From Techrights

Revision as of 18:58, 22 January 2009 by (Talk)
Jump to: navigation, search


billg on how to cause a Java schism ..

From: Bill Gates Sent: Monday, June 16, 1997 3:38 AM To: Paul Maritz Cc: Arron Contorer; Natham Myhrvold; John Lufwig; Paul Gross; Ben Slivka Subject: Java schism

A point that is important to me is to have PURE JAVA applications that do a lot HAVE to ship a full runtime instead of being able to count on the run time being shipped with the operating system. This will make more complex in some ways that a Windows application that uses our native APIs. It will make the installation and version management harder.

Since we do want to run JAVA applets in the browser we have to provide some JAVA support there. It may be that some of the JAVA runtime should ONLY be available through the browser - like AWT versus our equivalent. I think restricting things to the browser is an important idea that should be explored.

billg: an ISV that writes to COR is just fucked ..

From: John Ludwig Sent: Thurdsay, August 21, 1997 9:03 AM To: Don Bradford Subject: conversations with billg last nite


I was at the exec staff meeting last nite and there were 3 interesting exchanges with bill and the whole group about apple

1. bill's toop priority is for us to get the browser in october os release from apple. we should do whatever it takes to make this happen. if we get shut out, we should escalate to bill. you should make sure that we are engaging deeply with apple on this one and resolving any and all issues.

2. on the java work bill says the ball is in our court to come up with a win/win solution. he suspects that we should be cooperating only at the lowest level - native code interfaces, jits, etcx, not at the class lib level. bill was clear that his whole goal here is to keep apple and sun split. he doesn't care that much about being aligned with apple. he just wants tham split from other potential allies.

3. on xplatform class libs, we had an interesting and at times entertaining discussion. bill first asserted that we should be taking the entire COR infrastructure to all platforms. bobmu and i educated him about the expense of doing so - bobmu was pretty clear that there is no plan to take COR anywhere but windows. bill was initially shocked at this - he even said "so an isv that writes to COR is just fucked" this had us all roling on the floor at the irony here - bobmu said "we prefer to say taking full advantage of our platform bill" bill realized what he had said and agreed that most of COR should not be ported everywhere. ther was no clear conclusion to this discussion but overall i think ther was a sense that most of the work would be windows-centric and that we would not be working in general to take it all xplatform. the exception might be some limited dcom pieces for large vertical isvs who need unix solutions too.

Personal tools
Search entire domain