daniel and thread:
From NC Focus:
_____
Sun Vs. Microsoft: Is There A Better Way?
October 13, 1997
Hopefully by now, everyone has heard that Sun is suing Microsoft Corporation over their non-compliant version of the Java virtual machine. As usual in cases like this, only the users suffer. This time it may be particularly bad, since the users are all the world's "netizens" (citizens of the Internet). The courts will decide
the legalities of this issue, and we dare not venture there without a law degree from Harvard University. However, there is an abundance of misinformation surrounding this lawsuit that needs clarification.
Sun believes Microsoft is attempting to hurt Java's image and capabilities by not delivering a full complement of the Java APIs (application programming interfaces) with their Internet Explorer Web browser and Windows operating systems. Sun also believes Microsoft sees Java as a threat to its Windows franchise and will take whatever steps necessary to protect its investment. Meanwhile, Microsoft contends that they see the utility of Java as a programming language and as a way to extend existing systems for the Internet, but that it will not deliver on the promise of write-once run-anywhere, and therefore, do not intend in investing in Java for that
goal.
Sun states that they are initiating this this lawsuit to protect the brand-name and to ensure that the name Java delivers on its platform independence. Meanwhile, Sun Microsystem's halls echo with the vibrations "Kill Microsoft!" as delivered by their leader-in-chief. There are two fundamental problems with this thinking: 1) In order to enter into contract to de-throne the king, you must be prepared to sacrifice yourself; and 2) Microsoft did not become a leader by focusing on destroying IBM, but instead by focusing on delivering a better product for less money. Furthermore, there is fundamental conflict of interest in a competing group defending a brand-name, which they also contend is an open standard. Since Microsoft needs Java to remain competitive, this positioning can be analogized as forcing a competitor to choke themselves with their own
hand.
Sun's lawsuit is reminiscent of a grade-school fight, in which the children are egged-on into battle by their peers for sheer enjoyment. The industry is harping on Sun to gain control of this situation and to ensure that the Java platform continues unabated. Unfortunately, the industry (including Sun) has forgotten that Java is still a product of Sun Microsystems, and that Sun is responsible for lining the pockets of their shareholders and for growing the company. This lawsuit does little to improve Sun's image or financial position. Licensing Java is no different than licensing SPARC chips-the licensees are free to use the chip to compete for the same market unless contracted otherwise.
Regarding Sun's claims that Microsoft has made changes to the Java Development Kit (JDK)--such that applications written using Microsoft's SDK for Java would not work properly with other implementations of the Java virtual machine--early indications show that the APIs in question may be non-public ones. Along with JavaSoft's implementation of the Java virtual machine, are included specific Java classes to handle implementation issues. The basic JDK method calls are nothing more than a shell that calls these
Sun-specific classes to perform the actual work. In a few reported cases, it is these Sun-specific classes that Microsoft has implemented differently--which would be within the right as a licensee to do, since these are not exposed publicly. Moreover, applications that have used these APIs will not pass the 100% Pure Java testing, further proving that these APIs are not supposed to be used.
Of course there is the remaining issue over who is responsible for the reference implementation for the Win32 platform. There has been an overwhelming belief in the industry that this position was held by Microsoft. That is until last week's Sun Microsystem's press conference in which Alan Baratz, President of JavaSoft, for the
first time publicly denounced this concept. However, these following graphs were culled from public Microsoft press releases from their Web site. They illustrate Microsoft's intent since as far back as eighteen months ago.
From an April 30, 1996 Microsoft Press Release -"As part of Microsoft's license agreement for Java technology with Sun Microsystems, this enhanced implementation of Java technology will be licensed back to Sun as the reference implementation of Java for the Windows platform."
From a May 24, 1996 Microsoft Press Release - "Microsoft Corp. last week hosted the first design preview of the Java Reference Implementation for the Microsoft Windows operating system. The Java
Reference Implementation enables Java applets to run seamlessly on Windows. The Java reference implementation in Windows enables developers to create rich, powerful Internet applications while still
taking advantage of their existing investments and favorite development tools ... After incorporating appropriate feedback received at the design preview, Microsoft plans to publicize fully all interface specifications once they are completed this summer. Microsoft will also provide the source code for the Java reference implementation for Windows to Sun so that Java licensees can receive the source code from Sun."
Since these press releases were written, JavaSoft took Java from a small manageable set of APIs to a massive system comprising support for component development, distributed computing, 2-D, 3-D, multimedia, and user interface widgets. What was once reasonable to expect licensees to implement has now become a nightmare to build and support. Indeed, some of the packages require hardware and operating system support inside the virtual machine, but these should have been amendments to the VM architecture, such that these packages could have been distributed separately. Furthermore, it is these additions that allow Microsoft to, in effect, break Java, since their support for the Java instruction set is 100% compliant. Of note, having these libraries pre-distributed with every Java virtual machine does simplify distribution by requiring smaller modules to be downloaded dynamically. However, since these classes are being freely distributed anyway, there are other methods of ensuring their pre-existance.
There are multiple ways to skin a cat. Balancing the bloat with enhancements to the instruction set and VM requirements is just one way Sun could have made the Java brand less inclined to corruption. The point is, the lawsuit could end up being more damaging to Java in the long term. Sun's attempt to correct the problem is to use brute force after failed attempts at logical reasoning. Perhaps Sun should take a lesson from the martial arts experts who say, "Use common sense before using self-defense." That is, the only time to use self-defense is when defending your life. Otherwise, walk away and find another solution to the problem.
itfa.com; also
biz.yahoo.com
Ibexx |
