Author: Mridul Muralidharan
Date: 01:00:36 03/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 2004 at 03:42:26, Peter Schäfer wrote: >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. Better than losing the language and the market :) >Maybe they shouldn't have licensed >Java to Microsoft in the first place, knowing M$'s strategy of "embrace and >extend". Within the constraints of the license agreement - why not ! It might lead to good for the language and the community. >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. I disagree , but no comments :) 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.