From: Stephan Somogyi <somogyi@digmedia.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 17:07:27 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Java
In-Reply-To: <v02140b02addb7880650e@[17.202.12.102]>
Message-ID: <v03007215addbb3b383e2@[198.93.25.98]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 11:05 -0700 5.6.96, Martin Minow wrote:

> Tim May writes
>
>> Java as a language and as a platform-independent implementation is an
>> achievement.
>
>It's also not owned by the evil Redmond empire

I'm not so sure. It seems to me that Sun's abrogation of responsibility
for the x86 reference implementation to Microsoft also handed over the
de facto ownership of Java until ANSI/ISO get their hands on it, by
which time it may be too late. (It also raises the question whether a
browser with a built-in Java VM, such as Netscape's, will use its own
VM or the Java VM present in the OS when a choice is available.)

There are an awful lot of x86 boxes out there and they carry a lot of
common-denominational weight. There's also little to stop Microsoft
from extending their Java implementation while remaining compliant with
the basic Java spec. The HTML wars seem to have quieted down
considerably in recent months, but I still recall the vigorous
extension-tag oneupmanship that went on between Microsoft and Netscape;
I see no reason that this couldn't also happen with Java.

ObCrypto: If Microsoft does wind up setting the de facto standard for
Java by virtue of owning the x86/Win32 VM, can it successfully force
the use of its particular APIs in Java applets by sheer weight of
installed base?

________________________________________________________________________
Stephan Somogyi                Mr Gyroscope                Digital Media