> Joe Barrera wrote:
> > (After all, why bother competing in the marketplace when you've got
> > lawyers?)
> Be fair Joe.
First off , in the current air of "fairnes" that surround this whole mess,
this is one line that gives me a nice chuckle. Owww whats the matter, one
little quote ruin yer spanking white in shinning armor hero image for the
"good guys". Nutz to that. Both sides are in a mud wrestling match now,
have been for a while. No one, that is NO ONE, is walking out of this
without a good solid coating of grime caked around them.
> If the contract between Sun and Microsoft is interpreted by the courts
> to say that MS must do only 100% Java, then why should a decision - by
> any party - be necessary? Which Win32 API do you program to? 8-)
What is it about java, 100% oure java and the new OrangeGrove Java that
makes folks loose thier mind? Its a programming langugae. Is there a legal
action to only dev for just ONE version of HTML? or C++? or Basic?
Sure MS should defintly be made to drop the 100% pure java logo. They
aint and thats clear. But exclude from havaing any dev of java OR java
like tools. Two words, very legalieeze but i think most folks will catch
the meaning.. BLOW ME
You want to santify java and java like langs to just one source , that
being sun? What about the move to get java into the hands of the rest of
the world? Wouldnt that be a pretty little plum for sun to be the One and
ONly source of all things java, the monarchs of dev.
How long before the same mob yelling for MS's blood starts moving the
torches and pitchforcks up to McNealy;s castle? One year is my guese,
> Of course, Morris still looks like an ass without similarly qualifying
> his statement. But he could easily have been quoted out of context.
Welcome to the mud fight. Please leave your dry cleaning at the door.