| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Better late than neverBetter late than neverPosted Aug 17, 2006 11:21 UTC (Thu) by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033)In reply to: Better late than never by dion Parent article: Coming soon: a free Java
I've always been very clear, and somewhat sympathetic. Sun wanted to make sure that no-one (OK, MS) was able to hijack the language: embrace, extend (preferably with patent-encumbered closed stuff) and extinguish. MS did try. Sun went to court, and won.
They now think that Java is sufficiently well-established that programmers would avoid anything that attempted to introduce incompatibilities. I hope they are right.
Elsewhere, look at what MS has done with Kerberos. IMO they also tried to hijack HTML, but there they arrived too late to do anything much worse than to make IE the non-standard and bugridden mess you know and hate. Even so, there are still some sites out thre that won't work right if you don't use IE to access them. Less each year, probably thanks to Firefox.
(Log in to post comments)
Better late than never Posted Aug 17, 2006 14:12 UTC (Thu) by vmole (guest, #111) [Link] It would be fair to point out that the Netscape browser of the time *also* implemented a non-standard, buggy version of HTML.
Better late than never Posted Aug 17, 2006 15:36 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] ...which is why they shouldn't be wasting their energy on crap like"CDDL" and instead should have just adopted a license like the GPL. The GPL strongly defends against the triple E's.
so they "won", did they? Posted Aug 17, 2006 17:03 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Microsoft responded by creating an alternative Java called C# and an alternative byte-coded virtual machine framework called .NET, rendering Sun's control of Java meaningless, and there's a free implementation called Mono that runs on Linux and Solaris. Now Sun has to make Java free to stop Mono from taking over Linux/Unix/BSD land (at least, taking over that portion of *nix land that finds the Java model attractive).
Microsoft hijacking HTML Posted Aug 17, 2006 23:35 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Microsoft failed to hijack HTML? That's the first I've heard of that opinion. In my view, IE is the standard. It's the only standard worth recognizing for a browser: the standard to which websites are designed. I used to use IE a lot (not so much since I installed Firefox on my Windows system and found it 99% IE-compatible), and I didn't hate it for being bugridden; it always seems to work for me. The only thing I hate about IE is its lack of function.
Microsoft hijacking HTML Posted Aug 24, 2006 13:19 UTC (Thu) by csamuel (✭ supporter ✭, #2624) [Link] I thought it was very successful in its main area of functionality, thatof introducing viruses, spyware, adware, trojans and various other bits of badness to those unfortunate enough to have to use Windows.. ?
|
|
||||||||||||