Java in Windows 2K Pro ?

[status]

I was reading thru my EULA for Windows 2000 Pro and came across the
following snippet:

<SNIP>
12. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT. THE PRODUCT MAY
CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN
IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT
TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED,
MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR
RESALE AS ONLINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN
HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL
-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE
OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES,
AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION
SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT
LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS
SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF JAVA
TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO
DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE
PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. Sun
Microsystems, Inc. has contractually obligated Microsoft
to make this disclaimer.
<SNIP>

I especially like that last line about Personal Injury or Death but I
wonder if Microsoft is just as obligated to make statements about its
own products?

 

[Andrew Thompson]

I was reading thru my EULA for Windows 2000 Pro and came across the
following snippet:

<SNIP>
12. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT.
..IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE.. ....
(snip a load of stuff) ..OR WEAPONS
SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF JAVA
TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO
DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE
PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. Sun
Microsystems, Inc. has contractually obligated Microsoft
to make this disclaimer.
<SNIP>

This made me wonder about Sun's liability for
the _successful_ WEAPONS SYSTEMS that
are based on it.

But then, wait.. Running a weapons system written in
Java from within Win2K Pro, ..successfully?

They're probably pretty safe. ;-)

 

[Stan Goodman]

I was reading thru my EULA for Windows 2000 Pro and came across the
following snippet:

<SNIP>
12. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT. THE PRODUCT MAY
CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN
IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT
TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED,
MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR
RESALE AS ONLINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN
HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL
-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE
OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES,
AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION
SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT
LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS
SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF JAVA
TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO
DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE
PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. Sun
Microsystems, Inc. has contractually obligated Microsoft
to make this disclaimer.
<SNIP>

I especially like that last line about Personal Injury or Death but I
wonder if Microsoft is just as obligated to make statements about its
own products?

Why do I suspect that the disclaimer is not exactly what Sun
Microsystems had in mind, but contains "Microsoft Enhancements"?


--
Stan Goodman, Qiryat Tiv'on, Israel

Please replace "SPAM-FOILER" with "sgoodman".

200 years of European fecklessness in the face of Arab terror: Tripoli
Pirates (1814); OPEC Oil (1973); Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat
(1990 et seq.) -- but actually financing it, and marching in support
of tyranny, are 21st-century craven European wrinkles.

 

[Stan Goodman]

I was reading thru my EULA for Windows 2000 Pro and came across the
following snippet:

<SNIP>
12. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT. THE PRODUCT MAY
CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN
IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT
TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED,
MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR
RESALE AS ONLINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN

[...]

This sounds like the disclaimer that Sun had on the early Java
versions. Later they removed some of the restrictions.

PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. Sun
Microsystems, Inc. has contractually obligated Microsoft
to make this disclaimer.

And Microsoft did sign the contract. And now they act surprised about
what they signed?

That's not the way I read it. I am pretty sure they are delighted to
have an excuse, no matter how dated or exaggerated, to denigrate Java,
which Big Bill has characterized as a threat to Microsoft (and its
effective monopoly). If they can cite, for example, a warning that was
appropriate for an alfa or beta version of Java -- without troubling
to mention that Java has achieved since then a far higher degree of
maturity and reliability -- that can only scare the average Windows
mouton away from Java, and cut off any potential pressure to include
modern Java releases in future WinXX releases.

Bill dropped out of Harvard *before* the compulsory ethics course.

--
Stan Goodman, Qiryat Tiv'on, Israel

Please replace "SPAM-FOILER" with "sgoodman".

200 years of European fecklessness in the face of Arab terror: Tripoli
Pirates (1814); OPEC Oil (1973); Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat
(1990 et seq.) -- but actually financing it, and marching in support
of tyranny, are 21st-century craven European wrinkles.

 

[Grant Wagner]

I was reading thru my EULA for Windows 2000 Pro and came across the
following snippet:

<SNIP>
12. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT. THE PRODUCT MAY
CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN
IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT
TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED,
MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR
RESALE AS ONLINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN

[...]

This sounds like the disclaimer that Sun had on the early Java
versions. Later they removed some of the restrictions.

PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. Sun
Microsystems, Inc. has contractually obligated Microsoft
to make this disclaimer.

And Microsoft did sign the contract. And now they act surprised about
what they signed?

That's not the way I read it. I am pretty sure they are delighted to
have an excuse, no matter how dated or exaggerated, to denigrate Java,...

And that's not how I read it.

I read it as "Sun Microsystems, Inc. has contractually obligated Microsoft
to make this disclaimer."

That is, Microsoft signed a contract with Sun Microsystems and is honoring
their contract. As for "excuses" about Java, I think Sun has the market on
that cornered:

<url: http://java.sun.com/webapps/download/Display?BundleId=8578 />

"LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. TO THE EXTENT NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW, IN NO EVENT
WILL SUN OR ITS LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOST REVENUE, PROFIT OR DATA,
OR FOR SPECIAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES,
HOWEVER CAUSED REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF OR
RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE SOFTWARE, EVEN IF SUN HAS BEEN
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. In no event will Sun's
liability to you, whether in contract, tort (including negligence), or
otherwise, exceed the amount paid by you for Software under this
Agreement. The foregoing limitations will apply even if the above stated
warranty fails of its essential purpose. Some states do not allow the
exclusion of incidental or consequential damages, so some of the terms
above may not be applicable to you."

So, you could spend 4 hours downloading the Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment,
Standard Edition 1.4.2 over a slow modem connection, it could format your
hard drive during setup, and Sun wouldn't even owe you that 4 hours of your
life back.

(yes, I know all software vendors state these sorts of things in their
license agreements, which was, and is, the point, lots of companies do lots
of things for legal reasons and to get themselves off the hook in the event
of a problem, reading something special into Microsoft's /contractually
obligated/ disclaimer is just silly)

 

[Stan Goodman]

(e-mail address removed) ([email protected]) writes:
I was reading thru my EULA for Windows 2000 Pro and came across the
following snippet:

<SNIP>
12. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT. THE PRODUCT MAY
CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN
IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT
TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED,
MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR
RESALE AS ONLINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN
[...]

This sounds like the disclaimer that Sun had on the early Java
versions. Later they removed some of the restrictions.

PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. Sun
Microsystems, Inc. has contractually obligated Microsoft
to make this disclaimer.

And Microsoft did sign the contract. And now they act surprised about
what they signed?

That's not the way I read it. I am pretty sure they are delighted to
have an excuse, no matter how dated or exaggerated, to denigrate Java,...

And that's not how I read it.

I read it as "Sun Microsystems, Inc. has contractually obligated Microsoft
to make this disclaimer."

That is, Microsoft signed a contract with Sun Microsystems and is honoring
their contract. As for "excuses" about Java, I think Sun has the market on
that cornered:

<url: http://java.sun.com/webapps/download/Display?BundleId=8578 />

"LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. TO THE EXTENT NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW, IN NO EVENT
WILL SUN OR ITS LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOST REVENUE, PROFIT OR DATA,
OR FOR SPECIAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES,
HOWEVER CAUSED REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF OR
RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE SOFTWARE, EVEN IF SUN HAS BEEN
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. In no event will Sun's
liability to you, whether in contract, tort (including negligence), or
otherwise, exceed the amount paid by you for Software under this
Agreement. The foregoing limitations will apply even if the above stated
warranty fails of its essential purpose. Some states do not allow the
exclusion of incidental or consequential damages, so some of the terms
above may not be applicable to you."

So, you could spend 4 hours downloading the Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment,
Standard Edition 1.4.2 over a slow modem connection, it could format your
hard drive during setup, and Sun wouldn't even owe you that 4 hours of your
life back.

It could? Gee!!

One of Microsoft's canards in its campaign to discredit Java is
precisely that it is a security risk as you say. The fact, however, is
that Java doesn't have access to the physical resources of your
computer unless you grant it the privilege. Any Microsoft software,
including the most ubiquitous, is a far greater risk. Just for
example, viruses are spread whjolesale by Microsoft mail clients, not
by Java applications.

(yes, I know all software vendors state these sorts of things in their
license agreements, which was, and is, the point, lots of companies do lots
of things for legal reasons and to get themselves off the hook in the event
of a problem, reading something special into Microsoft's /contractually
obligated/ disclaimer is just silly)

What I asked was: Is this contractual obligation a current one, or is
it something that Microsoft is still bandying about for its own
nefarious purposes, long after the primitive Java release to which it
applied receded into history.

It is a fact that Microsoft regards Java, expecially because of its
cross-platform nature, as a danger to the MS virtual monopoly. Why be
surprised by its emphasizing Java's alledged dangers?



--
Stan Goodman, Qiryat Tiv'on, Israel

Please replace "SPAM-FOILER" with "sgoodman".

200 years of European fecklessness in the face of Arab terror: Tripoli
Pirates (1814); OPEC Oil (1973); Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat
(1990 et seq.) -- but actually financing it, and marching in support
of tyranny, are 21st-century craven European wrinkles.

 

[status]

I doubt it but I wonder what the other Windows 9x thru XP licenses express?

 

[Grant Wagner]

What I asked was: Is this contractual obligation a current one, or is
it something that Microsoft is still bandying about for its own
nefarious purposes, long after the primitive Java release to which it
applied receded into history.

It's a contractual obligation. If the contract is still in force, then they are
obligated to display it. If the contract is no longer in force, then Sun should
be notified and they can take appropriate steps to have Microsoft modify the
wording to suit the current contract.

It is a fact that Microsoft regards Java, expecially because of its
cross-platform nature, as a danger to the MS virtual monopoly. Why be
surprised by its emphasizing Java's alledged dangers?

I have no doubt that Microsoft would and does emphasize any potential
short-coming with Java. That still does not change the fact that they are
displaying a disclaimer Sun require/requires them to display.

When Microsoft violates the contract it signed with Sun, Java advocates complain.
When Microsoft honors the contract it signed with Sun, Java advocates complain.
Java advocates complain about the incompatibility of Microsoft's JVM, but when
Microsoft announces they will remove their incompatible JVM and customers will be
required to find alternatives (such as downloading Sun's JRE) Java advocates
complain. I would guess if Microsoft's agreement with Sun allowed them to
continue to provide fixes for their JVM indefinitely, and they continued to
include it in their products, Java advocates would complain.

After a while, it ends up as the same white noise and people tune out. Fight the
fights that are worth fighting.

A lawsuit found that Microsoft violated their contract with Sun and steps were
taken to provide Sun with a remedy. Now you suggest that Microsoft should violate
the contract again. If Sun wanted the disclaimer removed, they should have made
it part of the previous lawsuit.

 

[Stan Goodman]

What I asked was: Is this contractual obligation a current one, or is
it something that Microsoft is still bandying about for its own
nefarious purposes, long after the primitive Java release to which it
applied receded into history.

It's a contractual obligation. If the contract is still in force, then they are
obligated to display it. If the contract is no longer in force, then Sun should
be notified and they can take appropriate steps to have Microsoft modify the
wording to suit the current contract.

It is a fact that Microsoft regards Java, expecially because of its
cross-platform nature, as a danger to the MS virtual monopoly. Why be
surprised by its emphasizing Java's alledged dangers?

I have no doubt that Microsoft would and does emphasize any potential
short-coming with Java. That still does not change the fact that they are
displaying a disclaimer Sun require/requires them to display.]

No. No other Java distribution carries this warning, only that from
Microsoft. That should be enough clue, even for a Microsoft shill,
what the warning actiually is.

When Microsoft violates the contract it signed with Sun, Java advocates complain.
When Microsoft honors the contract it signed with Sun, Java advocates complain.
Java advocates complain about the incompatibility of Microsoft's JVM, but when
Microsoft announces they will remove their incompatible JVM and customers will be
required to find alternatives (such as downloading Sun's JRE) Java advocates
complain. I would guess if Microsoft's agreement with Sun allowed them to
continue to provide fixes for their JVM indefinitely, and they continued to
include it in their products, Java advocates would complain.

After a while, it ends up as the same white noise and people tune out. Fight the
fights that are worth fighting.

A lawsuit found that Microsoft violated their contract with Sun and steps were
taken to provide Sun with a remedy. Now you suggest that Microsoft should violate
the contract again. If Sun wanted the disclaimer removed, they should have made
it part of the previous lawsuit.

No, I am suggesting that the warning, to the extent that it is based
on anything at all, is a remnant, something like the appendix in your
belly, from a time gone by.


--
Stan Goodman, Qiryat Tiv'on, Israel

Please replace "SPAM-FOILER" with "sgoodman".

200 years of European fecklessness in the face of Arab terror: Tripoli
Pirates (1814); OPEC Oil (1973); Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat
(1990 et seq.) -- but actually financing it, and marching in support
of tyranny, are 21st-century craven European wrinkles.