Author: Peter Schäfer
Date: 00:42:26 03/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 22, 2004 at 07:57:44, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >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. They won the suit but lost the market. Maybe they shouldn't have licensed Java to Microsoft in the first place, knowing M$'s strategy of "embrace and extend". As a result of the whole confusion, Java Applets are pretty dead. Fortunately, Java is alive and kicking in the server market and slowly (pun intended) coming to the desktop.
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.