MS yanks support for JAVA
Help me to see if this is a good or bad thing. In one hand you have the fact that some people could see Linux as a possible OS over windows for java but on the other hand, this could just add to making microsoft more of a monoply, because people will give up on using java and go with something else provided by microsoft, which would pretty much leave Linux stranded. Who has themselves in the foot here? This is a pretty big thing either way. I just wonder what is going to happen.
I see it as MS trying to force the hand of web developers. This will make it increasingly difficult to have Java on your web site. If the normal user is willing to wait 5-10 seconds for your site to load, how many visits will you lose if the person running XP has to stop, download a Java compliant plug-in and then go on to your site again. It is not a HUGE deterent, but it does put a roadblock between users and Java based web sites.Elaboration on the topic here: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200...2.html?tag=lh.
[This message has been edited by daveleau (edited 07-19-2001).]
It's always the same. If Microsoft puts something in the box, people complain that MS is trying to be a monopoly in that area. They say that MS is putting too much in there.
If take something out of the box, people complain that they're not allowing others to compete by deciding what people will get.
It can't work both ways.
Hmmmm. Maybe if Sun didn't sue MS and get 20 million dollars over Java...
Look at " So Long, Java! How Sun Screwed Itself by Suing Microsoft "
Java is available as a download on the MS web site for those that want or need it. No one said XP would not support Java. It's just that it isn't in the box. No big deal.
[This message has been edited by SysOpt (edited 07-19-2001).]
Is it a big thing - well, know; but it is MS lifting its leg and doing you know what on every body - because there is no reason to leave it out.
Sorry folks, but I'm tired of Microsoft forcing consumers to use other's products in a manner they deem appropriate (i.e., that pad their bottom line) regardless of the impact on consumers and users of the internet.
We would never allow a single airline to control the rules under which a flyer would be able to receive a boarding pass, regardless of the number of competitors once past the gateway, and for obvious reasons.
A de facto monopoly is still a monopoly, and it's time to stop allowing Microsoft to dictate its preferences or punish competitors when they don't play by its rules (or sue to retain their legitimate rights as in the case of Sun). Microsoft owns the vast majority of gateways to the internet by virtue of its operating systems. It is subject to antitrust law as soon as it starts forcing consumers to make choices they would otherwise reject in a competitive market. Microsoft crossed that line long ago.
[This message has been edited by aliunde (edited 07-19-2001).]
New Security Features Planned for Firefox 4
Another Laptop Theft Exposes 21K Patients' Data
Oracle Hits to Road to Pitch Data Center Plans
Microsoft Preps Array of Windows Patches
Microsoft Nears IE9 Beta With Final Preview
Simplified Analytics Improve CRM, BI Tools
Android Passes RIM as Top Mobile OS in 2Q
VMware Updates Hyperic System Management
File Monitoring Key to Enterprise Security
LinkedIn Snaps Up SaaS Player mSpoke