Re: Java Timer, swing
From: Grant Wagner (gwagner_at_agricoreunited.com)
Date: 07/28/04
- Next message: Roedy Green: "Re: non-blocking chat server"
- Previous message: Québec: "Re: GetStringChars should be simple"
- In reply to: Thomas Weidenfeller: "Re: Java Timer, swing"
- Next in thread: Andrew Thompson: "Re: Java Timer, swing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:04:18 GMT
Thomas Weidenfeller wrote:
> All it would have taken by MS would have to be compliant with the
> license. MS refused to honor what they signed. I would hardly call that
> "Sun won't let them". Sun let them, they sold MS a license. MS didn't
> play by the rules.
Sun let them, they violated the license agreement, they went to court.
The court decided that Microsoft can not update their JVM.
Now you advocate that Microsoft produce a Java 2-compatible VM. They can not do
that because the sequence of events laid out above resulted in Sun (okay, the
court, at Sun's bequest) not letting them produce a Java 2-compatible VM.
> > They were ordered not to change their JVM (except for bug fixes and security
> > patches) by the courts at *Sun's request*.
>
> No, they were first asked to fulfill their obligation according to the
> license they signed. They didn't do that, so Sun stopped them.
Sun stopped them by going to court and obtaining a decision that says Microsoft
can no longer update their VM. If Microsoft attempted to produce a Java
2-compatible VM at this point in time, they would be in violation of that court
decision.
> > Now you're advocating that they
> > should violate the court order to produce a Java 2-compatible JVM?
>
> I am advocating that
>
> a) Microsoft buys a new Java licenses from Sun
Sun won't license Java to Microsoft.
> b) Microsoft produces a VM legally compliant to the license, and
If Sun won't license Java to Microsoft, Microsoft can't do anything compliant to
the non-existent licensing.
> c) technically compatible with Sun's reference implementation.
If Microsoft doesn't produce a VM because they can't obtain a license to do so, it
can't be technically compatible with anything.
> d) Microsoft ships that VM
I'm sure if Microsoft were actually able to license Java from Sun, produce a VM
compliant with the license that is technically compatible with Sun's reference
implementation, they would ship it. After going to that much expense and effort I
doubt they'd sit on it.
Of course, Sun won't license Java to Microsoft, so the entire argument is moot and
it's Sun's fault that at this point in time Microsoft has no Java 2-compatible VM.
> e) Microsoft gives up their silly games to push their own stuff,
> neglecting their users
Why should they have to give up pushing their own stuff?
Why doesn't Sun give up Java and embrace Flash in place of applets and ColdFusion
in place of Servlets? According to Macromedia "With ColdFusion MX, you can build
and deploy powerful web applications and web services with far less training time
and fewer lines of code than ASP, PHP, and JSP."
So by playing silly games to push Java, Sun is neglecting their users who could be
more productive with ColdFusion.
-- Grant Wagner <gwagner@agricoreunited.com>
- Next message: Roedy Green: "Re: non-blocking chat server"
- Previous message: Québec: "Re: GetStringChars should be simple"
- In reply to: Thomas Weidenfeller: "Re: Java Timer, swing"
- Next in thread: Andrew Thompson: "Re: Java Timer, swing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
