Author: Mridul Muralidharan
Date: 04:57:44 03/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 21, 2004 at 20:19:38, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >On March 21, 2004 at 19:06:06, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On March 21, 2004 at 15:49:45, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >> >>>On March 20, 2004 at 12:19:23, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>On March 20, 2004 at 04:36:31, Mike S. wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 20, 2004 at 01:53:31, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On March 20, 2004 at 01:38:38, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>(...) >>>>> >>>>>>> "The server tried to set an illegal cookie. The combination of >>>>>>> the server's hostname and the domain attribute for this cookie is not >>>>>>> acceptable, and the cookie has therefore been rejected. You might want to >>>>>>> ask the site's Webmaster to set legal cookies." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No idea what's wrong with this site as I have the browser set to >>>>>>> "cookies enabled". >>>>> >>>>>Nothing, except that it has a code monster for the navigation where a few simple >>>>>links would be sufficient. That menu code requires a *Java* runtime software on >>>>>the visitor's computer (not just javascript obviously). The error message above >>>>>must come from wrong diagnosis, or isn't related to the access problem itself. I >>>>>could always access these pages and I have cookies *disabled* in MSIE. >>>>> >>>>>The Java runtime software is not included in WinXP anymore (AFAIK since SP1a), >>>>>which means that people with newer Windows XP installations won't be able to use >>>>>that menu when they don't have installed a Java support themselves additionally >>>>>(like I did as mentioned in the other posting). >>>>> >>>>>(I discoverd this Java issue recently when using XP for the first time, and i.e. >>>>>the MyChessViewer which requires the same software, didn't run and I didn't find >>>>>the Java runtime among the installable Windows components...) >>>>> >>>>>mfg. >>>>>Michael >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Microsoft has removed Java support from recent versions of Windows with >>>>-probably- the idea to hurt Sun, as Java is definitely a competitor to their >>>>.NET stuff. >>>> >>>>There has been a lot of buzz around this a few months ago. A judge was about to >>>>order Microsoft to put Java back in Windows, but it has not happened yet. >>>> >>>>In the IT area, a delay of a few weeks is enough to change completely the >>>>landscape and to put companies out of business. Decisions of "Justice" take >>>>several years to come. Microsoft knows this and knows that they can act >>>>illegally: by the time the ruling against them arrives, all they have to pay for >>>>is the coffin of their dead competitor. >>>> >>>>Ordinary people like you and me have a naive view of ethics: I would not kill >>>>anybody because it's a bad thing to do. Some "superiorly intelligent" people >>>>have another way of looking at this: they simply ask themselves how much it will >>>>cost them to murder somebody, and how much they will gain from the murder. >>>> >>>>But hey, everything I'm talking about here is naturally done in the interest of >>>>"innovation" and in the deepest interest of the consumer. >>>> >>>>I'm soooooo glad somebody out there is taking care of me and of the stuff I'm >>>>allowed to run on my computer. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Christophe >>> >>>Microsoft removed Java support from its products because Sun explicitely >>>required that. That was one of the conditions of settlement between Sun and >>>Microsoft. >>> >>>At the time of settlement Sun CEO Scott McNealy said "this is a victory for our >>>licensees and consumers", so consumers should be happy, right? >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Eugene >> >> >> >>Your comment is partial because it tells only half of the story - the half that >>sounds good for your company. >> >>Here is what happened: >> >>1) Microsoft tried to create a version of Java that would have been incompatible >>with the version they had licensed from Sun (Java's author). The idea was to use >>their monopoly on desktop operating systems to inondate the market with this >>incompatible version of Java, effectively taking control of the language >>specifications. Why? Because developpers would naturally target their apps to >>run on the most widespread version of the language, rendering the original Sun >>version of the language obsolete (this strategy has been used for years by >>Microsoft and is known as "Embrace and Extend"). This is clearly in violation of >>the Java license agreement between Sun and Microsoft. And the result is that if >>Java became a popular programming platform, users could not use anything else >>than Windows as the underlying OS (using the Windows monopoly to reinforce the >>Windows monopoly). >> >>2) Sun asked Microsoft to: >> >> a) stop shipping this incompatible version of Java with Windows, and >> >> b) ship a version that was in agreement with their license: a version >>compatible with the standard created by Sun. >> >>3) A judge ruled in favor of Sun for both a and b. >> >>4) Microsoft appealed the decision. >> >>5) In a further ruling, a three judge panel decided somewhat differently: >> >> a) they agreed that Microsoft exceeded the scope of the license agreement, and >>that Microsoft should stop shipping its incompatible version of Java with >>Windows. That is the victory for Sun that you mention. >> >> b) but they did not go as far as forcing Microsoft to ship the standard >>version of Java with Windows. That's where is Sun is losing, because Microsoft >>can get away with murder (having spread a version of Java that was incompatible >>with the standard, effectively hurting the Java language). >> >> >>You can find plenty of information about this on the net. For example: >> >> http://news.com.com/2100-1007_3-1021452.html >> >> >> >> >> Christophe > >And here are 2 additional facts: > >(a) At the time Sun started its legal attack on Microsoft, Microsoft's >implementation of Java was *the* most confirming Java implementation. It was >more compatible with Java specification that Sun's own implementation. > >(b) When some researcher pointed to Sun that Sun's Java implementation violates >Java specification (Java memory model), Sun continued to ship incompatible >implementation for several years. Not sure about current status, because I >stopped tracking Java several years ago. > >It looks that some Java implementations are more equal than others... > >Thanks, >Eugene 1) I am not sure about b - I dont know whether this is true or not. Even if it is true , but this still remains a bug in the VM implementation - nothing more , nothing less. 2) Sun's "legal attack" on microsoft was necessiated by their proprietory extensions to java - which were _not_ compatible with other VM implementation. This is direct violation of the agreement - which was the reason Sun won the suit. Mridul
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.