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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearded One who wrote (8442)	6/13/1998 5:35:00 PM
From: Gary105	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Strike up the band! Insider buying! 5/29 VP, 100k shares at $84.88

To: Bearded One who wrote (8442)	6/13/1998 6:17:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Respond to of 74651

And Visual Basic. Microsoft Visual Basic is also very good. And they've been very good to their employees (until recently with the perma-temp stuff).

To: Bearded One who wrote (8442)	6/13/1998 10:26:00 PM
From: mozek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Netscape's IFC all begin with 'netscape.', not 'java.' So what are you talking about? I can only think of two possibilities with respect to your comments, either you don't understand the issues or you're attempting to decieve. Since I won't presume that you're being dishonest, I have to assume a lack of understanding. Just because Netscape added classes to netscape.* means nothing except that they didn't follow the Sun specification for class library naming (that would have been com.netscape.. Microsoft added classes to com.ms.. Netscape also modified classes in the java.* packages. If you don't believe me, write code that reflects on the 1.02 specification (the final version Netscape claimed to support, even though they passed fewer tests than Microsoft's 1.02 version in IE 3.0) and compare it to Navigator 4.0 implementations. Until you do this, I'm not going to debate something that is a simple fact. Secondly, the modifications in question in Microsoft's implementation were put there because more of Microsoft's implementation was written in Java than Sun's (as opposed to C/C++). Java's package access rules made it much less efficient & architecturally unreasonable to move these to another place. It was also Microsoft's interpretation of the agreement that this was part of the license. Sun's argument, that you seem to accept, that these changes would confuse developers is patronizing and downright insulting to any developer with half a brain. I know of no developer stupid enough to be fooled by these changes. If you are, then I'm sorry. It's also the case that even in the VJ 6.0 product, which has significant additional functionality for Windows, a simple check box will revert the the Sun subset of functionality. Can you write code with Microsoft tools that only run against the Microsoft runtime? Of course you can. You can write code with the Sun JDK that run only on Microsoft's runtime. You can also write code with either that use Netscape's security API or other Netscape APIs and that code would only run on Netscape's runtime (except that their runtime has been abandoned so no intelligent person ever would). You can even easily write code with either tool that run against the sanctioned Java API of any specific version. Of course, if you target 1.02, it may not run on 1.1. If you target 1.1 it won't run on 1.02 and may not run on 1.2. These are all dirty little secrets Sun doesn't want you to know. Since you claim to know the facts, this must not be new to you. Netscape is abandoning their own Java implementation, that is how they announced it and that is a fact. If they didn't, Sun would have been forced to drop its suit against Microsoft summarily or sue Netscape for its lame and incompatible support. There's way too much collusion between these companies for either of them to have let that happen. Company B pubically states an intention to NOT comply This is absolutely not true. Microsoft has accurately maintained that it is and has been in compliance with the Agreement. If the court decides otherwise, I'm sure the situation will be remedied. Both of those statements are accurate. Yours is not. Here's from Sun's FAQ on the subject Please don't insult me by pointing me to Sun's propaganda site. I know better than to believe their public relations. While you obviously refuse to believe anything Microsoft says, at least I haven't used Microsoft press releases as a source of unbiased information. BTW. If you want to know where I work, just check my profile. I don't try to hide it. Mike