[Pc_Support] RE: Bryan, the media is finally catching on to what you said about Longhorn

[Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org>]

From: Damien McKenna <dmckenna at thelimucompany.com>
> Mind if I ask, but what evidence do you have for suggesting this beyond
> conspiracy theories?  I personally believe there is a tie but I have a
> hard time convincing anyone else of the relationship.

It's not a "conspiracy theory" any more than the fact that Microsoft
uses the BSD IP stack, various SCO XENIX code for Int21h services,
etc...

Microsoft paid for the right to use Java code.  In their private lawsuit
with Sun after Sun said Microsoft was in violation of their contract,
although Microsoft lost the right to use the Java trademark,
Microsoft was still entitled to the code through Java 1.1.  In the
absence of being able to release anything derivatives with the "Java"
trademark, but full rights to use Java 1.1 code as they saw fit,
.NET was born.

Remember, .NET is _many_ things.  As a development platform,
.NET is essentially UNIX-Java adopted to Win32, using Java code
(initially 1.1).

In my opinion, they actually improved a few things, although hurt a
few things at the same time.  And despite popular opinion, there are
still many things that C++ does a far better job at.  Pretty much
all capabilities and limitations of Java are in .NET, because it's the
same core design -- which Microsoft has _full_rights_too_.  No
conspiracy theory at all.

Microsoft re-licensed Java, version 1.4, last year.  That code has been
incorporated in .NET 2.0.  Knowing this, the serialization issues between
Java 1.1 and "Java 2" (Java 1.2-1.5) easily explain the same of .NET
1.1 and 2.0.

People think a brand or product name means things are different.
Technologists like myself know the lineage of a product's history,
and we break it down into the bare technologies, and the obvious
technical facts and root causes come to light.

Companies re-use code they have rights too.  Renaming doesn't
change that.  There aren't a lot of "eureka" articles on this stuff
because the editors at CMP, Ziff-Davis, etc... know they will get
1,000s of letters to the editor that say "yes, we all know this,
and only those people who follow marketing think this is of any
interest."

The continuing issue with .NET is that it, like Java, runs better
on a true POSIX OS than Chicago-infested Win32.



--
Bryan J. Smith   mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org