From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Nov 6 2:27:15 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [206.29.169.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF84D37B416 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 02:27:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from tedm.placo.com (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [206.29.168.154]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id fA6AR6T90647; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 02:27:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: , Subject: RE: Java on FreeBSD) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 02:27:06 -0800 Message-ID: <000b01c166ad$951f0ce0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <20011105141028.75556.qmail@web10402.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG >[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Dylan Carlson >Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 6:10 AM >To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG >Subject: Re: Java on FreeBSD) > >Sun spent the money developing Java and it makes sense that they're trying to >protect it from being forked irresponsibly (as Microsoft has tried to do, and >has happened in the case of Kerberos). > While I agree with most of what you say I do draw the line at this. I don't see how Sun would lose money by modifying the Java standard to include the Microsoft modifications. Instead, all I saw with the Sun/Microsoft fight was a pissing contest that Sun used to embarass Microsoft because they were lucky enough to catch Microsoft with their pants down. (ie: violating a legal contract) There was no real interest there on Sun's part in working together. Also, Microsoft didn't fork Kerberos. What they did was violate the de-facto Kerberos implementation used by everyone else. They were within the Kerberos standard however. Microsoft's Kerberos implementation wouldn't have been a problem if they had simply published the details of how they were using the "vendor defined" field. It was the fault of the Kerberos standard's writers for putting the loophole in the Kerberos standard to start with, they admitted this since they started talking about how they needed to change the Kerberos standard to close the loophole. I don't disagree that what Microsoft did with Kerberos and Java was in bad faith, however. Microsoft has shown a solid, consistent history of looking for loopholes in official and de facto standards and attempting to make trouble with them. It's basically pointless technical pissing matches because in cases where Microsoft does succeed in changing things, everyone else changes, and in cases where they fail, they quietly bring their stuff into compliance later on. >Sun's trying to do the right thing, and bring in revenue at the same time. I No, they are trying to bring in revenue, they only do the Right Thing as long as doing it doesen't conflict with the revenue stream. The Right Thing in Java would have been to give it over to a global standards body that was independent a long time ago. There's plenty of other technology companies that have done the same thing with their own standards in the past. Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message