Christopher Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 08:48:13AM -0700, Larry Sanderson wrote:
> > > with their own proprietary extensions. Despite the evil that MS
> > > represents I have to say that they've treated Transvirtual MUCH better
> > > than Sun.
> >
> > Do you mean Microsoft treated Transvirtual better than Microsoft treated
> > Sun, or Microsoft treated Transvirtual better than Sun treated Transvirtual?
> > (or all of the above) Just curious.
>
> Ooops. Sorry for being confusing. I mean that MS has treated
> Transvirtual quite nicely while Sun appears to have shunned
> Transvirtual.
Interesting observation. I'm not sure I'd expect or want Sun to treat
Transvirtual with anything more than benign neglect. Microsoft, for a small
investment, gained the ability to claim some cross-platform capabilities for its
extensions. If you're more interested in doing real work than arguing industry
politics, that's a pretty nice win all around.
If Transvirtual's work posed a business threat to Sun's JDK licensing or Unix
platform business, I'm sure it would get much more attention from Sun - but not
the sort of attention it would want.
Nathan
>
>
> --Chris
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
