× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: RE: no Java in XP Windows
  • From: "jt" <jt@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:20:49 -0400
  • Importance: Normal

One tiny correction to my post below, and then I GOTTA get some work done
for a paying client...;)

Where I said "good marketing" I should have said "better marketing".  The
iSeries is being marketed fairly well... but I wouldn't think there'd be any
question it can be marketed much better by the iNation than it can be by
IBM.  IMHO...:)



-----Original Message-----
From: jt [mailto:jt@ee.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 11:37 AM
To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Subject: RE: no Java in XP Windows


Chris,

What you say is true.

I emphasized the point it was an intellectual monopoly because IMHO it can
only be remedied partially through any court decision.  The best remedy
being good marketing of a superior product.

Jt

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com
[mailto:owner-midrange-l@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Chris Rehm
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 11:06 AM
To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Subject: Re: no Java in XP Windows




----- Original Message -----
From: "jt" <jt@ee.net>
To: <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 7:41 AM
Subject: RE: no Java in XP Windows


> Java and Open Source exist primarily as a reaction against the MicroSoft
> monopoly (which is an intellectual monopoly, whether or not it's a legal
> one).

Just to comment, the appeals court held that Microsoft was an _illegal_
monopoly. In other words, that they had used their monopoly powers illegally
to maintain their control on the marketplace.

What the appeals court did was to say that the remedy for this illegal
monopoly would have to be reconsidered and that they would not enforce the
order by Judge Jackson that Microsoft be split up. However, the penalty
consideration was sent back to the lower court and could again order break
up. They did this because they felt that the Judge's statements about
Microsoft gave the appearance of a bias against them.

Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net
If you believe that the best technology wins the
marketplace, you haven't been paying attention.


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
david@midrange.com
+---

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.