Microsoft .Net's impact to Automation Industry

>I believe that I read in the news (CBC) a few weeks ago that Microsoft
>doesn't intend to include Java support in their future products
>(including their web browser).

As I understand it, Microsoft simply will not distribute a Java runtime on the Windows XP and Internet Explorer 6.0. Additionally Internet Explorer 6.0 for earlier OS versions will not include a Java runtime. Instead, when you encounter a web page that requires the Java runtime, you will be given the opportunity to download the current Java runtime from Microsoft. This is basically the same runtime that is in Internet Explorer 5.x since Sun's victory in their lawsuit prevented Microsoft from advancing Java efforts - including the integrating of current Java technologies.

Computer manufacturers such as Compaq, Dell, and Gateway are considering pre-installing the Microsoft Java runtime on new computers shipping with Windows XP. Sun is working to develop a Java runtime that integrates with Internet Explorer 6.0, however at least one of these manufacturers (I don't recall which) already stated that, at least initially, they will not ship the Sun version even if it is ready when WinXP releases - September 24.

Personally, I will use Microsoft's Java runtime because it has always proven to be more stable and faster than the Java runtime Sun has provided. Even if it is based on a 4 year old version of the Java spec. That's Suns fault for shooting their foot. If they wanted Java support, they should not have alienated the largest distribution channel for their technology - Microsoft Windows.

Further, there was also some news about Visual J++ being sold or maintenance being transferred to some other company, but the specifics escape my memory.

Jeff Dean
[email protected]
 
C

Curt Wuollet

Jeff Dean wrote:
> As I understand it, Microsoft simply will not distribute a Java runtime on
> the Windows XP and Internet Explorer 6.0. Additionally Internet Explorer 6.0
> for earlier OS versions will not include a Java runtime. Instead, when you
> encounter a web page that requires the Java runtime, you will be given the
> opportunity to download the current Java runtime from Microsoft. This is
> basically the same runtime that is in Internet Explorer 5.x since Sun's
> victory in their lawsuit prevented Microsoft from advancing Java efforts -
> including the integrating of current Java technologies.

That's an interesting view of the situation, but I believe it only prevents them from making MS only extensions of the cross platform Java product. That's what the whole suit was about. It makes no sense to have a cross platform product that wouldn't include MS. They simply refuse to keep it cross-platform. If they can embrace, extend and destroy, they will have no part of it. And that attitude counters the wishes of their customers. Nothing prevents them from using it the way that it was designed to be used.

> Computer manufacturers such as Compaq, Dell, and Gateway are considering
> pre-installing the Microsoft Java runtime on new computers shipping with
> Windows XP. Sun is working to develop a Java runtime that integrates with
> Internet Explorer 6.0, however at least one of these manufacturers (I don't
> recall which) already stated that, at least initially, they will not ship
> the Sun version even if it is ready when WinXP releases - September 24.

That's probably just as well, I bet Sun doesn't get much advance info on WinXP. It'll take them a while to figure out the secret API's to get good
stability and performance on WinXP. The DOJ may help with that.

> Personally, I will use Microsoft's Java runtime because it has always proven
> to be more stable and faster than the Java runtime Sun has provided. Even if
> it is based on a 4 year old version of the Java spec. That's Suns fault for
> shooting their foot. If they wanted Java support, they should not have
> alienated the largest distribution channel for their technology - Microsoft
> Windows.

If they hadn't stood on principle, it would be shipped with Windows but it wouldn't be Java. I think they made the right choice. Standards have to mean something. You can already see the effect of letting MS set the standards.

> Further, there was also some news about Visual J++ being sold or maintenance
> being transferred to some other company, but the specifics escape my memory.

That's good news. Perhaps the new owner will make it produce cross-platform code and it will be a far more useful tool.

Regards

cww
 
In respect to my explanation of Microsoft's decision to not distribute Java with Windows XP or Internet Explorer 6.0, Curt Wuollet said:
>>That's an interesting view of the situation, but I believe it only
>>prevents them from making MS only extensions of the cross platform
>>Java product. That's what the whole suit was about. It makes no sense
>>to have a cross platform product that wouldn't include MS. They simply
>>refuse to keep it cross-platform. If they can embrace, extend and
>>destroy, they will have no part of it. And that attitude counters the
>>wishes of their customers. Nothing prevents them from using it the way
>>that it was designed to be used.

Actually, after a little research I found a summary of the terms of the settlement decision from Sun v Microsoft.

- Microsoft paid Sun $20 million
- The Java licensing agreement signed between the companies in 1996 is now _-_terminated_-_ (The license would have expired in March 2001 anyway)
- Microsoft can continue to ship existing products that use Sun's Java technology, as well as those currently in beta, for a period of seven years.
- Microsoft has also agreed not to use Sun's Java compatibility trademark -- represented by a steaming coffee cup logo.

How do I interpret this? Sun got some money (a stipend). The license agreement was canceled, so Microsoft can no longer develop products integrating a Java runtime unless they choose to enter into another license agreement with Sun. Sun did not take advantage of the "free" marketing for Java technology that allowing Microsoft to use its logo would have provided.

So I reiterate, Sun shot themselves in the foot. They told their largest distributor to stop shipping their technology. They told the largest
software company on the face of the earth to stop using their technology in new products. And they told the worlds largest software marketing engine to stop marketing their technology. Now you're telling me this is somehow Microsoft's fault?Please take off the rose colored glasses and look at the facts.

It might have been a great coup for Sun if there were enough momentum to move to other platforms to use Java... but there simply is not. Java support is not enough of a reason to move away from Windows for a majority of computer users.

>>That's probably just as well, I bet Sun doesn't get much advance
>>info on WinXP. It'll take them a while to figure out the secret
>>API's to get good stability and performance on WinXP. The DOJ
>>may help with that.

Yes, the DOJ in it's ultimate wisdom (we're the government, we're here to help you) aims to help, by complete folly, a company that can not compete
based on market conditions. One of those market conditions is Microsoft itself. Sun could compete if it didn't have any competition -- or if it's
competitor were bound and gagged by the government.

The theory of a vast Microsoft conspiracy is as ludicrous as the vast right-wing conspiracy. You may as well be saying that GE thrust it's own
conspiracy on us by wanting "light bulbs everywhere" or GM has cooked it's own back-room plots to put a "car in every garage." (or minivan) :) (my apologies to GE, GM, other light bulb manufacturers and other car manufacturers) :) Companies have goals to sell product, services and at the end of the day, make money. Their primary responsibility is to grow
shareholder value. For that they can not be faulted.

Jeff Dean
[email protected]

P.S. I wonder why I engage zealots, such as Curt, in arguments that do nothing but fan the flames. Curt's not going to change his opinion because of something I say. Just as I could never be convinced to change my opinion based on the words of a zealot. I did simply want to clarify that Sun did indeed (maybe not in so few words) tell Microsoft that they were not welcome at the Java cafe.
 
J

Joe Jansen/ENGR/HQ/KEMET/US

Alex Pavloff wrote:
> Once again Curt, READ what .NET is. Its a compiler and toolset.

Isn't hailstorm part of .NET?

Isn't Hailstorm the part where you need a passport account to get access to any of Microsoft's 'services'?

Isn't passport the part where you give them (at a minimum) your name and credit card number? And more info than that if you want access to more of
their 'services'?

Isn't my name and credit card number personal information?

How does .NET not include giving up personal information?

--Joe Jansen
 
Michael:
> We have done several jobs where we spent more time and effort
> developing the solution than the actual job warrants, then recover the
> cost by reapplying the solution to multiple customers without having
> to re-do the bulk of the work. Linux and the GPL make this very
> difficult to do.

In the short term, yes, but in the long term the opposite is true.

With the GPL, once the initial solution is done, no-one ever has to re-do the work, and all future projects will be better for it. Rather than programmers, automation professionals will become integrators, selecting and customizing solutions from a vast, publicly-available repository.

That leaves a practical problem of how to get there from here: most likely it'll be incremental, so that the increment required by each project over the previous is sufficiently small to be absorbed.

In purely money terms: for each project, you have the option of using the GPL code repository, at the cost of contributing your code to it. Sometimes it'll make sense, sometimes not. Any time it does make sense, it makes the repository bigger, but it never shrinks. At some point, it'll snowball.

> if I want to develop a solution package based on a "UNIX-like" OS,
> then I'm almost bound to use OpenBSD just because the license is
> designed to allow me to protect or give away my work as I desire.

FWIW, Linux doesn't require programs to be under any particular licence.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
visit the MAT LinuxPLC project at http://mat.sf.net
 
M

Michael R. Batchelor

Michael R. Batchelor wrote:
>> if I want to develop a solution package based on a "UNIX-like" OS, then
>> I'm almost bound to use OpenBSD just because the license is
designed to
>> allow me to protect or give away my work as I desire.

Jiri Baum wrote:
>FWIW, Linux doesn't require programs to be under any particular licence.

It's true that Linux doesn't require any particular program to be under any particular license, but a turn key solution that requires
someone just "stick the CD into the machine" is complicated. I can expect the plant to get a Windows box going and just supply a CD with a setup distribution. With Linux (or another UNIX-like system) I've got to make a different set of assumptions, i.e. I need to make sure the OS is correct, too. I can make a Linux CD that will install everything my solution needs without requiring the plant to have a propeller head on staff, but the "final solution" is going to be so
covered up in GPL that I can't afford to develop it.

It's a matter of cash flow. I've been a strong supporter of Open Source for years. (I coerced a former boss to send FSF $500 way back in 1988 because I had replaced two thirds of the stuff in all of our SCO XENIX systems with GNU stuff, I remember the original Linux announcement, and I was one of the original beta testers for a
newfangled things called CVS.) But as a small integrator (three of us here, with families to feed) I've got to keep cash flowing. Unless I can cover the entire cost of the development on the front end, I can't let the solution become freely distributable.

You can make an argument that I could license my binaries exactly the same as the commercial binaries on the RedHat CD are licensed. That's
true. Just tell me the lawyer who will make sure I've got it all correct for free to contribute to the GPL cause. Remember, we're control geeks here. Not lawyers. Alternately, I can just use
something with a BSD style license.

I'm not saying that my office is sitting on the "killer control systems app for Linux" but we won't release it under GPL. There's really nothing here that can do much more than support the three of us. But we do plan to keep supporting ourselves.

Michael
 
Jiri wrote:
> >FWIW, Linux doesn't require programs to be under any particular licence.

Michael wrote:
> It's true that Linux doesn't require any particular program to be under
> any particular license, but a turn key solution that requires someone
> just "stick the CD into the machine" is complicated. I can expect the
> plant to get a Windows box going and just supply a CD with a setup
> distribution.

Possibility 1: specify a box with Linux pre-installed.

Possibility 2: use a bootable CD. This is part of just about every distribution, so there's plenty of examples around.

> It's a matter of cash flow.
> Unless I can cover the entire cost of the development on the front end, I
> can't let the solution become freely distributable.

At worst, it's a simple technology exchange: your code for GPL'd.

You have to decide whether the advantage of being able to use GPL'd code outweighs the disadvantage of (possibly) having to licence yours on the
same terms.

> You can make an argument that I could license my binaries exactly the
> same as the commercial binaries on the RedHat CD are licensed. That's
> true. Just tell me the lawyer who will make sure I've got it all correct

Point... With some care, you can avoid it, but I can see how it would make you nervous.


Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]>
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jiribvisit the MAT LinuxPLC project at http://mat.sf.net
 
R

Ralph Mackiewicz

A few clarifications on StarOffice:

1. It does read both Word and Excel files and many more other file formats beyond anything that Word supports. I have better luck reading Word files with StarOffice than with Word (corrupted files that crashed Word were read by StarOffice, saved by StarOffice and then could be read by Word again). StarOffice does not export Word files flawlessly but you can extract all the data and some of the layout information in Word.

2. Although StarOffice is not a true open source product from the Gnu perspective it is alot more open than Word. Here is Question #36 from the
Sun web site FAQ on StarOffice:

> 36. Many believe that other Sun open initiatives, such as the Java
> platform, aren't really open, since Sun continues to control the
> intellectual property and evolution of the technology. Isn't this just
> another example of Sun disguising proprietary solutions as open
> technology?
>
> Sun is changing the rules and taking office software into the
> dot-com age. Significantly, Sun announced three initiatives:
>
> We will offer the StarOffice 5.2 binary code for free download to
> anyone
>
> We will publish the StarOffice 5.2 specifications
>
> We will offer the StarOffice source code

StarOffice is a very good program. I use it exclusively at home and sometimes at work. It includes all the functions of MS Office Professional including E-Mail client and web browser. It has its own quirks and I have complaints about it (like Word the sheer number of features makes it difficult to do simple things. My favority word processor remains AmiPro
but alas it is not practical to use anymore). My favorite feature is that it doesn't have that &#$&#!@$$# blasted talking paperclip!

However, Sun does not seem to be the brighest bulb on the block in terms of marketing the product. I think that their insistence on giving it away for nothing is a serious impediment to justifying putting the resources behind it that would give it a serious chance in the marketplace. Given the license authorization software that is going into OfficeXP I think they are missing their golden opportunity.

Regards,

Ralph Mackiewicz
SISCO, Inc.
 
C

Curt Wuollet

Hi Jeff

You are still ignoring the crux of the case. That Microsoft doesn't want to support cross platform Java and Sun simply wants Java to remain cross
platform. Microsoft wanted to derail cross platform Java by it's standard embrace, extend, and destroy strategy. Sun was just too big to steamroller. The issue was that MS wanted to make non-standard, MSJava, the de facto standard by getting it on millions of desktops, thus marginalizing the cross-platform Java. That's why the compatibility logo is at issue. If they can't hijack the standard (rare), plan B is to shun it as absolutely and completely as possible, even to the point of developing their own analog. So you have C# and to some extent .NET which is positioned somewhat against JINI which is Java based. You can interpret it as you wish but this is a pattern we've seen over and over and over. Dozens of smaller partners and competitors have been effectively wiped out with these tactics which lead indirectly to the current DOJ action.
I won't even try to infer that Sun has the public interest at heart, but they are the first competitor to say NO and live through it.

I don't see how anyone could be involved with PC's and not see this pattern. Regardless of whether it's legal or smart business or what. That's irrelevant. The point is, if MS is involved, they come away with _all_ the cookies. And it has worked every time save this one.

This is not zealotry, I don't use Windows or Java or other Sun technology, except whatever has made it into Linux. I just think that seeing this
treachery repeated over and over and over should convince people that partnering with Microsoft and handing them the keys to public resources has an extremely predictable result. You can't use just a little Microsoft, pick and choose amongst their technologies, because everything they do is
heavily weighted towards a Microsoft only world and they have the power and resources to achieve it iff a complacent populace allows.

My interest is simply that I would like to be able to use something else and still be able to do what I need to do. And it's very difficult
already because of Microsoft's exclusionary deals and influence. That's what I see that most people simply don't, because they use Microsoft.

I ask, is it healthy to have our government, our businesses, our schools, our everything, totally dependent on only one company? And in spite of the huge body of evidence to the contrary(crippling viruses,hackers, back doors, etc.), people say; Yes, gladly, if they make it simple enough.

What's wrong with this picture?

Regards

cww
 
Jiri/ccw;

You're both absolutely correct ..... any well trained installer can create a small network in a few hours, regardless of the OS. The question is not the capability of the installer or the application software being installed. The question is ..... what will the client accept.
I've talked to all my clients about various *nix OS's and ALL of them shudder with fear. A few years ago I installed a number of QNX (V2 and V4) sites that I believe are infinitely more powerful and crash proof than any Windows system I've ever installed. Since installation, each one of them has converted to WindowsNT because their IT department wasn't happy with QNX.

Clients demand Windows. They see it on their corporate desktops and then insist it be installed in the control systems.

The bottom line is ,,,,,,, the *nix community needs to do a better job of marking their products before the corporate boss (the one with the check book in his pocket) will accept them.

Mark Hill

PS ... I'm still "open" to suggestions, but my clients aren't !
 
M

Michael Griffin

&lt;clip>
>C# the language is aimed right at Java. It's a COM based (or whatever they
>call COM nowadays) language with that looks like C++, but more closely tied
>to a Microsoft platform. It's easier to make Windows applications with it,
>but don't count on it being useful for anything else (which I why it won't
>replace C++).
&lt;clip>

I believe that I read in the news (CBC) a few weeks ago that Microsoft doesn't intend to include Java support in their future products (including their web browser). The only explanation given was that it was "for business
reasons". They likely will (or may already have) change their mind about this for now because I expect it to go over like a lead balloon with their major customers. It is however an interesting indication of their future intentions with Windows and dot NET.
Has anyone heard anything else about this? I only read about it in one news report and haven't seen anything about it since.


**********************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
**********************

 
Mark Hill wrote:
> The question is ..... what will the client accept.

Then you're changing the question...

> Clients demand Windows. They see it on their corporate desktops and then
> insist it be installed in the control systems.

In some ways, this is truly amazing - they *see* how stable Windows is, and they're happy to see it control a machine?

> The bottom line is ,,,,,,, the *nix community needs to do a better job of
> marking their products before the corporate boss (the one with the check
> book in his pocket) will accept them.

Actually, this is changing... corporate penetration of linux is going up. See the link posted by Curt a couple of days back, http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/08/27/010827tcintro.xml

Not much we can do about it, but if this is right and there is a rapid rise, we probably shouldn't do a thing.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]>
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jiribvisit the MAT LinuxPLC project at http://mat.sf.net
 
Joe,

Actually no ..

At a minimum you must provide Passport with the following info ...
Email address
Password
A secret question if you forget your password
Country
State
Zip Code

FYI ... I use a number of "Passports" which I use to navigate many sites. You can create email addresses at a number of the "free" email sites and have as many passports as you want.

If you have trouble sharing your Country, State and Zip,,,, then stay away from Passports !!

To quote the Passport help file ..........

"Microsoft Corporation, which provides the Passport service, uses the information you provide during Passport registration to operate and maintain your Passport account.

Microsoft does not share the personal information in your Passport profile with other companies without your consent. You may choose to have Microsoft share your Passport profile information
with other companies when you sign in to their Passport-enabled sites. This lets the sites speed your registration and offer you personalized
services. You can indicate on the Passport registration form, or in your Passport profile following registration, which information to share. Sites that offer the Passport service must display their own privacy statements and are bound by rules that require them to disclose how they use your Passport information. If you have a Passport wallet, your wallet information is never shared with participating sites at sign in. Your Passport wallet information is only shared when you choose which pieces to send to the merchant during a Passport express purchase."


Regards
Mark Hill
 
Joe;

I think you're confusing "Wallet" for Passport.

Passport does nothing more than allow you to visit certain sites with your Passport.

Wallet is the technology that collects and maintains your personal purchasing information such as Credit Card, Numbers, Billing Address,
for use at other sites.

You absolutely _do not_ need Wallet to use Passport.

Here's a link that discusses their Privacy Policy Statement:
http://www.passport.com/consumer/privacypolicy.asp?PPlcid=1033
Unfortunately, you'll need a Passport to visit it !!

Mark Hill
 
Curt Wuollet wrote:

> Our core competancy is solving problems with hardware and software tools.
...
> I have never maintained that anyone should give their "value added" away.

Even if, hypothetically, you did give all your code away after each project, the argument would still be the same. The core competency isn't
(shouldn't be) the code, it's solving problems.

> If you sell a solution based on the LPLC, for example, who owns the
> solution code is strictly between you and the customer. If you add
> something new to the LPLC itself, it should go back to the project but,
> the solution is what you're selling.

Exactly.

If you *want* to GPL your code, that'd be great - no point everyone else reinventing the wheel. But you don't have to (unless you start with somebody else's GPL'd project code, of course).

Lou wrote:
> > I would suggest that if there isn't some strategy for collecting some
> > revenue, somewhere, somehow, then you are merely dabbling in a hobby.

Or an epiphenomenon. Something that arises as a side-effect of what you're really being paid to do.

> > Perhaps some of the linux evangelists would be more effective if they
> > clarify this new paradigm rather than just shoot down the old one.

Well, one possible paradigm is the above: when the problem you're being paid to solve is a close match to existing GPL code, customize it for your
client and contribute the changes back into the code pool. You get paid for doing the customization, putting it all together and for your expertise in knowing what's available.

> > What honestly motivates you to contribute to open source?

Me, personally, it's either hobby or education - I'm a university student; I have some experience of automation but not all that much (one or two
machines, one of them as big as a bus). I usually work on it when I should be doing my thesis instead :)

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]>
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jiribvisit the MAT LinuxPLC project at http://mat.sf.net
 
M

Michael Griffin

You have to get people to pay you for something, but not necessarily for a product. The current business fad is for services rather than
products. Stock analysts are promoting "services" companies as being better investments than ones who merely make things.

Many (if not most) of the computer software and hardware companies have said that they see a better future in providing services rather than just selling hardware or software packages. IBM began this process some years ago, but many other companies have announced similar plans.
Dot Net is part of Microsoft's attempt to join this trend. Their long term plan involves trying to get more revenue from services (or
subscriptions), and less from simple sales. They have an additional spur to action because they are facing market saturation with their current products (Windows and Office). Their current business model (and stock price) requires growth rates that can't be sustained by straight forward sales of these products.

In a practical sense, suppose you are providing a complete turnkey system (e.g. plant integration into an MES). The less money you have to pay out in license fees to other companies, the more which ends up in your own pocket. The business model which Linux and other similar software fits into is as an incidental tool used by people who are providing a service. The
operating system shouldn't be the centre piece of the system, the application is what actually provides the value to the customer.

This model also fits situations where proprietary software is packaged together with open source software. For example, if National
Instruments packaged Labview together with Linux, they would have a higher value product without any additional cost. If they took responsibility for both parts, they could even call this packaging a "service" if they really wanted to please the stock analysts. This by the way would give you a complete solution from a single source (another popular notion), something which is impossible with Windows.

The computing industry seems to be going through the early stages of one of its periodic sets of convulsions in which the entire industry gets turned upside down. In each of the previous such industry changes, the new market leaders which emerged were companies who either didn't exist in the previous phase, or who had existed in a different (and smaller) form. The previous market leaders either went broke or into irreversible decline. There is no reaon why the current set of market changes would be any
different in this respect from the previous ones.



**********************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
**********************
 
C
Hi Micheal,

I'm not too sure where the conflict is. Unless you modify or derive your application from existing GPL'd code, there's no reason that it
can't be licensed entirely at your discretion. Simply building an application on a GPL'd OS with GPL'd tools is allowed to be closed. And on XXXBSD everything but the kernel itself is likely to be the very same stuff. I'm confused. I am interested, for obvious reasons on where you find conflicts.

Regards

cww

 
Michael wrote:
> In a practical sense, suppose you are providing a complete turnkey system
> (e.g. plant integration into an MES). The less money you have to pay out
> in license fees to other companies, the more which ends up in your own
> pocket.

As a side note, even if the whole project were GPL, there'd still be a need for someone to know what they're doing, what "plant" and "integration" and "MES" mean and how to put it all together.

> This model also fits situations where proprietary software is packaged
> together with open source software.

That's probably the route most integrators will take at this stage - package their proprietary custom code together with linux and other open
source software to provide a complete solution.


Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]>
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jiribvisit the MAT LinuxPLC project at http://mat.sf.net
 
R

Ranjan Acharya

Jeff Dean wrote:

>The theory of a vast Microsoft conspiracy is as ludicrous as the vast right-wing conspiracy. You may as well be saying that GE thrust it's own
conspiracy on us by wanting "light bulbs everywhere" or GM has cooked it's own back-room plots to put a "car in every garage." (or minivan)
<

From what I have read there may have been a conspiracy between Firestone and General Motors (in the United States at least) in the early 1900s to "elect" local councillors in key cities who were motor-car friendly rather than tram-car or street-car friendly.


 
M
From what I've read on Edison, that was one of his goals. Lighting (which in itself was profitable) is what created the demand for his generators.

Mark Blunier
Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the company.
 
Top