Still harping on this. Sorry, if you're sick of it you can skip this one.
In order to run a windows application, you must load windows. well, there are things like WINE and the emulators for the Macintosh, but mostly you need Windows to run a Windows app. That's why its a monopoly -- they only a controlling share of that market.
Fine.
In order to run Java, you must have a JVM. Nobody can make a JVM but Sun. Microsoft made one, and Sun sued them. How is that different? Is the JVM standards based? Who set the standard? What body controlls it? Sure, Sun says you can roll your own -- but if you do there is NOTHING in the licensing that says Sun can't go ahead and change the specification or come out with a rev. that you can't attain because of something about how you built yours.
The advantage to using Java as your programming language is, by definition, that Sun has a monopoly on it and that tends to mean that if you write something corectly it should run in the same version of the JVM anywhere. Hm, that makes the JVM the operating system, doesn't it? By definition, isn't the JVM performing all the roles of the operating system?
I don't get how you can call that standards based.
Of course, that said, I spent time today writing an agent in Java -- it was the right place to write it, and it just took a little extra time to deal with less familliar syntax. Otherwise, fine. It ran. Big deal.
Comment Entry |
Please wait while your document is saved.
Sun successfully sued Micro$oft for signing a contract with Sun and then not
abiding by the terms, not for creating a JVM.
More than Sun have created JVMs; IBM made "the" JVM for x86 Linux for a while
although Sun is putting more effort into Linux now. I suspect that IBM did the
JVMs for z and i series. I suspect that some of the JVMs written for
cell-phones and PDAs were not written by Sun.
Sun has made progress in opening up Java with the Java Community Process
http://www.jcp.org. While not everything one would desire, IMHO it is
significantly more community input and standards process than Microsoft.
One of the reasons that you can say that Microsoft has a monopoly is that they
have been so adjucated by a US court as part of its convictions. :-)
Monopolies are defined in terms of the market and that is usually the key
question in antitrust trials; e.g., Ford is the exclusive provider of Ford
cars, but if the court defines the market as automobiles, then they do not have
a monopoly. IANAL, but i suspect that Sun's lawyers could define the market
into something they did not dominate.
:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in response to
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still harping on this.