[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>
> 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"?

Microsoft was _forbidden_ by _court_order_ from stating that any
derivative was based on Java, until the new 2003 re-license.

> Its reading between the lines, which, again, I agree with, but
> most people won't agree without something more tangible.

Most people think there is no equivalent to MS Exchange, that
MS Office is the original office suite, MS IE's security problems are
just due to its popularity, and that Windows 2000/XP are based on
Windows 95/98.

> 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?

Definitely the object model.  The CLR is a different approach than JNI,
but has the same limitations on inheritance, because of the object
model.  Microsoft claims .NET is "multi-language," but in reality, it
has the same constraints as any language that interfaces via JNI.

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

The articles that released all the details listed all Microsoft was
getting.  One was full access to the "Java 2" codebase, including
the latest 1.4 release explicitly.  Several other Java services were
also included, including many things still not developed in Indigo
(that were way behind for a 2007 Longhorn server release schedule).

In return, Sun got access to ADO and many other .NET components
so they could make the Java equivalents compatible.  In a nutshell,
Microsoft were basically re-synchronizing their independent
developments on Java (and .NET) since Sun severed the flow of
code to Microsoft and a court upheld that.

The .NET name was chosen within a couple months of the court
order that Microsoft could not publicly claim any relationship to
Java.  The sole exception were the terms where Sun was granted
the term to force Microsoft to release a Java Virtual Machine
based on 1.1 that was compliant to Microsoft's original, contractual
obligations.  That's the only thing Microsoft could even claim
was related to Java.



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