Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bald Eagle who wrote (5194)	10/29/1997 9:14:00 AM
From: David Hsu	Respond to of 64865

Sorry, never mind. Seems like the quote server on yahoo is having problems. On Yahoo, Sun has N/A for it's quoted price and 74,000 shares traded. Does this mean that it's price is dropping and trading is suspended? I hope it's just an error on yahoo. Dave Hsu

To: Bald Eagle who wrote (5194)	10/29/1997 10:11:00 AM
From: LKO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

> > Secondly, the vote is only against > SUNW having the rights to dictate standards. > I think the "right to be a submitter of a publicly available specification" is the more accurate term. With the usual process, the standards process can be used to subvert useful ideas to the point of being useless in the name of trying to achieve "consensus". Bluntly, I think Sun was suspicious of Microsoft & friends. Other companies are suspicious of a private for-profit entity (Sun) being in control of defining a standard which it can presumably use against them (a reasonable issue). Once the standard is submitted, I think others are allowed to participate in changing it but if the change is to the point of "breaking" it (violating "write once, run anywhere" promise), Sun wanted (not sure how) a veto right. In practice, friends-of-Java (Sun, IBM etc) were for it and friends-of-Windows (Microsoft, Intel, Hewlett-Packard) against it. In my personal opinion, Sun's fears of subversion of standards process to produce a warped useless "standard Java" was justified give what Microsoft did - adding new methods to a langauge class inherently violating "write once, run anywhere". And I personally do not care if the Sun legal contract was less-than-bulletproof.. in my opinion if Microsoft wanted to just add new methods, they could have used a sub-class. Adding methods to the language class is the way to redefine the language (in a non-portable manner). This just may mean Java does not get to be a "de-jure" standard blessed by an international beaurocracy. It still has a chance as a "de-facto". standard. Not being a "de-jure" standard does not seem to have hurt Windows. We will see what becomes of Java.