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 (8448)	6/14/1998 12:28:00 AM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Mozek, beard - At least 1 other reader is not bored at all by this discussion, which reads on various technical, business and legal issues which are currently covered in battlefield smoke. I appreciate the high level of the discussion, and sections of both sides of this debate have been helpful to me in discussing these points with people who have little grasp of any of these issues. Thanks for the discussion and please keep it up.

To: Bearded One who wrote (8448)	6/14/1998 1:49:00 AM
From: mozek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Since you think we're boring the thread, I'll try to make this my last post to you on the subject. Unfortunately, your statements have so many inaccuracies and irrelevant anti-Microsoft statements that I feel compelled to post the truth, whether you believe it or not. Perhaps their [Netscape's] implementation wasn't correct, but intent matters here, ... Because you read Sun PR (who knows, maybe you write it and pretend to know less than you do) does not mean you know Microsoft's intent. It certainly wasn't an evil plot like Sun would have people believe. ... they [Netscape] certainly didn't publish documentation incorrectly specifying how to use the java. heirachy.* I don't believe that Microsoft published documentation that incorrectly specified the use of the java.* heirarchy. Please substantiate your charge. Netscape, on the other hand, made it clear that they intended to comply as quickly as possible with Sun's API. Microsoft made it clear that it was in compliance according to its understanding of the contract. Sun never acknowledged Netscape was not in compliance until they sued Microsoft, at which time it was obvious that Netscape wasn't and had not been for years. Netscape had over a year to fix their 1.02 implementation (only 6 months according to the Agreement). Interestingly, they were almost a year late in upgrading to the required version (JDK 1.1) as specified by the Agreement, and it still failed many more tests than Microsoft's runtime. Microsoft upgraded on time. Is that as quickly as possible to you? Wow, you must believe Netscape is quite technically challenged. I guess Netscape must've meant it though since they abandoned their runtime effort shortly after without ever bringing it into "compliance". Is that what you mean by "intent matters?" As far as where you work, I know you work at Microsoft. I was being satirical-- either of our places of employment are secondary to the merits of our arguments. I state my place of employment because I believe that people should have an opportunity to filter my statements based on their belief in my biases. I believe that to conceal my place of employment while discussing these issues would be dishonest. Do you work at a company with a vested interest in these issues? (primarily Sun, Netscape, Microsoft, secondarily Oracle) Thanks, Mike