> What was the debate with Java?, I'm still using Office 2000, without any
> problem.
>

Hmmm...  Let's see if I get this straight enough to sound like I know what
the hell I am talking about with the Sun vs. M$ Java mess...  Here is how I
see the situation.

A few years ago Sun Microsystems (developers of Java) sued M$ for producing
an altered version fo Java, kind of a M$ branding of sorts.  Rather than
comply with returning to developing Java within the scope of the license by
Sun, M$ opted to discontinue use of Java.  Apparently there are some Java
components within Office 2000, so M$ discontinued distribution, including
distribution within MSDN, after they lost their lawsuit with Sun.  I am glad
I have my Office 2000 licenses still, as it is one of the best versions
overall, with little in the way of wizards that get in my way.  Lately M$
has come to realize the world did not abandon Jave just because M$ stopped
using it, and have come to terms with Sun with Java use that is (more)
compliant with the Sun license.


Gil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jaime Vasquez
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 11:36 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Visual Studio 2005 Professional Edition with
> MSDNProfessionalSubscription
>
>
> mrgmhale wrote:
> > I can also download previous versions of apps and O/S
> > (not Office 2000 due to the Great Java Debacle).
>
> What was the debate with Java?, I'm still using Office 2000, without any
> problem.
>
>
> Thank You.
>
>
>
>
>
> Saludos,
> Jaime Vasquez
> Guatemala, C.A.
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to