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

[Damien McKenna]

> From: Damien McKenna <dmckenna at thelimucompany.com>
> > Mind if I ask, but what evidence do you have for suggesting 
> > this beyond conspiracy theories?
> 
> 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.

But you don't have any articles from MSFT (or others) saying "the .NET
platform was partially built using code we licensed from Sun known as
Java"?  Its reading between the lines, which, again, I agree with, but
most people won't agree without something more tangible.

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

So which portions of Java are you talking about when you sayin .NET is
based on it - the CLR, one of the component languages, the object model?

> Microsoft re-licensed Java, version 1.4, last year.

Besides announcements of MSFT paying a large quantity of money to Sun,
are there any press releases that state this?

-- 
Damien McKenna - Web Developer - Damien.McKenna at thelimucompany.com
The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014
#include <stdjoke.h>