🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <34833733.F287B96F@aol.com.br>, bozza@aol.com.br says...
>   Now I really understand the lawsuit. It's deliberate. I mean, they 
could have
>put their stuff in another package, still ship RMI classes and let the 
public
>decide. Does Microsoft at least give a reason why they chose not to 
include
>these classes (other from damaging Java)?

I can see both sides on this one.

MS should follow the Java specification to the best of their ability 
and honor legal agreements they have made.  They do have the right to 
ship their own tools in additon to the standard tools.  If they have a 
problem with the way Sun is behaving they should address the issue in 
private with Sun to avoid all of the media hype.

Sun should not expect Java to be a system by which they can dictate to 
MS what the new features of the OS will be.  Windows (at least NT) is an 
operating system.  Java should not be an operating system.  The JDK 
should provide a minimalist framework that additional java tools (even 
APIs from Sun) can add to.  Sun shouldn't try to use Java as a weapon.  
Don't use the JDK as a wedge to keep adding more and more unrelated APIs 
to "core" java.  Don't prevent MS from adding features to their VM, it 
is within their right to do so (developers using all of these hooks 
might want to reconsider though).  Don't expect MS to simply become a 
distribution mechanism for java.  When you introduce functionality that 
wasn't present at the time of the java agreement and which directly 
competes with a MS feature, don't expect MS to happily accept it.  Don't 
forget that Windows is a significant part of the java market at the 
present time.

I guess MS and Sun need is some mutual respect.  Don't hold your breath. 
<g>

-- 
Chris Hill
hillca@cs.purdue.edu