In the midst of all this, Macromedia Flash has rocketed past Java for web
| animation and interactive tasks, removing much of the need for
| cross-platform capable applets, one of the key areas Sun complained about.
|
| It sure looks as though Sun worked hard to derail themselves. I suspect
the
| only input by Microsoft was in the form of calculated prods to the already
| badly tottering carriage of Sun.
|
| Cheers,
| Jason
|
|