On Apr 29, 2011, at 2:11 PM, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Kirk <[email protected]> wrote: > Rewrite of history. MS wrote Windows specific extensions that would have > bound Java to Windows. I don't see that happening in this case. > > Sure, but what I objected to back then was that Sun was mixing technical and > legal concerns. > > From a legal standpoint, Microsoft was clearly in breach of contract and > deserved what happened to them. > > I just wish that Sun has shown a little more of nuance in their technical > assessment of these new features, but they clearly did not and they produced > the embarrassing link above. No doubt that Mc Nealy and his anti-Microsoft > crusade is 100% to blame for this position, which confirmed the fact that Sun > was definitely not a software company.
It's an old battle.... Sun had a huge NIH complex which extended far beyond MS.. java.logging is a classic example/reaction. Kirk > > -- > Cédric > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
