[Pc_Support] .NET based on Java?

[Bryan J. Smith]

Paul M Foster <paulf at quillandmouse.com> wrote:
> A statement from Microsoft.

You're kidding me, right?

Microsoft has never admitted to anything.

Even when they were caught red-handed in using BSD/Apache
systems as reverse proxy systems to NT/IIS, they still
downplayed it.  One reporter finally had the balls to ask and
Microsoft had to respond that they were using public domain
or public licensed for some things in accordance with their
license, and they still didn't name specifics.  I'm sure if
did the same with regard to .NET and C#, Microsoft would
merely be non-specific by saying they use code they have
licensed.

Furthermore, they still outsource massively to Aikami and
others who run Linux for DNS and HTTP.  Same deal with a lot
of their code development, 3rd party contractors.  It's a lot
of "we only use what we make" 'hands clean' type stuff, when
they outsource a lot that actually goes in their products and
services their Internet front.

> An email from a developer known to have worked on C#.

Can you say "professional suicide"?

It's hard enough that I get tidbits from .NET developers
every now and then.  I finally got one to admit they were not
putting anything related to the .NET security model into
Windows Vista a few months ago.  It's like a reporter
revealing sources, I'll destroy his professional capability.

> A well-researched news story from a credible entity with
> its own verifiable sources.

You're still kidding me right?

First off, you don't consider Ziff-Davis to be credible?  I
know they are naive at times, but they are very MS-focused. 
They get the lead stories from 

> That's where we differ.

What don't you think is reality?

No, Microsoft COM/COM+ is _not_ based on Java.
Microsoft has their own objects.
Microsoft has their own approaches in their own OS.
That portion of the .NET model is clearly built around the
OS.

There are other aspects to the .NET system that are MS.
MDAC, ADO, etc... are based on legacy Windows approaches.
WinForms, etc... are as well.
Those portions are not from Java at all either.

But the language, the 1:1 class libraries and the native
interface, all based on prior J++ and interface work.  .NET
and C# was just the evolution from what Microsoft was already
doing to Java, making it Win32/Intel-only.

Had Microsoft not secured the rights to use Java code in the
final ruling, then they would have had to make a "clean room"
break.  But they did secure the rights.  It was the main
thing they were continually engaged with Sun over.  Sun
stopped Microsoft from using the Java trademark, but in the
end, Microsoft proved they licensed the right to Java code to
the judge.

.NET/C# was the avenue to get people off of the now "dead"
J++ product, while still delivering on all the promises of a
native interface and run-time.  It also didn't put the good
work that countless J++ developers did on their Win32
implementation in their honest effort to "beat Sun Java."

> A contractor from Microsoft tells you X.  Was he lying?

Understand I've known many, many Microsoft people over the
years.  More recent have only been passer-bys.  Engineers
tend to be a bit looser with the tongue, at least in voice
(where nothing is written).

BTW, do you know how many times people like yourself have
come up and had this same attitude towards what I say?  It's
been going on since before NT 3.1 was released.  There are so
many things that are common knowledge from using the products
early on, seeing the lineage and development, etc...

Is .NET/C# just Java?  Hell no.  But is Java 1.1 code in
.NET/C#?  Of course!  Microsoft not only had every right to
it, but their entire work of _years_ was using it!  To start
over would have pushed them back another 3+ years.

> Did he actually know what he was talking about?

Ummm, considering some of the names I've been corresponding
with over just the last year ... um, YEAH!  Microsoft took a
renewed interest in me on my knowledge of how to hack and
compromise MS Exchange with properly formed RFC821/822
headers.  And it included 1 core MS employee (not a
contractor).

In fact, we went a few rounds on .NET, and where I see the
problem is -- i.e., lack of actual use in Windows Vista.

> Did he actually have access to the appropriate code and
> materials? Did he actually work on that particular project?



> Can we verify that? Was he just yanking your chain? 

Hey, you can assume 100% in my e-mail comes out of my ass if
you want.  I could really care less.


> Is this just a prank to see if his false information
> will ever come out in newspapers?

What "prank"???

Why would it be "big news" -- outside of the pundits -- if
Microsoft had to admit that the C# .NET 1.x codebase and
class libs are comprised of 60% of old Java 1.1 and the
latest .NET 2.0 will be around 40% of new Java 1.4/1.5?  It's
one of those "I can't believe MS used Java" non-issues, just
like the "I can't believe MS uses Open Source" non-issues I
just posted recently.

> Did he feel there was some unknown benefit to having you
> believe a false statement?

It's not just 1 guy dude.  This has been going around for
over 5 years now -- before .NET was even announced. 
Microsoft had a serious issue of what they were going to do
with their J++ product line, especially all the Win32-only
work they had done in their run-time.  Several people told me
of their frustration with it all.

And the fears of what a negative ruling on the Java source
code rights might result in.

> This is why hearsay isn't acceptable in a court of law as
> proof.

This isn't hearsay, it's more like trade secrets.  And they
only way you're going to force Microsoft to admit anything is
if you _not_only_ subpenia them, but you show _need_ on why
you need to know the lineage of .NET/C#.

But there is _no_ chance of that.  Microsoft not only won the
right to use the Java 1.1 source code (which was after that
article was originally written -- as they noted in the
update, they were so allowed), but they have re-licensed Java
1.4+ from Sun in the big hoopla of late 2003 to "work
together."

> Even if Bob says he saw Jim commit X crime,

What crime are we talking about.  There was *NO*CRIME*!

> we don't convict on that supposedly eyewitness testimony
> alone.

Dude, you're in left field.

This is all lineage, licensing (which Microsoft _did_
license, and was _allowed_ to use), trade secrets, etc...

> Let me reiterate: I'm not disputing your idea that C# et al
> are based on the Java codebase from that period. You could
> well be right. Evidence (including the article you cited in
> the other email), seems to point in that direction. 

I think you're too focused on making this an "absolute."

The C#/CLR portion is just one _small_ portion of .NET.  Yes,
the CLR and the C# class libraries are the major
"interoperabilitiy" portion of .NET.  And yes, Microsoft
radically changed the run-time and native interfaces from
what Sun had in their run-time (let alone the JNI has changed
significantly since).

> I'm just pointing out that this is an opinion, not a fact.

It is based on commentary I (among many, many others) have
been privy to 2nd hand and insider knowledge of real,
technical lineage.



 
> People lie, mis-remember, make things up to fill in gaps or
> to enhance their own reputations or avoid trouble all the
> time.

Feel free to assume this about me.

> "Reliable sources" may or may not be.
> And hearing the same lie from more than one source 
> doesn't then make it true. Moreover, two people who tell
> you the same thing may well believe it's true, but still
> have both been lied to about it.
> AGAIN, I'm not trying to impugn your sources or you. I'm
> just trying to convey what I consider the difference
> between facts and opinions.

You're talking in absolutes.
I honestly don't know what you want or think.

CASE-IN-POINT ...

Is your viewpoint to state that Microsoft threw away all Java
source code, all their existing J++ work, all their existing
native Win32 interfaces and run-times that were based on Java
1.1 source code and created C#/.NET as "clean room"?

Could you please answer that for me in a "yes" or "no"
absolute?

See what I mean?

It's like saying man created the world.  Yes, we have created
a lot in our time, but we still created it from the domain we
were given and allowed to do with as we pleased.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith                | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org     |  (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ |   missing headers)