New IE Disables Netscape-style Plug-ins 534
Snibor Eoj writes: "In his latest column, Robert Cringely takes a look at Microsoft's motivation for disabling Netscape API plug-ins in IE. As always with Cringely, it's an interesting take on things. We'll see how this one turns out..." Among other things, this will disable Quicktime plugins.
I have the perfect solution! (Score:3, Funny)
It's perfect! MS will be slapped down by their ignorance, and the mass of netizens will flock back to Netscape because they can't be without the ability to load web pages!
Re:I have the perfect solution! (Score:2)
Not likely. Which browser is the standard browser? It's not Netscape.
Site designers will design for the standard browser, which is IE.
Next: expect MS to introduce new "standards" that site designers use, which exclude other platforms.
Re:I have the perfect solution! (Score:3, Insightful)
:)
Re:I have the perfect solution! (Score:3, Insightful)
>Only problem: most web developers write HTML
>with IE in mind
The problem, to be more precise, is that web developers do not write HTML at all. They write
the markup language for some or other particular browser application, but it most certainly is NOT HTML.
If web developers would be professional enough to embrace standards properly, we wouldn't need to have this discussion.
= more than just Quicktime? (Score:3, Interesting)
But won't removing also kill Flash, one of the few Internet-wide plugins that I can be pretty sure these days that the majority of the visitors to my website can see? If that happens, a whole lot of site designers will sure be peeved.
Course, that will include every media company and such.
However, it would help me get away from those cutesy webpages I see sometimes that keep on playing annoying loops of midi quality music and disable the controls too (and which takes it's own pleasant time to load on my 56k)
New way to get karma on /. (Score:2, Informative)
Intercompatibility (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, isn't this motivation for a new standard in web browsing? We have one for the languages of the web, and for the content. Yet we don't have one for the viewer or plugins. If there were a standard, such as in CD players or other infrastructure, then we would have a reason to be upset when someone deviates from the standard. As it is, the businesses devise their own standards, for good and bad.
Some thoughts.... (Score:5, Insightful)
2) If a plug-in maker goes out of business, I won't have future updates of that plug-in for my Linux based browser.
3) If a plug-in such as RealPlayer or Flash goes away, websites will change to a MS based technology to drive it's content.
4) If a websites require MS based technology that is not supported by my browser, the internet starts becoming much smaller for non-MS people.
5)By creating the perception that plug-in technology is a liability, the laywers start looking for other browser publishers who do use plug-ins and sue them. Hello Netscape, AOL, and maybe even desktop shells with integrated HTML support. Hello Gnome.
6) Without plug-in support it becomes damn near imposible for other OSs (Hello Linux) to utilize Microsoft's
7) This is a very clever way for MS to further the goal of "the browser is the operating system". Hello monopoly.
Take it to the courts. (Score:2)
Let's face it, a cometitors' plugin interface is bound to be more stable and consistent than anything MS publishes, for reasons that have been beaten into the ground.
Having an IE plugin interface in Mozilla, for example, would be ludicrous. The lizards would spend far more time playing catchup with MS interfaces than doing anything else, thus killing the project. Duh.
Hopefully the courts will demand a few things from MS immediately:
1) Open MS Exchange to LDAP/POP3 access unconditionally.
2) Allow OEMs the right to add or remove components, software and icons unconditionally.
3) Allow OEMs the right to ship dual boot systems unconditionally.
If Ford shipped a car that only ran on Ford(tm) gasoline, or a GM dealer couldn't add accessories to a vehicle at the customer's request, or on their own initiative, there would be OUTRAGE expressed by the dealers, end buyers, and accessory shops.
These steps should have been taken years ago.
I won't miss <EMBED> (Score:5, Funny)
RXC says:
Goodbye indeed. See ya. Don't let the door hit you in the marketing department on the way out.
I, for one, won't miss the EMBED tag. I'd also be willing to go without IFRAME, MARQUEE, and BLINK.
Microsoft's getting rid of EMBED? Bully for them. It's about time.
Re:I won't miss <EMBED> (Score:2, Informative)
Information on how to use IFRAME. [w3.org]
Re:I won't miss <EMBED> (Score:2, Informative)
"The Internet Explorer versions that are listed above continue to support the Embed tag. Content creators can continue to use the Embed tag for components that are built on ActiveX technologies..."
EMBED was never part of the HTML standard anyway, which Microsoft claims to be compliant with. So it would be good to see a migration to the OBJECT tag, which would also work for Java (W3C classifies APPLET as deprecated). But then why does MS continue to support EMBED for only ActiveX? They ought to drop it completely if they're going to be as standards-based as they claim, particularly if they nitpick Sun about submitted Java to a standards body.
Pot, kettle, black.
Article name misnomer [2] (Score:3, Informative)
These are not "Netscape style plugins"
They are <EMBED>, yes Netscape probably
was the major force getting them into HTML
but they are legal HTML (3.2 I believe)
Now IE has dropped support for this tag and is breaking HTML 3.2 support (surprise
surprise).
What people are calling "IE style plugins"
are <OBJECT>which are part of HTML 4.0.
PS> All those filters and still doesn't translate HTML enitites in text-mode, gret code Slash!
I Don't Understand (Score:3, Informative)
You can ditch MS and their crapware. All it takes it a little digging!
-- Shamus
Bleah!
Please everyone (Score:5, Funny)
They only took out the Quicktime plugin because it is a stable feature, and thus isn't compatible with any Microsoft products.
If Apple were willing to add some buggy code, I'm sure the Microsoft would be more than happy to allow the feature in Internet Explorer
Re:Please everyone (Score:2)
Re:It crashed your browser... (Score:2)
I have IE, which does not crash at all when browsing. When running any "Netscape plug-in", it proceeds fine. Only when I run Quicktime movies, and the plug-in is being loaded, does the browser crash.
You're going to tell me it's the system, when nothing within the system is at fault here?
Supid (Score:2)
You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure it is a hassle, but Windows or Microsoft per say has an API they're trying to get developers to follow. Netscape a few weeks ago if you don't remember basically said "We are out of the browser Business" so what is the use of supporting the api of a dead browser? Especially one that is based on Mozilla which isn't even a 1.0 product yet?
Sure netscape 6.1 amd mozilla browsers are getting there, but not quite there yet and maybe in IE 6.01 ot 6.1 you will see it back in or an optional download
Finally Microsoft is trimming some bloat, and all we have to do is complain or bring up things that aren't even relevant (like monopolistic practices, what in the hell does that have to do with supporting a dead products plugins?)
Again, just my opinion.
Uhh (Score:2, Troll)
"what is the use of supporting the api of a dead browser?"
1. Netscape 4.x did not magically stop working the day AOL bought Netscape.
2. WinME STILL runs Win3.1 apps.
3. It required time, money and effort on MS's part to actively REMOVE Netscape style plugin support. Why REMOVE a used feature when leaving the code doesn't actually hurt anything and supports your current user base?
Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:2, Informative)
When IE doesn't support NPIs, while being the majority browser, developers will have to decide if they want to write two plug-ins, one for IE, and one for the rest of all browsers, or just write one for IE.
I case you didn't get it yet, MS is trying to break a working defacto standard of a competitor (that benefits all users) by using their monopoly power. IOW nothing new to be seen here.
The point is not the action... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft is =selectively= crippling IE, to force users down a specific upgrade path, then that is a very serious problem. So serious, it may well come up in the DOJ vs Microsoft trial, during the re-evaluation.
Using a monopoly in one area to create a monopoly in another is a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law.
How is this relevent to plug-in technology? Actually, that's surprisingly simple. Dropping the API is not the important part. That's just the mechanism. The important part is that they are "conforming" to this patent only in part. That part being dropping compatiability, which is the entire point of a =world= wide web.
What is happening is that they are generating negative press for competitors, at the same time as making it difficult to impossible for users to use any products other than Microsoft's.
If it were a case of needing an API wrapper, to use Apple's, Netscape's or Sun's plug-ins, there would be no problem. No such wrapper exists, and I very much doubt that sufficient documentation exists for anybody to write such a wrapper.
If you remember, when Microsoft dropped Java support, people voiced the opinion that all people would have to do is download the Sun Java plug-in. It now turns out that Microsoft won't let you.
So. No 3rd-party plug-ins from ANY source Microsoft doesn't approve of. That's a monopoly. Or, to use "real english", that is a Feudal state. THIS is the "real issue", not whether the API is alive, dead, or both. Schrodinger's Cat it is not.
To sum up, the allegation reduces to this: Microsoft is running an operation bordering on the paramilitary, in an effort to conquer and plunder territory, in a manner that is more rememiscient of a feudal war-lord than a civilised corporation in the 21st century in a country based on freedoms and democratic principles.
I don't know about you, but I don't give a damn what runs in what. =I= don't want Napoleon Bonepart running the tech industry at gun-point.
Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:5, Insightful)
- Netscape plug ins run on three platforms. (Unix, Mac, Windows)
- Many of the plug in's are important (Flash, QuickTime, RealOddeeo, etc.)
- Some major web sites use these plug ins
By changing these plugins to ActiveX, it increases the possibility that these plugins will stop being supported on non-Windows platforms.So non-windows platforms end up being second-class (or worse) citizens when it comes to the browser.
Since the only business model MS knows is the leverage and maintenance of monopoly power, it makes sense for MS to do everything they can to make IE the standard, and make it incompatible with everything else. This helps them effectively steal open standards and turn them into proprietary standards by leveraging their monopoly on the desktop. By making other browsers second-class, it helps them maintain their monopoloy on the desktop. Nobody wants to use a desktop with a second class browser.
Both leveraging and maintaining a monopoly is what got them in trouble in the first place.
Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:4, Insightful)
YOU CAN RUN NETSCAPE AND USE THOSE PLUGINS. Netscape DOES run on windows!
of course you can run netscape. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm trying to code an online test that has an audio clip with questions about that audio. The desginers requested that I make it so that the audio can only be played twice.
My first thought was to have an embedded quicktime movie that used javascript to control when it was played, and how many times. Not only does IE not support the quicktime/javascript API [apple.com], but now I read that they are doing away with completely.
Great. so what am I supposed to do? Insist that all students who take the exam use netscape? Learn activeX and write two completely different versions of the test? Create an interactive flash movie to do something as simple as control the playback of some audio?
Those are great options. Man, the web has become a shitty place to publish content....
Re:of course you can run netscape. (Score:2)
Insist that all students who take the exam use netscape?
Yes.
Microsoft would insist that everyone use ActiveX plugins--only by demonstrating that their forced obsolence is actually driving away customers will stop this kind of practice. Right now, MSFT takes for granted that you will yield to their wishes; prove otherwise.
Re:of course you can run netscape. (Score:2)
Your take makes sense on paper, but in reality if he forced students to use netscape he'd just come off looking inept. "Uh, yeah, i made that website you wanted but it doesnt work in 90% of the web browsers in the world". And Bill Gates won't lose any sleep at all because everywhere that matters will continue to bend to his will.
Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:2)
They should have had a popup message informing the user the functionality would be depricated in the near future. Instead, they caused it to break. I'm not sure if Microsoft is so competent at crushing the competition, or they do it like a bumbling giant stepping on the little people while looking for the light switch.
How does .Net get around this? (Score:5, Insightful)
True, and I know the Microsoft KB article [microsoft.com] says to switch to ActiveX, but Cringly said ActiveX infringes on the Patent, and I can't see where he's wrong on that point (without looking at the patent, and even then IANAL).
On the other hand, Cringly says .Net is the "solution", but I'm not sure .Net won't violate the patent, either. Well, .Net may not violate it, but .Net won't be able to "embed program objects or applets in the browser", or implement "dynamic, bi-directional communications between Web browsers and external applications" (i.e., .Net apps running on a server). I'm not sure how .Net is supposed to get around this patent.
Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:5, Insightful)
By changing these plugins to ActiveX, it increases the possibility that these plugins will stop being supported on non-Windows platforms. [...] blah blah monopoly blah blah open standards blah blah
So what you're saying is that Microsoft should have to support someone else's proprietary standard (i.e., Netscape) rather than being able to use their own standard. That's absurd.
One again it must be said: Microsoft has exactly as much right as anyone else to promote a standard. If you are worried about other platforms, then put in support for ActiveX controls.
Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:2)
Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:2)
Do you really believe that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has exactly as much right as anyone else to promote a standard.
Actually, as a confirmed monopoly, they most definitely do not have the same rights as any other company. And until/unless the supreme court overturns the unanimous opinion of the circuit court, that's exactly what they are.
Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft does not have a right to ditch support of a de facto, platform-neutral standard for one which only works on Windows machines. They lost that right when they were declared a monopoly.
If Microsoft ditched support for RFC 822 and started using their own email, would you argue that it's their perrogative?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:5, Insightful)
Monopolies are regulated. Monopolies - regardless of your overwhelming adherance to capitalist-dogma - can occur with much less than %XY of marketshare. Any business with enough power to do as they will, with no effective opposition to check on technology, direction and price is a monopoly. Period. Corporations serve customers. When customers have no choice the corporation is a public service.
And btw, if MS ditched RFC 822 and did their own e-mail thing then yes, it would be their perrogative. They could do ANYTHING they want with THEIR software, and I will do ANYTHING I want with my computer.
Wrong, they would be doing exactly what it anti-monoply laws are meant to prevent (see above) - one major player cannot randomly force their clients to make a move - one that makes no sense, other than to cripple already limp competitiors - this is abuse of their monopoly position. If they *DIDNT* have a monopoly - would they arbitrarily switch to a non-open standard? NO, of course not, it would be suicide, unless their was a compelling reason (technology or price)... breaking the plugin API is almost the same as saying "we are a monopoly - watch us extinguish our only competitor and ram change down the throat of the plugin vendors.. try and stop us"... where do the vendors go? NOWHERE b/c m$ is a monopoly... see it coming round now?
Its important to remember that popularity and market share do not mean monopoly. Even if 99.99% of all computer users used IE it still wouldn't necessarily mean MS had a monopoly in browsers.
Most people, and the law disagree. It really matters how you define monopoly. In the US, if Microsoft isnt a monopoly - your laws need to be adjusted. M$ has been running rampant in the IS industry - UNCHALLENGED - for far too long.. the health of the IS industry is suffering, opportunity is non-existant, innovation has been stiffled.
If the DoJ dosnt win a reward with some teeth this wont be the end of Anti-Trust concerns for M$... there is always the EU
Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:5, Interesting)
Send Microsoft Your Feedback (Score:2)
Microsoft Suggestion Form [microsoft.com]
I have sent them a polite request and I suggest you do the same. I also placed instructions on the video page of my website [crazyeddy.com] for visitors to do the same.
Stand up for interoperability - it is always good.
Wow. (Score:3, Funny)
What I'd really like to know is, while thinking this shit up, is Bill Gates petting a white cat in his lap?
The quote is.. (Score:4, Funny)
Standard Operating Procedure for Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
Have people write software to OS standard.
Now their OS is only one with Applications
People buy only their OS.
Got Control of OS.
Change OS to break competitor's Applications.
Say competitors Applications are buggy.
Distribute MS Applications "Free" (come bundled with PC at purchase)
No More Application competition.
People try to break MS control of OS.
Company creates work alike DR DOS.
Change Windows 3.1 so that DR DOS is buggy.
No one buys DR DOS
Eventually combine DOS and Windows (Win 95) to shut out this possibility in future.
Not in control of Internet?
Distribute Browser Free with PC (like OS and applications before)
Comine Browser with OS to shut out competition (Like Windows with DOS)
Become dominant in Browser Market.
Others write software to use Browser (like OS before)
If anyone tries to make a competitor that is compatible change Browser (like OS). When user complains say competitor is buggy, just use IE.
Use control of browser to eliminate competitors plugins. Make competitors use Active X. Change Active X, OS, API at random to break Quicktime, RealPlayer, MP3 players, Netscape Browser, Office Apps etc.
Users complain? Competitors software is buggy not MS.
Once MS apps are standard change Media formats (say they are improved, innovated) now control Media formats, Internet Protocols, OS, Application and file formats. Charge media companies distribution fees and consumers playing fees.
MS rich. PC users poor. Internet Coporate playround. RMS crying in corner somewhere.
AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGH! (Score:3, Flamebait)
This could go one of two ways:
The latter is the more likely situation, as marketers won't soon give up on their pretty animated crap.
Don't even get me started on all the ActiveX security holes we'll be able to exploit.
Here's the recipe to remedy this:
- Load a squadron of F/A-18s with cluster bombs and bunker busters.
- Set course for Redmond, WA
- Drop said munitions on the Micro$oft complex
- Repeat as necessary
Of course, we should make sure Gates and Ballmer are there.Windows98==Netscape 3.x (Score:2, Interesting)
OK, the more I hear about XP, the less I like. I don't see myself buying XP anytime soon, and that's a shame because I was looking forward to continuing to use all my Windows apps on the latest and greatest hardware with the latest and greatest software.
This reminds me a lot of Netscape. Netscape peaked with 3.x of their browser. I seem to remember using it for what seemed like an eternity until IE 4.x, and the only reason I switched to IE was because OE was so much better than Eudora and Netscape Mail.
I think MS may have peaked with Windows98. From this point forward, it could be all down hill. The only question is what will replace Windows? Sorry guys, I just don't see Linux doing it for me. I could however, be easily persuaded to switch to OS-X if it were available for x86. I would even pay $200 for an x86 OS-X if I thought it had the staying power that Windows has had. Maybe Palm will keep going with Desktop Be, but that doesn't have the huge app base that a *NIX based OS does, and quite frankly I'm reluctant to go with any small market "alternative" OS.
I'm seeing a lot of disinformation here about the plugin API. It is currently possible to write a plugin DLL that will work with both Netscape Navigator and IE. There are a few places where the two browsers do things differently, but the intersection of functionality is sufficient to make writing compatable plugins a reasonable thing to do. So, at the very least it will still be possible to use most of your plugins with Netscape, and developers of IE plugins will just have to tweak their code a little bit, unless they were stupid enough to commit to features not supported by Netscape.
So, what will my solution be? Probably not to abandon Windows. I may actually haul out my old Netscape CD and install it. Who knows, the Mozilla project could actually get a big shot in the arm from this. I think MS is seriously shooting themselves in the foot with this... I mean, they've got me re-thinking Mozilla now, and if you had asked me about it yesterday I would have said something like "why would I want to run that? IE is so more stable".
Is Lady Justice Watching? (Score:2)
The alternative is that, for any other competing browser provider (btw, there is no telling how many other browser providing companies were scared off from competing when they saw what happened to Netscape) to achieve support for its product in the future, it also must develop its own operating system!
I'm convinced that the OS folks need to be broken off from the apps folks by dint of this action - which can only be considered 'smart' because it shows arrogance and confidence in MS political clout, unless I don't get all their strategy - now what does it take for judges to understand this?
Also, think of this: if there were a break-up, do you think that the OS side would continue to push
What are you complaining about? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hrm... (Score:4, Funny)
-- Shamus
Bleah!
In favour of active x (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand wasn't active-x meant to be one of the gapping security holes in IE? I often find active-x allowing websites to install software on my computer without even asking me.
Re:In favour of active x (Score:3, Informative)
ActiveX controls run as the user on the system - there's no "sandbox" and the only security is that it'll only run digitally signed controls. And on the default permissions, it'll ask you first. That's it.
As a plugin framework, ActiveX - well, works. I personally do not enjoy trying to write ActiveX controls, but I've never really tried to other than a simple one that didn't work. It seems to work about as well as the Netscape plugin API for simple plugins. It's just as secure - both involve running native code as the user - and it's actually much easier to install new plugins with.
MS's entire browser technology is much more extensible than Netscape's ever will be, and ActiveX controls as plugins are one part of that. ActiveX controls as downloaded content are a security nightmare, but as plugins, it's just as secure as any Netscape plugin.
Re:In favour of active x (Score:2)
No, it's NOT the same. There's nothing to install, just a couple of radio buttons to click, AND they're already setup to prompt you before downloading signed controls and to NOT DOWNLOAD unsigned controls. This is the IE default setting.
Now, perhaps the prompt should be changed to "Do you want to download and run this bit of code on your machine? Are you sure? It could be dangerous, so you'd better have some idea who's sending it to you, even though its signed by CorporationX." Still, the current prompt isn't awful, but people just glance and click.
Well look at it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is getting sued by Eolas for patent infringment. Microsoft (while also litigating with Eolas) is also removing the infringing code from their product. It just happens to be (according to the article) support for the APPLET and EMBED tags. So it seems that Quicktime needs EMBED tags to function. I'm sure someone will find a way to write a plug-in to fix that.
A new way to say "knife the baby" (Score:5, Informative)
Can't we all just get along? (Score:3, Insightful)
This last sentence pretty much says it all.
The whole pissing match between Sun, MS, and every other fscking co. does nothing but insure that we all have software and hardware that sucks. Isn't about time that these a-holes start showing concern for their customers by working on making decent products instead of worrying about their stock prices, IP, and market dominance.
I digress....
Eolas "Patent-squatting" - and Free (speach) Softw (Score:5, Interesting)
Looking at Eolas, on the one hand, it's kind of funny to see the degree to which Eolas [eolas.com] is beating Microsoft in Court, and the ridiculous hoops that Microsoft has jumped though in the process (Microsoft attempt to claim inventorship of Eolas invention [eolas.com]-pdf). But on the other hand Eolas patent is sort of the worst kind of patent-squatting - thinking of something, patenting it, and then hoping others will pay you to license it, because you don't plan on developing it.
If you look at Eolas's website [eolas.com] you don't get the impression that they're generating too many "algorithms that implement dynamic, bi-directional communications between Web browsers and external applications," to quote Cringely. Granted they developed the first plugin - in 1993! - for Mosaic! but they don't seem to be doing much else these days, in the hey day of the interactive internet. In fact, as near as I can figure they don't generate anything except law suits (right now only against MS, but what's to stop them from going after Netscape, Mozilla, Sun, etc. should they decide to do so.)
You really have to wonder about how far this sort of thing will be taken in the future - that is how many people will patent ideas and not act on them until that fundamental idea has made many companies tremendously successful. After all what if Turing had pattened the idea of "stored information, which can be utilized to control an electronic machine in the preformance of actions determined by the information" - the stored program executable. Morris and Eckert would have had to pay him to write the code for the ENIAC and we'd be paying his heirs everytime we wrote an executable (assuming his heirs renewed the patent).
Re:Eolas "Patent-squatting" - and Free (speach) So (Score:2)
You cannot renew a patent.
Microsoft's stance on the Java VM (Score:5, Informative)
-------[cut here]-------
To: xxxxxx
From: xxxxxx@Wagged.com
Date: 08/16/2001 01:50 PM
Dear xxxxxx,
There is a considerable amount of confusion surrounding Microsoft position
regarding the virtual machine in Windows XP. Wanted to make sure you have
the most accurate information from Microsoft as to the events leading to and
the consequences resulting from this decision. From Microsoft's perspective,
Sun Microsystems has turned its marketing machine into high gear about
Windows XP, claiming that Microsoft has hurt Sun, Java and customers by not
including the Microsoft virtual machine in Windows XP.
It's time to set the facts straight.
First, this is unparalleled hypocrisy on Sun's part. Sun has taken every
step possible to prevent Microsoft from shipping its award winning Java
virtual machine. They spent several years suing to stop Microsoft from
shipping a high performance Java virtual machine that took advantage of
Windows. Rather than pursue a new licensing arrangement, Sun settled its
lawsuit with Microsoft by offering a phase out of Microsoft's Java
implementation. Since the settlement a Federal Appeals Courts has upheld
Microsoft's development of a high-performance, well-integrated virtual
machine for Windows as pro-competitive.
Moreover, when Microsoft and Sun settled their litigation earlier this year,
Sun was quick to pronounce the settlement a great victory. Sun's CEO said,
"It's pretty simple: This is a victory for our licensees and consumers. The
community wants one Java technology: one brand, one process and one great
platform. We've accomplished that, and this agreement further protects the
authenticity and value of Sun's Java technology."1 Sun got what they said
they wanted: the termination of the existing Java license and an agreement
that Microsoft would phase out its Java virtual machine. Now they are
either unhappy with what they got or simply being disingenuous. Analysts
such as Bob Sutherland with Technology Business Research say: "Sun can't
have it both ways. They don't want Microsoft to have monopolistic control,
but at the same time they want them to control their Java. No matter what
Microsoft does, Sun is going to try to demonize them."2
Sun is also being disingenuous about the impact on customers. Microsoft has
taken multiple steps to make its Java implementation available to Windows XP
customers while adhering to the settlement agreement and protecting Windows
users from any future litigation by Sun. While the Microsoft virtual
machine is not on the Windows XP CD, it is still an integrated part of the
product. Customers who upgrade to Windows XP from recent prior versions of
Windows can easily and automatically take advantage of their existing
virtual machine. Customers with new machines or who perform a clean
installation of Windows XP can automatically do a one-time download of the
virtual machine the first time they browse a web page containing a Java
applet. This download is then available for any subsequent applet a user
may encounter. Finally, Microsoft has made its virtual machine available to
any PC manufacturer to ship with new Windows XP systems so as to save
customers even the one-time download.
The Microsoft virtual machine has a long history of outperforming other
virtual machines and offers the best real world compatibility of any virtual
machine. It is also the only virtual machine that offers an integrated
applet browsing experience with Internet Explorer. But if desired, Windows
XP also runs other third party virtual machines.
Sun wraps itself in a mantle of openness and choice. The idea that Java is
open is laughable, particularly after Sun submitted Java to a standards body
and then broke its promise not just once but twice. Contrast this to
Microsoft
ECMA and are following through on our commitment. Moreover, Sun's idea of
choice is you can have any language you want, as long as it is Java.
Microsoft
and Java too will be supported as a full-fledged language for the
platform.
Re:Microsoft's stance on the Java VM (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft thinks to itself ~if we change it these ways, and don't point out what we changed, lots of people won't notice they're writing "Java" that runs only on our systems~ (this is documented in the antitrust findings of fact)
Sun takes umbrage at M$ breaking their contract and trying to hijack their product. Sun takes M$ to court, and wins.
M$ then blames Sun for the fallout, and whines
-- I especially love the "real world compatibility" part: compatibility, that is, with Microsoft's trojans, designed to get their corrupted "Java" in.Lord, how I pity the honest people who work there.
Re:Microsoft's stance on the Java VM (Score:2)
-CrackElf
They seem to be missing the point (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft's stance on the Java VM (Score:2)
Didn't work, anyway... (Score:3, Interesting)
Restarted Netscape, went back. Wants me to get Quicktime installed.
One of these days I'll look for the ad in mpeg, if I have spare time.
Dear God, NO! (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course I'm kidding: I always immediately leave any site that *requires* a plugin of any kind. If you can't take a picture of it, write some words about it or (in a rare case) make a video of it in a format everybody can read, I'm not interested.
Re:Dear God, NO! (Score:2)
And if you WERE interested in it -- what exactly could you do about it?
Cringely got one thing backwards. (Score:4, Interesting)
It hurts Microsoft.
EVERYTHING that is happening in software engineering, everything new and bold and adventurous, is happening in Java. From where I sit here in San Diego, Java is simply taking over. The problem is this: Java isn't just a web page scripting language any more. And because of its structure, it's very easy to write compiler tools for it. As a result, all kinds of nifty new extensions (such as AspectJ) are being applied to it. Even the hardware industry -- including the embedded hardware industry -- is going all over it.
The reason for the above craziness is simple -- Java has features people have been trying to put into languages for years, but unlike those languages, it actually had a marketing push behind it.
Java is no longer Sun's alone. Java is the industry's. And Microsoft's abandoning Java just means that Microsoft has further detached themselves from everything innovative happening in the industry.
Even Apple figured this out. Witness OS X.
By crippling XP so that it can't run Java, they're making the same mistake IBM made when they crippled the PS/2 so that it couldn't use ISA cards, or when GM installed "planned obsolesence" and got waxed by the Japanese in the 80's, or when DEC's president decided he'd rather fly his plane than talk to IBM execs about an OS for their new "PC" dealy-bopper.
DEC is gone. GM is still suffering (although the new attitude at Cadillac shows hope). IBM had to reinvent themselves.
Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot, and in the same way others have done in the past. They've forgotten that they only succeed as long as they serve their customers, and that their customers do not exist to serve them.
It's one of the classic blunders. Like trying to win a land war in Asia.
Microsoft is removing jvm 1.1.3.. which HELPS (Score:2, Insightful)
Java is Proprietary until sun gets off there ass and standardizes it.
It is only helping, as anyone knows java 1.1.3 sucks and 1.2 and 1.3.1 are mucho better.
Re:Cringely got one thing backwards. (Score:3, Flamebait)
That is really funny.
Java is no longer Sun's alone. Java is the industry's
No it isn't. It's Sun's. They refuse to let it go, refuse to let it be an open standard, and they never will allow it.
By crippling XP so that it can't run Java
Ugh, this is getting so tired. XP CAN run Java. In fact, in can run the MS JVM if you download and install it. It can run any JVM you want that you download and install.
Why do people insist on writing long comments trying to look smart, without actually bothering to know what they are talking about?
Once again, what about the JCP? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm afraid it is you who are wrong about a great many things...
In particular, it's finally time to lay to rest the false notion that Sun controlls Java. It is controlled by a standards body called the Java Community Process [jcp.org], plain and simple. IBM has a major VM as do other companies, and they are not letting Sun alone hold the reigns on Java. There are far too many corperations from all sides that have gone with Java to let Sun alone control things.
Furthermore, I would argue that not only is Java controlled by other groups besides Sun but in fact Java is the most open and interactive standard to ever come down the pike, and THAT is what has really made it popular with developers. All new aspects of Java (like generics support or new API's) come through the JCP, and along the way ANYONE can help shape the direction of things - I know as I've been on the KVM mailing list as well as the Java 2D mailing list before they were finished standards, and ideas from individuals were incorperated into final standards. That means everyone who wants to has a say in how the API works along with the giant corperations, who send reps to the ISO bodies you seem to think Java needs to be controlled by. I don't know about you but I like enhancements done out in the open with vigorous discussion from everyone rather than by some smoky-back-room process.
If Java really is closed, how can projects like Kaffe exists? (GNU JVM).
Ugh, this is getting so tired. XP CAN run Java. In fact, in can run the MS JVM if you download and install it. It can run any JVM you want that you download and install.
Well, that's great! So support then is on the same level as Perl, in that you can download and install that. What percentage of users do that again? I think right now I'd say that XP comes with better support for Code Red than Java.
I agreee though with the concept that XP really has shot itself in the foot by not including Java. This leaves the door open to say "well, they're going to have to download a VM anyway so we might as well use the Java plugin". Microsoft could have kept Applets mired in the old Java 1.1 world for quite some time, but now that the plugin is more of an ooption it can help further the use of Java. I know that discussion is happening right now at my own company, we're pretty sure to move on to using the Java Plugin for external applets to help provide a more standard applet environment.
Why do people insist on writing long comments trying to look smart, without actually bothering to know what they are talking about?
Why do most posters here insist on furthering group-think that's patently wrong? Who knows.
Re:Once again, what about the JCP? (Score:3, Informative)
Java(tm) is owned, specified and trademarked by Sun. Regardless of how Sun develops this specification you cannot deny that basic fact. If Sun went crazy tomorrow they could dissolve the JCP, make incompatible changes to Java and screw the rest of the industry. This is highly unlikely however (about as likely as Microsoft dropping Windows as a product).
There was a point where Sun was going to release the spec to be developed by an independant standards organisation (ironically the same one that is now controlling
If Java really is closed, how can projects like Kaffe exists? (GNU JVM).
Kaffe isn't Java. It's an implementation of the Java Virtual Machine and runtime libraries. If it was called Java then they'd be violating Sun's trademark or would have to pay licensing to Sun.
Well, that's great! So support then is on the same level as Perl, in that you can download and install that. What percentage of users do that again?
Actually, a lot more like the support is the same level as Flash, Shockwave, Acrobat, Quicktime, RealAudio and others. Many users happily download them and it certainly hasn't hindered development on those platforms.
I think right now I'd say that XP comes with better support for Code Red than Java.
Code Red never ran on XP. Java does run on XP. Get your trolls right.
XP really has shot itself in the foot by not including Java
So you are saying that by XP not including a crappy JVM and giving web sites the ability to run better and smoother applets that it will hurt it's installed base? I don't think so. Basically MS has cut Java loose, which is what Sun always wanted them to do. By not supplying the 1.1.4 version they were restricted to in the court agreement they are freeing XP from a cruddy JVM and freeing Sun to find a way to get their own JVM onto all of those machines.
Of course, given that
Why do most posters here insist on furthering group-think that's patently wrong? Who knows.
Most, like you and probably me, are just misinformed, don't post what they mean, or read things into the posts of others that aren't really there.
Go figure.
Re:Cringely got one thing backwards. (Score:3, Informative)
Java is no longer Sun's alone. Java is the industry's
No it isn't. It's Sun's. They refuse to let it go, refuse to let it be an open standard, and they never will allow it.
Although Java is technically still under the Sun umbrella, Java has grown too big for Sun to dictate its direction alone.
Danese Cooper a.k.a. Sun Microsystems's "Open Source Diva" and Manager of Sun's Open Source Program Office, recently quoted in an interview about the Reaction to OSCON's Microsoft-Red Hat Debate [sun.com] as saying:
Sun doesn't want Java to be their proprietary code, but until companies such as Microsoft learn they can't taint Java for their own ends Java is better under the watchful eye of Sun.
Do you seriously think that Microsoft wouldn't have gotten away with distorting Java without Sun there watchdogging them and suing them when they tried?
Re:Cringely got one thing backwards. (Score:2)
welcome to the net...
Re:Cringely got one thing backwards. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cringely got one thing backwards. (Score:2)
Not as far as I can see. I've been running it on XP for a while now and just had a look in my plugins folder and nothing there. Nothing in the registry pointing at it as a NS plugin either. Looked at the exports of the DLL and there are both NS API and ActiveX exports so you'll find on IE it is loaded as ActiveX.
Re:Cringely got one thing backwards. (Score:2)
Re:Cringely got one thing backwards. (Score:3, Funny)
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Re:Cringely got one thing backwards. (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, Java didn't start out as a web scripting language. JSP and servlets didn't come out until Java had been out and buzzworthy for quite a while, and they've never been the dominant form of Java expression. If you think that Java Applets are at all the same as 'scripting languages' then I'd question the rest of your conclusions as well...
From where I sit, most coding development, be it Java, C++, or C# is written based on the context of where it will be used. If it's an enterprise solution, the enterprise can mandate the technology and install Java on XP machines. If it serves a global audience, then shooting itself in the foot or not, Microsoft's decision to axe Java from XP means the developer will have to use another solution.
Re:Cringely got one thing backwards. (Score:2)
Re:Cringely got one thing backwards. (Score:2)
Where from that do you get the impression that I'm 'bent over to microsoft'? My argument is that whatever language is used, environment mandates technology. Some people actually use C#, so it applies. It would have applied just as well if I substituted Fortran or Assembler.
Sheesh. Don't let your blind Microsoft Fury force you to tilt at windmills.
Re:Cringely got one thing backwards. (Score:2)
I may appear quixotic, but I think a good deal of skepticism is neded to battle this C#/.NET love-in. It's just plain unhealthy.
Re:Cringely got one thing backwards. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cringely got one thing backwards. (Score:5, Insightful)
Good reference.
I fear that you're a bit optimistic. MS still controls the desktop in corporate America. Where I spend my days the idea of considering migration of desktops away from MS is not seriously considered.
I'd love to see us dump MS like a bad habit.
Let's get an equivalent to VB (with an accurate interpreter), a clear direction and single object model for X, and solve the font translation/printing issues and move forward with kicking their butts out of the workplace!
I'd love to sign up for this, but we're not close enough yet. To succeed, we must do what AMD does - be better and cheaper. We're more reliable, and we're cheaper, but MS has got us at point blank range when it comes to ease-of-use.
Try things like macros, or resolving printing issues, or clip art, or add-on programs like browser plugins, or killing applications through the GUI.
Once we deal with this type of thing, we'll be truly competetive. We're not there yet, but we're getting closer.
Let's find more geeks who find it interesting to do the coding necessary to make our GUI environment more AOL-like, or more MS-like - then the masses can easily move to our platform!
Regards,
Anomaly
Re:Cringely got one thing backwards. (Score:2)
Although AMD is having problems, because they don't have that one other bit in place: They can't sell it. They couldn't sell water to a man with a bag of gold dying of thirst in the desert. And that's why Intel's still raping them in the OEM market.
Fortunately, this is not a problem Sun has -- otherwise, Java wouldn't be where it is today.
hmm (Score:3, Troll)
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Simple -- because it makes porting their application to other platforms much easier.
Re:hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Scary shit!
What will I do now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh wait, Microsoft makes one.....go figure.
D
I'm thinking "Spoiled Brat" (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, sure, "It's their product and they can limit it as much as they want... they can choose to not include Java support... ad nauseum" But if you view the Microsoft present in combination with their past, it's easy to make the conclusion that their purpose for dropping support for various APIs and languages (Java and more) is more motivated to damaging the ubiquity of the market than anything else.
So first, they earn market share by embracing the standards in a way that makes the consumer comfortable. Next, they kill the competition. finally, they drop the "standards" they used to attract people with in the first place! Now since they own the market (effectively removed consumer choice) they can drop support for the things people wanted most.
Following the time line from beginning to end shows the pattern clearly. So while it is "their choice" to support this feature or that, especially when it isn't theirs to begin with, I have to question the motivation behind it. Further, it would seem like a clear example of further monopoly power abuse. The move seems rather deliberate and further, it also feels as if Microsoft's "true" goals are coming to fruition.
"Microsoft Conspiracy?" Well, yeah, maybe...
Re:Does anybody use it. (Score:2, Informative)
Because a lot of people want to run executable code on their web pages. To do that, you have two options: a Netscape-style plugin, or an ActiveX control. ActiveX controls are an IE-only monstrosity, but Netscape-style plugins (used to) work in both, so if you used a plugin, you got IE and Netscape support with a single implementation.
We had planned to do this very thing with a project I'm working on. Looks like we'll have to revisit it. Moan.
Re:Does anybody use it. (Score:5, Informative)
This change by Microsoft means that anyone who upgrades to Service Pack 2 for IE 5.5 breaks our product. And the best part is Microsoft's KB article [microsoft.com] describing the status as, "This behavior is by design."
Re:Does anybody use it. (Score:2)
Well, it sorta is. You didn't see Netscape rushing out to support ActiveX when it came out. Come to think of it, who really uses Netscape on the Windows side, anyway? When I browse in Windows 2000, I tend to prefer IE. (When I browse in Linux, I try to use Konqueror/Netscape 6).
Re:Microsoft knows their stuff (Score:2)
Interestingly enough. I think what will make this difficult, is the large number of old I.E. browsers out there (not to mention the 5-10% of users who use other browsers). These browsers won't have the capability to do what I.E. 6 supports.
Huh? Are you under the impression that .NET has anything to do with web browsers? It doesn't, not at all.
Who I feel really bad for are designers of web pages who are caught in the middle.
Why would you feel bad for them? If they've been coding to the W3C standards, then Microsoft's been the leader in displaying their pages correctly for years now. I guess it would suck if they cared about Netscape 4.x and earlier users, but well, few people care about them anymore, and there aren't that many left anyway. And if they do care about 'em, they'd be better off complaining to Netscape about poor standards support than spending a single second bitching about Microsoft.
Not related to your post, but maybe someone else can tell me why Microsoft is supposed to keep Netscape's shoddy plug-in API? When did Netscape ever support any of Microsoft's APIs? Hell, just dropping the stubborness over supporting "document.all" would've done wonders for their own users.
Oh yeah, and my RealPlayer, Flash, and Shockwave plug-ins (controls) work just fine. It's Apple's fault that they're not properly coding to the API, and this isn't the first time that they've had this problem with QuickTime. Why do you think QuickTime has always had such a bad reputation for nasty installs on Windows? That's why they're working with Microsoft to get the problem solved.
Finally, I'm guessing that it must be Mac zealots who think that this is some big anti-competitive move against Apple, because the rest of the world knows otherwise: The company with which Microsoft is heavily engaged in a battle over media is called Real. Apple's QuickTime isn't even on the radar screen, so please, for the love of God, get over yourselves already.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason IE was free all along was that it always was a tool to help cement Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop.
By giving away a browser on a monopoly platform, you make that browser the standard. Once that browser is the predominant standard, then you begin changing things so that everything else is incompatible, and therefore "non-standard". (i.e. Konqueror wants to use these "non-standard" netscape plugins to view Real Video.)
Once IE is utterly the uncontested king, and there are no other browsers to compete, you can bet it will not remain free. Someday it will be unbundled, amidst a bunch of marketing manure, stating how this provides the best value for customers and other such bullshit.
Monopolies never give away something for free, unless it is to maintain market share. There is always one thing reflected in the actions of any monopoly: they will do anything legal, or illegal, even at a loss, to maintain that all important market share. Nothing is more important than market share. Even if you loose your shirt in the short term. Even if you are found guilty and have to pay fines. Once you have everyone bent over a barrel, you can make it up to them.
Too bad MS probably never really expected the legal route to go so far as a breakup. Even if you are found guilty and pay a stiff fine -- you're still a monopoly!
Come on, be realistic here... (Score:3, Funny)
I doubt Microsoft really gives Solitare and Hearts away to further their monopolistic evil plot to conquer the universe.
Geeze... I really hope they don't start putting a Solitare icon on the desktop!
Re:Come on, be realistic here... (Score:2, Funny)
I wouldn't be surprised if they ware. Have you ever seen that hollow stare that all those secretaries that play MS solitaire all the time have? They look like pod people.
Re:Great (Score:2)
I seriously doubt this. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? The chance of IE being unbundled is about the same as Solitare or Notepad being unbundled - probably even less given the Windows shell depends on the rendering engine now to display folders and the like.
The fact is that HTML rendering engines *are* being built into just about every modern GUI shell (Windows, KDE, GNOME, OSX etc) and any unbundling would give that shell a significant disadvantage over the rest of the systems.
Monopolies never give away something for free, unless it is to maintain market share.
Generalised Bulls**t. Monopolies are just companies with a significant market share. Many exist and behave as normal. It's only the ones that take advantage of the limited competition that cause the problems. In fact, by the definition of a monopoly they don't NEED to give stuff away to maintain market share (the legal definition says that they can arbitrarily set prices and maintain the same share).
There is always one thing reflected in the actions of any monopoly: they will do anything legal, or illegal, even at a loss, to maintain that all important market share.
Again, you misunderstand what a monopoly is. By virtue of being a monopoly they aren't doing anything illegal - they have just achieved the elimination of any serious competition. This may be because of a better product, better marketing or just stupid competition. Your statements are so general that they just cannot possibly be true.
The rest of the paragraph just goes on to reiterate your misunderstanding of corporate practises. Basically what you are describing is the behavior of a highly competitive amoral company. The actions listed can be taken regardless of your monopoly situation and you'll find that non-monopolies actually care more about their market share than true monopolies (their share is guaranteed by definition).
Re:Great (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Read the article. (Score:3, Interesting)
This was the first time I'd heard of the Eolas patent. Sounds like another company that's looking to get rich off of patents instead of, you know, creating any sort of useful product. (If you go to their web site [eolas.com], it seems to be little more than information about their lawsuit.) If I were Microsoft, I'd probably do the same thing, just to piss them off. But I'm petty and vindictive that way.
Re:poor Apple (Score:2)
MS bought some non-voting stock and promised to continue developing MS Office for Mac if Apple made OE and Exploder the default internet tools for Macintosh.
This settled the MS-Apple lawsuit and gave Apple some much need cash at the time. They aren't owned in any real sense by MS.
Re:So? (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft is just making the system more secure. (Score:2)
But of course they're just INNOVATING.
No, no. Microsoft is just trying to improve security.
Of course, it's all the third party browser plug-ins that make their operating systems insecure. Outlook and buffer overflows have nothing to do with it.
[sigh]