8 ms·

I think he is saying that Oracle caused a lot of headaches for Apple in the past so Apple is returning the favor by trying to force them to support Java on thei

I think he is saying that Oracle caused a lot of headaches for Apple in the past so Apple is returning the favor by trying to force them to support Java on their platform.Who knows how this will play out, but it will be interesting since many Java developers use Macs.

jimwise 16y ago
Yeah. Another way to look at this is that traditionally Java ports fell into two categories: a.) The platform was important enough that Sun would lose credibility if there wasn't a good JVM available (Windows, Linux), so Sun (now Oracle) did the port. b.) The platform was minor enough that the platform would lose credibility if there wasn't a good JVM available (MacOS, AIX, HP-UX), so the platform vendor did the port. I see this as Apple indicating that with recent growth in market share and cachet, they've now moved from category b.) to category a.).
- vetinari 16y ago
  The a) category is not so clear-cut. Originally, it was up to OS vendors to support Java port, period. So Sun did it for Solaris, MS did it for Windows and nobody did it for Linux. Then MS tried to hijack Java and Blackdown did the Linux port. The current status is result of what happened in the past, not some master plan to support only tier A platforms.
  - jonhendry 16y ago
    I'm pretty sure Sun handled the Windows Java port, not Microsoft. Java was available on Windows pretty early on, and I can't see Microsoft rushing to make that happen.
    - acqq 16y ago
      > Java was available on Windows pretty early on, and I can't see Microsoft rushing to make that happen. You're wrong. Microsoft did their own Java VM implementation, got sued by Sun as early as in 1997 and had to stop distributing it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine
      - jonhendry 16y ago
        Microsoft's wasn't first. I assure you. The Sun JDK VM was first. After Microsoft licensed it, and had Sun's code, it wouldn't have taken terribly long to make their changes and put out J++. Wikipedia isn't good on this, because they don't have the relevant release dates. A Usenet post from December of 1995 says: " I been using the JDK 1.0 Beta 1.0 with Netscape 2.03 on Windows 95 for about 3 weeks now. I just upgrade to the JDK 1.0 Beta 2 and guess what I can not run any local applets. "
        acqq 16y ago
        They weren't first to implement it, but they were the ones who made it a part of their browser and their OS very, very fast ("support Java for the platform" was the start of this thread). Sun's Java 1.0 was shipped on January 23, 1996, and Microsoft was sued in October 1997. There was indeed "a rush" by Microsoft. Note that I referred to your "I can't see Microsoft rushing to make that happen" so I apologize if missed that you wanted to discuss only "the initial implementation." Note that you replied to the parent which wrote "it was up to OS vendors to support Java port, period. So Sun did it for Solaris, MS did it for Windows and nobody did it for Linux." Note "support" not "initial implementation." MS really did and wanted to do it for Windows and rushed to it. Of course, it was not in the form that Sun liked.
        jonhendry 16y ago
        Microsoft wouldn't have bothered if Sun hadn't done the Windows jdk and jvm in the first place. If there were no Java on Windows, it wouldn't be perceived as a threat that needed to be co-opted. Nor would there have been as much hype about Java if it hadn't been on Windows. Before Java 1.0 shipped in early 1996 (for Windows and Solaris), there were a number of publicly available betas on Windows, which is how the hype was generated. Also, my recollection is that it was never the case that Microsoft's was the only JVM on Windows, or that Sun stopped work on their Windows JVM. The two coexisted. There was no point at which Microsoft was the only source of a JVM on Windows.
    - brudgers 16y ago
      "In the beginning, Microsoft provided Java for Windows - but Sun took over when Microsoft violated their contract and made Java code written on Windows unable to run on other systems."
      - jonhendry 16y ago
        No, really, Sun had their own JDK on Windows first. Microsoft's came later.
        brudgers 16y ago
        I simply quoted Gosling from the article. I guess he's uniformed.
        jonhendry 16y ago
        I think he was glossing over the details because it's just a blog post.
- gaius 16y ago
  AIX and HP-UX are very much not minor platforms in this space. 1) direct competitors to Solaris (and Sun back in the day) and 2) there's a hell of a lot of Oracle running on AIX and HP-UX (even more so in the early days of Java).
slantyyz 16y ago
I thought Oracle and Apple were on good terms?

jimwise 16y ago

Yeah. Another way to look at this is that traditionally Java ports fell into two categories: a.) The platform was important enough that Sun would lose credibility if there wasn't a good JVM available (Windows, Linux), so Sun (now Oracle) did the port. b.) The platform was minor enough that the platform would lose credibility if there wasn't a good JVM available (MacOS, AIX, HP-UX), so the platform vendor did the port. I see this as Apple indicating that with recent growth in market share and cachet, they've now moved from category b.) to category a.).

vetinari 16y ago
The a) category is not so clear-cut. Originally, it was up to OS vendors to support Java port, period. So Sun did it for Solaris, MS did it for Windows and nobody did it for Linux. Then MS tried to hijack Java and Blackdown did the Linux port. The current status is result of what happened in the past, not some master plan to support only tier A platforms.
- jonhendry 16y ago
  I'm pretty sure Sun handled the Windows Java port, not Microsoft. Java was available on Windows pretty early on, and I can't see Microsoft rushing to make that happen.
  - acqq 16y ago
    > Java was available on Windows pretty early on, and I can't see Microsoft rushing to make that happen. You're wrong. Microsoft did their own Java VM implementation, got sued by Sun as early as in 1997 and had to stop distributing it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine
    - jonhendry 16y ago
      Microsoft's wasn't first. I assure you. The Sun JDK VM was first. After Microsoft licensed it, and had Sun's code, it wouldn't have taken terribly long to make their changes and put out J++. Wikipedia isn't good on this, because they don't have the relevant release dates. A Usenet post from December of 1995 says: " I been using the JDK 1.0 Beta 1.0 with Netscape 2.03 on Windows 95 for about 3 weeks now. I just upgrade to the JDK 1.0 Beta 2 and guess what I can not run any local applets. "
      - acqq 16y ago
        They weren't first to implement it, but they were the ones who made it a part of their browser and their OS very, very fast ("support Java for the platform" was the start of this thread). Sun's Java 1.0 was shipped on January 23, 1996, and Microsoft was sued in October 1997. There was indeed "a rush" by Microsoft. Note that I referred to your "I can't see Microsoft rushing to make that happen" so I apologize if missed that you wanted to discuss only "the initial implementation." Note that you replied to the parent which wrote "it was up to OS vendors to support Java port, period. So Sun did it for Solaris, MS did it for Windows and nobody did it for Linux." Note "support" not "initial implementation." MS really did and wanted to do it for Windows and rushed to it. Of course, it was not in the form that Sun liked.
        jonhendry 16y ago
        Microsoft wouldn't have bothered if Sun hadn't done the Windows jdk and jvm in the first place. If there were no Java on Windows, it wouldn't be perceived as a threat that needed to be co-opted. Nor would there have been as much hype about Java if it hadn't been on Windows. Before Java 1.0 shipped in early 1996 (for Windows and Solaris), there were a number of publicly available betas on Windows, which is how the hype was generated. Also, my recollection is that it was never the case that Microsoft's was the only JVM on Windows, or that Sun stopped work on their Windows JVM. The two coexisted. There was no point at which Microsoft was the only source of a JVM on Windows.
  - brudgers 16y ago
    "In the beginning, Microsoft provided Java for Windows - but Sun took over when Microsoft violated their contract and made Java code written on Windows unable to run on other systems."
    - jonhendry 16y ago
      No, really, Sun had their own JDK on Windows first. Microsoft's came later.
      - brudgers 16y ago
        I simply quoted Gosling from the article. I guess he's uniformed.
        jonhendry 16y ago
        I think he was glossing over the details because it's just a blog post.
gaius 16y ago
AIX and HP-UX are very much not minor platforms in this space. 1) direct competitors to Solaris (and Sun back in the day) and 2) there's a hell of a lot of Oracle running on AIX and HP-UX (even more so in the early days of Java).

slantyyz 16y ago

I thought Oracle and Apple were on good terms?