Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: The list isn't blowing up yet?

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Chris Owens" <internetworkers_box AT reality-v2-dev.com>
  • To: "'InterNetWorkers'" <internetworkers AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The list isn't blowing up yet?
  • Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 15:30:27 -0400


As this derails from a discussion on C# into attempting to determine
Microsoft's motivations...

Having not read the JVM documentation I can't accurately respond to the
level of discouragement included as far as creating code that isn't
cross platform. Also, having a life or at least making an attempt at
such (difficult in the geek world) I may have missed out on the part of
the trial where C# and the CLR were specifically mentioned. I would
initially assume that that discussion/issue/charge would have been
rather been about J++ and the default compilation settings as being
optimized for Windows and using features specific to Windows (as
discussed earlier) instead of having the default compilation settings
set for creating cross platform code. Aside from the fact that it's a
simple task to change some settings in the Options area, I don't think
that this extended or included C# or the CLR. If it did, then I missed
it.

Insofar as posturing and so forth, I see no difference in what Microsoft
has brought forward with the CLR and what Sun has done with the JVM.
Regardless of where their emphasis is, they're both pretty much the
same.

As with any virtual machine, runtime, booster (in the Appforge lingo),
or whatnot the company producing it is well within their rights to push
features that provide maximum benefit and return on their own private
interests. I see no company operating so magnanimously as to appreciate
losses and driving revenue streams to their competitors all in the
interests of standards or open-source.

Can you elaborate on the part about putting the free version of my
software on everyone's desktop? If you're referring to "enhancements"
added to the operating system, then I'm all for it. A car manufacturer
has the ability to add whatever they want to their vehicles regardless
of whether they produce it or want to purchase it from a third-party.

Say for instance, I own Company X that manufactures automobiles.
Company Y down the street manufactures the dashboard Jesus. Company Z
manufactures cell phone antennae. I want to appeal to the religious
market segment and dashboard religious figurines seem to be the way to
go. It's more cost effective for me to buy from Company Y, but that
doesn't really add value to my product that any other auto manufacturer
couldn't easily acquire. So I manufacture a dashboard Jesus. I also
enhance the dashboard Jesus allowing the messiah to quote a proverb on
each left turn and randomly bless the driver. I also want to appeal
to the Yuppie market and add enhanced cell phone reception to my
vehicle. I could license the technology from Company Z, or create my
own bastardized version, but instead I acquire them, and lock down the
technology and only provide it in my car for a time period and then
license it out. This creates more value in my auto, and an additional
revenue stream in the future.

Oh NO! Company Y goes out of business! Boo-hoo! That's competition
but a mass following of CompanyA cars develops into a cult lambasting me
and my company. Nevermind that any other company would and does do the
same thing every day.

If I produce a product, what obligation do I have to not enhance it or
add features?

I believe proselytizing is correct in the case of 99% of these types of
discussions, particularly considering the current status of the case in
question, the fact that most companies abide by the same standard, and
the simple observation that most non-MS'ers vehemently preach the evils
of MS and the perils associated with its technology rather than engage
in a more open and objective discussion.

I'm not the biggest MS fan, but enough is enough. Sheesh. I've found
that the odd situation exists where most non-MS'ers like to sit around
and bash MS, whereas most MS'ers are content to simply get the job done
and get on with life and it's rather annoying.





Chris Owens
chris.owens AT reality-v2.com
919.345.4339 mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael S Czeiszperger [mailto:czei AT webperformanceinc.com]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 2:39 PM
To: InterNetWorkers
Subject: [internetworkers] Re: The list isn't blowing up yet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 07 September 2001 02:13 pm, you wrote:
> Encouraged or discouraged, isn't that speculation and a bit
> irrelevant?

To answer the first question, no, it isn't speculation. Java is designed
to
be cross platform, and the documentation plainly discourages using calls
to
native code. On the Microsoft side, the evidence entered into the
antitrust
case shows that the MS management views cross platform code as a threat
to
their monopoly, and directed the troops to change the development tools
so
that platform specific calls would be inserted into code without the
programmer's knowledge.

The question of relevancy comes into play when looking at intent and
public
posturing with regards to standards. Its sometimes easy to equate
something
being a standard with being cross platform, which isn't the case with
C#.

> I would think that it would hard to cost justify spending
> additional hours developing something cross-platform if it will
> demonstrably save time and effort by utilizing a feature particular to
> the intended environment. [ ...]
> It is an unfortunate scene that I am regularly faced with as
> anti-MS'ers proselytize the perils of using anything MS as a religious
> endeavor, rather than exercise a technology-agnostic approach and
> determine the best tool/platform for the job based on ROI and speed to
> market.

I agree with you. At a project management level the best technology
should
win out. At this level I believe non-Microsoft technologies have an
advantage
in many, but certainly not all situations, and there's no time to go
into
details. Suffice it to say that I acknowledge that in some areas MS has
an
advantage.

At a corporate level, you have to ask yourself do you really want to
partner
with a company that wants to put a free version of your software on
every
desktop in the world? This includes my own company, which competes
directly
with three different free Microsoft products. There's also the question
of
the wisdom on relying on a sole source for a critical piece of
technology.

Its an unfortunate thing that anyone who would insist that a company
convicted of violating antitrust laws should be punished is
"proselytizing"
rather than simply being interested in justice and fair competition.

- --
Michael S Czeiszperger
czei AT webperformanceinc.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBO5kUSVgOl/a4Fw2AEQLh1wCg0VBZis2yRYkLhrcEA21cDYRY2h0An1ZK
dlzBgJ6H1oZBq9j7/M09Jk7z
=JyOV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---
Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
You are currently subscribed to internetworkers as:
internetworkers_box AT reality-v2-dev.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page