MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by John Jense » Sat, 21 Jun 1997 04:00:00




: Read all about it at:

: http://www.veryComputer.com/

: Why do they call 100% Pure the biggest marketing blunder of all time?

It's really sad, isn't it?  Microsoft makes tons of money, Bill has tons
of money, and they could make more money by giving developers what they
want.  But what developers want is platform independence, and Microsoft is
worried about what that would mean five years from now.

I beleive in business, but there has to be some m*line between
wanting to make lots of money and wanting to make all the money.

John

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by John Jense » Sun, 22 Jun 1997 04:00:00


: Imagine you were controlling an orchestra of musicians, some of which
: had instruments that were capable of playing chords, and some that
: could only play one note at a time.  But, to make life simpler - you
: tried to endorse only ever using single-line music.  As a result,
: when played, your music sounds terrible compared to another orchestra
: in the next city.  So now try and sell the concept.  Or perhaps
: practise first, by selling some ham at a Jewish convention.

: Microsoft have wrapped up the Win32 API into COM interfaces, so that
: they can be used easily from within the JVM.  The same set of COM
: interfaces can be used from any other language - Visual Basic, C++ -
: for example.  In the same fashion, if you wanted to produce the same
: COM interfaces that implement onto X/Windows - then you are free to
: do this.  

: IMO it's an excellent move, it's about time we got to use the stuff
: we've invested time and money in over the past 10 or so years -
: rather than being forced to use something immature, inadequate and
: inflexible.

: John Wood

You felt you were "forced to use something immature, inadequate and
inflexble?"  Who forced you to leave COM and Windows, if that's what you
like?

Actually, if Microsoft would have just come out with the WIN32 interface I
would have given it a clean call.  I think platform independent Java is a
great goal, and it's great to see a lot of energy and creativity put into
that effort.  But, I don't actually mind that other people use Java in
platform specific situations.

I'm down on Redmond because they now choose to fight platform independent
Java in the press.  They seem to accept Java's promise, but have chosen to
view that promise as a threat to Windows rather than an opportunity.

John

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by John Woo » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00


Imagine you were controlling an orchestra of musicians, some of which
had instruments that were capable of playing chords, and some that
could only play one note at a time.  But, to make life simpler - you
tried to endorse only ever using single-line music.  As a result,
when played, your music sounds terrible compared to another orchestra
in the next city.  So now try and sell the concept.  Or perhaps
practise first, by selling some ham at a Jewish convention.

Microsoft have wrapped up the Win32 API into COM interfaces, so that
they can be used easily from within the JVM.  The same set of COM
interfaces can be used from any other language - Visual Basic, C++ -
for example.  In the same fashion, if you wanted to produce the same
COM interfaces that implement onto X/Windows - then you are free to
do this.  

IMO it's an excellent move, it's about time we got to use the stuff
we've invested time and money in over the past 10 or so years -
rather than being forced to use something immature, inadequate and
inflexible.

John Wood




> : Read all about it at:

> : http://www.veryComputer.com/

> : Why do they call 100% Pure the biggest marketing blunder of all
time?

> It's really sad, isn't it?  Microsoft makes tons of money, Bill has
tons
> of money, and they could make more money by giving developers what
they
> want.  But what developers want is platform independence, and
Microsoft is
> worried about what that would mean five years from now.

> I beleive in business, but there has to be some m*line between
> wanting to make lots of money and wanting to make all the money.

> John

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by John Woo » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00



Quote:> You felt you were "forced to use something immature, inadequate and
> inflexble?"  Who forced you to leave COM and Windows, if that's what you
> like?

Read my sentence again.

Win32 is far from immature - it's the most popular platform to date, and
one of the most mature.  Considering the richness of services available on
the Win32 platform (such as TAPI, DirectX, ActiveX, ODBC etc.) it's
certainly adequate, and a COM solution makes it the most flexible in terms
of extensibility.  

As a platform, Java gives you very little and is incredibly immature.  The
VM itself is, and has become, a very useful part of the Win32 platform - in
that it offers a method of having a single binary for every processor.
Period.

If everyone implemented the J/Direct COM interfaces for different
processors (and wrapped other platforms in terms of the J/Direct COM
interfaces), then we can carry on with what we have, and yet still have the
potential for platform neutral applications:  

Quote:> I'm down on Redmond because they now choose to fight platform independent
> Java in the press.  They seem to accept Java's promise, but have chosen
to
> view that promise as a threat to Windows rather than an opportunity.

In terms of business position for Microsoft, of course it's a threat to
their Windows platform. But if that was ALL it was, then I wouldn't be
writing this message, and they wouldn't get very far with their marketing.

It's a threat to the industry.  For the Internet, 100% Pure could be useful
- if you want to please 100% of your audience 100% of the time.  When
people mistake the Internet for the rest of the industry, that's when
problems will occur. People get a fair deal for the hardware they're using,
whatever that hardware is.  So why should they upgrade?

As a result, nobody ever upgrades their hardware - nobody ever upgrades the
technology in their software:  A stale industry.

Historically, Windows has taken on new technologies as they arise.
Standards are produced, and people are able to use those technologies soon
afterwards.  100% Pure aims to slow this process until the technology is
globally installed.

If 100% Pure is a badge for use on the Internet only, then it's a good idea
- but nothing that can't be mandated through interfaces in ActiveX.  If
it's anything more than that, then quite simply it will fail on grounds of
logic.

John Wood

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by Peter van der Lind » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00


Quote:>If everyone implemented the J/Direct COM interfaces for different
>processors (and wrapped other platforms in terms of the J/Direct COM
>interfaces), then we can carry on with what we have, and yet still have the
>potential for platform neutral applications:  

Yes, if Microsoft were licensing their proprietary COM interfaces, the
way Sun is licensing the open Java interfaces, what you say might be true.

Quote:> It's a threat to the industry.  For the Internet, 100% Pure could be useful
> - if you want to please 100% of your audience 100% of the time.  When
> people mistake the Internet for the rest of the industry, that's when
> problems will occur. People get a fair deal for the hardware they're using,
> whatever that hardware is.  So why should they upgrade?

> As a result, nobody ever upgrades their hardware - nobody ever upgrades the
> technology in their software:  A stale industry.

So you are arguing that because portable Java offers people a way to
continue using their systems, instead of having to upgrade every
9 months, it's a *bad* thing?!    That's certainly a novel argument.

--
Peter van der Linden     Java Programmers FAQ --->  http://www.best.com/~pvdl
Although my most recent books have been "Just Java" and "Not Just Java"
there is no truth to the rumor that I am writing a whole series whose titles
are logic propositions: "Java Nor More Java," "Nand Java," "Java Xor Not Java".

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by Werner Pu » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00



>You felt you were "forced to use something immature, inadequate and
>inflexble?"  Who forced you to leave COM and Windows, if that's what you
>like?

>Actually, if Microsoft would have just come out with the WIN32 interface I
>would have given it a clean call.  I think platform independent Java is a
>great goal, and it's great to see a lot of energy and creativity put into
>that effort.  But, I don't actually mind that other people use Java in
>platform specific situations.

>I'm down on Redmond because they now choose to fight platform independent
>Java in the press.  They seem to accept Java's promise, but have chosen to
>view that promise as a threat to Windows rather than an opportunity.

I don't have a problem with JDirect as long as 100% of Java is
supported. After all Apple does the same with their next OS. But I
have a problem by not supporting crucial parts of the VM thus allowing
a market split in the future (e.g. JNI)

Werner

---

http://witiko.ifs.uni-linz.ac.at/~werpu/

FOR A REPLY PLEASE REMOVE THE NOSPAM FROM MY E-MAIL
ADDRESS.

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by Werner Pu » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00



>If everyone implemented the J/Direct COM interfaces for different
>processors (and wrapped other platforms in terms of the J/Direct COM
>interfaces), then we can carry on with what we have, and yet still have the
>potential for platform neutral applications:  

Forget it that'll never happen after all it's not Microsofts intention
to reach any cross platform capability in any way. They have a history
of plugging non cross platform stuff into their API's (DCOM vs. Corba,
OpenGL vs. D3D, Com vs. Corba and SOM, OLE vs. OpenDoc etc....)

Werner

---

http://witiko.ifs.uni-linz.ac.at/~werpu/

FOR A REPLY PLEASE REMOVE THE NOSPAM FROM MY E-MAIL
ADDRESS.

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by Joe DiFonz » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00


DCOM is immature. A lot of Windows APIs are immature. NT is immature
compared to UNIX and OS/390.

What makes ODBC "rich"? ODBC is an LCD approach to databas access, built
for small-scale
DBs like Access and SQLServer.

Win32 *is* immature. It's been in production what, two years? And the API
is still not aligned
between NT and 95. (And I'm *not* talking about NT functions like security
that never will be part
of Win95.) Transaction server? Bah. no support for 2 phase commit on
heterogeneous resource
managers.

Microsoft has no rights to the high ground on API maturity.

I stongly disagree with your view that we should all just get used to the
MS interfaces
and get on with life. *That* would lead to a stale industry, IMO.

When you have to build an enterprise-scale application, one that supports
thousands of
users and information about millions of customers, along with interfaces to
dozens of
other supporting systems, NT is still not the answer. I don't know if it
will ever be, despite
Microsoft's hard work and spin generators. So no, I don't think the right
answer is to
tie your code to Win32 by soiling it up with JDirect API calls. There is,
and there needs
to be, ONE SOURCE for Java API standards -- JavaSoft (or the ISO).

Microsoft is attempting to confuse and corral the industry into their
private API hell.
They are trying to water-down Java and turn it into another language. Well
the language
is nice, but the real value of Java is the set of cross-platform APIs!

Microsoft would *love* to have Sun, Oracle, HP, DEC, IBM, etc. rushing to
build JDirect
implementations for their OSs, because that just makes the Win32 API the
de-facto system
services interface for the entire industry. And they know it will take
years for those
implementations to stabilize. Years in which NT will gain more maturity and
market presence
in the commercial industry.

I want choice! I want one API that is reasonably implementable on all
platforms. If you don't
need that, fine, write in C. Use the native APIs. Just don't take me down
with you.

--
Joe

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by Timothy Watso » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00



> certainly adequate, and a COM solution makes it the most flexible in terms
> of extensibility.  

No, not THE most flexible. Some platforms had ORBs that already allow
load balancing, etc.

Quote:> As a platform, Java gives you very little and is incredibly immature.  The

AWT is rather immature, but people are using it for middleware. Due to
it's platform-independence, it is becoming very popular for
integrating back-office stuff.

Quote:> VM itself is, and has become, a very useful part of the Win32 platform - in
> that it offers a method of having a single binary for every processor.
> Period.

Every Win32 processor?

Quote:> If everyone implemented the J/Direct COM interfaces for different
> processors (and wrapped other platforms in terms of the J/Direct COM
> interfaces), then we can carry on with what we have, and yet still have the
> potential for platform neutral applications:  

No, the difficulty is the different behaviour of those different
interfaces on the systems. It becomes a difficult problem to specify
how they should operate, and Win32-equivalent interfaces, I suspect,
might be more difficult to implement than AWT. AWT was in fact meant
to use information specified in such a way that an interface that
resembled the native one for that platform could result. Hence, it
does not allow one to be too explicit. Very explicit=not portable.

Hmm, on UNIX, Win32-related COM interfaces were NOT to be implemented,
and companies were complaining about Microsoft withholding technology,
but Microsoft said the stuff not implemented would not make sense.

Quote:> people mistake the Internet for the rest of the industry, that's when
> problems will occur. People get a fair deal for the hardware they're using,

The internet will be much of the industry. All sorts of things that do
not look like PCs will certainly be networked.

--
________________________________________________________________________
T    i    m    o    t    h    y              W    a    t    s    o    n

  __/| Something there is that doesn't love a wall, that wants it down

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by Timothy Watso » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00




> > certainly adequate, and a COM solution makes it the most flexible in terms
> > of extensibility.  

Microsoft will be working into the fall just to provide the full
intended Unix implementation of DCOM for the Open Group. Some things,
like DCE (Kerberos authentication - do you want that flunky object to
run one with root privileges, etc). will not be implemented till later
this year.

--
________________________________________________________________________
T    i    m    o    t    h    y              W    a    t    s    o    n

  __/| Something there is that doesn't love a wall, that wants it down

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by Timothy Watso » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00


microsoft spends much propaganda effort, complaining about stuff like
the "fragile base class." But CORBA objects can apparently
(optionally) be versioned, just like a library, so seomthing else that
invokes it can potentially check for the version.

Don't know much about that stuff, there must be a "quick-and-easy"
CORBA book somewhere, i'd like to learn something about it, since
there's a guy who is interested in remote processing.

--
________________________________________________________________________
T    i    m    o    t    h    y              W    a    t    s    o    n

  __/| Something there is that doesn't love a wall, that wants it down

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by Timothy Watso » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00



> > As a platform, Java gives you very little and is incredibly immature.  The
> AWT is rather immature, but people are using it for middleware. Due to

                                               ^^ java
--
________________________________________________________________________
T    i    m    o    t    h    y              W    a    t    s    o    n

  __/| Something there is that doesn't love a wall, that wants it down
 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by Timothy Watso » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00



> I don't have a problem with JDirect as long as 100% of Java is
> supported. After all Apple does the same with their next OS. But I

Apparently Visual Basic is interpreted bytecode, and the next version
of Visual Basic will use JVM bytecode. So it IS sort of necessary if
they are going to dump the old VB format, they can't replace it with
something that performs worse.

--
________________________________________________________________________
T    i    m    o    t    h    y              W    a    t    s    o    n

  __/| Something there is that doesn't love a wall, that wants it down

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by Timothy Watso » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00




> > I don't have a problem with JDirect as long as 100% of Java is
> > supported. After all Apple does the same with their next OS. But I

> Apparently Visual Basic is interpreted bytecode, and the next version
> of Visual Basic will use JVM bytecode. So it IS sort of necessary if
> they are going to dump the old VB format, they can't replace it with
> something that performs worse.

ref http://www.techweb.com/wire/news/june/0622ie.html
about "Vegas"

--
________________________________________________________________________
T    i    m    o    t    h    y              W    a    t    s    o    n

  __/| Something there is that doesn't love a wall, that wants it down

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by Timothy Watso » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00



> Microsoft would *love* to have Sun, Oracle, HP, DEC, IBM, etc. rushing to
> build JDirect
> implementations for their OSs, because that just makes the Win32 API the
> de-facto system
> services interface for the entire industry. And they know it will take

HP-UX is getting Win32 anyways.

--
________________________________________________________________________
T    i    m    o    t    h    y              W    a    t    s    o    n

  __/| Something there is that doesn't love a wall, that wants it down

 
 
 

1. Java, Java, Java, Java, Java, Java .....

In the systems being developed here, everything is coded in Java. There
are about 100 Java applications each running its own virtual machine.

I'm supposed to work with test and performance analysis of these systems
and I'm using tools that log system behaviour on process level.

The problem is that all I see is 100 processes named Java with some
small variations in command line parameters.

Is there a safe way to alter the process names either at startup or at
runtime ?
What could be the consequences of doing such a thing ?

//Hans Hagberg

2. Craig Hunt -- Linux Sendmail Administration -- Good Book?

3. Linux: a threat to Microsoft (was: Microsoft to make Windows-specific Java)

4. How can i cut a word from a line ot data ?

5. Local mail server using Microsoft Outlook Express as *pure* network client

6. install problems on a sparc 20

7. ANN: JLAN Pro - Pure Java Windows Networking API

8. Login in X

9. .NET Software Standard (Was: Re: WHY MICROSOFT'S GNU ATTACK WILL BACKFIRE

10. Latest Microsoft attack on open source: open source is a WEAPON!

11. A Stealth Attack on Linux from Microsoft?

12. Microsoft leaves IE users defenceless to trojan attack -- THEINQUIRER.net

13. Help, I need a list of Denial of Service attack by symptom to track an attack