Poll highlights: Voter response hits all time high

We know we’ve struck a chord with developers when more than a few poll comments exceed a “G” rating. (Perhaps our polls should incorporate a ratings system?) The interesting thing is that the majority of the off-color remarks we received came from the smallest voting segment — those who protest the legal motion filed by Sun in early May. While a number of these voters did have interesting and worthwhile commentary — printed below — their voices were drowned out by those who expressed their opinions in expletives. And, if subsequent voter commentary is any indication, this tactic made it easy for many pollsters to marginalize and ignore an otherwise valid position. So keep it clean out there (if you want to be taken seriously by your peers in the Java community, that is)!

Not to worry though, the majority of the 3070 voters (that’s a record by the way!) — both pro and not-so-pro — thoughtfully expressed themselves on the topic and provided us with interesting and unique insight.

Clarification: One reader expressed dismay with our poll, stating that he was able to cast multiple votes, making the results meaningless. Well, never fear: while multiple comments can be entered, duplicate votes from a particular IP address are tallied only once in the final results.

Here’s a look at the actual voter break down:

• 70% said they support the action completely
• 18% said they support the action, but believe Sun should focus more on enhancing its VM and less on legal matters
• 10% said they protest the action
• 1% were unsure, or didn’t have a strong opinion

Sun, we’re sure, would be quite happy to see that 88% of respondents (that’s 2,666 votes) understand and support its decision to use the courts in its efforts to keep Java pure — in all implementations. Here’s a sampling of reader comments. To see more, head to our archive of past polls. (And, of course, don’t forget to voice your opinion in our latest poll.)

I support the action completely (70%):

If legal precedence isn’t set now, similar occurrences will continue to plague the advancement of such technologies. It’s a shame it came to this. However, like a big baby, Microsoft is trying to test its limits and will continue to until someone takes the “parental” responsibility to say no.

I think Microsoft puts out some good products, and many good-enough products. I consider myself a Microsoft supporter. However, as a developer I want to be able to use all of the Java capabilities not just the parts that Microsoft wants to support. I support Microsoft’s value added features, but not to the detriment of “standard” Java features.

The whole point of Java is platform independence. Letting Microsoft muddy the waters means continued dependence on Microsoft and its operating systems. I am writing Java code right now for three flavors of Unix, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows NT, and Mac. I must have a single standard to work from, not many, as Microsoft would have it. Microsoft is a Sun licensee. It signed a contract. Why shouldn’t Sun seek legal remedy?

Microsoft’s implementation of the JVM is not compatible with Sun’s, according to the only yardstick that matters. If Microsoft is allowed to ship a non-compatible JVM with the most popular OS of all time, Java’s primary advantage, WORA, is nullified. Sun cannot allow this to happen. I fully support Sun’s action. There is plenty of room for Microsoft to compete with Sun on implementation issues.

Microsoft’s strategy is so transparent. First, it tries to discount the platform. Second, it tries to fragment the language and its intents. Last, it tries to use its monopoly and financial legal power to steamroll anybody that disagrees. Typical Microsoft. Let us not forget what monopolies produce — stifled markets, second-rate products, and a lack of innovation. It’s such a shame so many people are media victims of Microsoft’s sophisticated PR.

I support the action, but believe Sun should focus more on enhancing its own VM and less on legal matters (18%):

Sun should invest more money in development of better products, however, Microsoft has to be consistently pounded to keep it in check and to encourage public awareness.

I support Sun’s action on the matter of legal wrangling, but nothing is more aggravating than listening to a bunch of whiners. Sun should just let its legal department take care of the matter and focus on bettering Java and its JVM.

JDK 1.2 Beta 3 is the slowest, most useless piece of software (including Windows 3.1) I have ever run. And I love Java! Wake up Sun!

Standardization is critical for Java, agreed. However, given that Java as a standard will be evolving for some time and that there is an underlying hostility between Sun and Microsoft, the legal situation seems drastic and could be seen as based on company hate rather than striving for “pure” Java.

As a person with some background on IP (intellectual property) law, I agree that what MS has done is beyond the “normal” given standards of a corporation. But as a Java developer I also feel that certain aspects of Sun’s VM need further upgrading and MS started in the right direction. It would behoove both companies to work together in its development. This would relieve the current monopoly on the Java VM by Sun Microsystems and also provide greater ideals for the Java VM.

I protest the action (10%):

In general, Microsoft should provide extensions to Java, not eliminate parts it doesn’t like. But Microsoft should be free to ship whatever level of product it wishes. If Sun believes its own hype, the market will decide whether to use the Microsoft version of Java or some other version — and that other version may or may not be fully compatible with Sun’s (secret) compatibility requirements. Let us not forget that the other half of Microsoft’s legal troubles deal with the company forcing its products on other companies. We’re (justifiably) not letting Microsoft do this. Shouldn’t we be doing the same to Sun?

Sun and its lobbyists seem infatuated with the concept of a government controlled software monopoly/dictatorship, where developers are compelled by law to use a particular JVM, and Sun gets mega license fees for platform-tuned runtimes. One of the great tenets of totalitarian dictatorships is “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.” The big lie, in this case, is that Microsoft’s VM is incompatible. Sun keeps repeating this, thinking, that if it just says it enough, it (and others) will start believing its own crap. C’mon — Microsoft’s is the most compatible VM out there for pure Java. Just because the VM supports other APIs besides Java doesn’t mean it doesn’t support Java. It’s a great idea to have a general-purpose VM that doesn’t limit itself to pure Java, in my view. Also, Microsoft, has been totally up front in saying that WFC is not cross-platform. Sun is the company that practices reality distortion. It has yet to explain cross-platform JNI (a cross-platform native interface?).

Microsoft owns the desktop — both at home and at work. For the sake of the computing industry and computing users, Sun needs to find its niche and let the industry move forward. I do believe that Microsoft should bring its implementation into compliance with stated Java industry standards, but that does not necessarily mean Sun’s standards. Sun set the initial direction and focused the industry on the benefits of Java.

Although I personally detest Microsoft software and anything remotely Microsoft, I strongly believe that the courts do not have the right to force Microsoft to implement a competitor’s software. At best, remove the software in question and allow the costumer to choose. Sun should look to its own devices to promote its software.

I think Sun’s legal efforts will hurt the company more than anyone else. Sun desperately needs to send an unambiguous message to developers that it will be competitive from a performance standpoint in the runtime space. Hedging this message with a legal request for injunction (where one option is that a competitor remove its product from the market) sends a mixed message to programmers.

Don’t know/No opinion (1%):

I chose “Don’t know” because I want two things: for cross-platform work, I want to be able to use the latest version of pure Java and JFC without fear that it won’t run on Microsoft’s VM. For pure Win32 development, I want to be able to use native compilation, delegates, WFC, and any other Win32-specific optimizations Microsoft may come up with to eliminate any lingering advantages that C++ has over Java as a Win32 app development language. If the suit forces Microsoft to abandon its efforts at making Java better than C++ for Win32 app development, it will force me back to C++, not back to pure Java, and I’ll be pretty angry about it. In that event, I would support Microsoft in going forward with a new language, “J++”, optimized for native compilation, in which it was free to do whatever benefited Win32 developers the most.

I think Sun should have control of the compatibility of Java VM implementations and force Microsoft to bring its implementation into compliance. However I don’t believe Sun has the right to force Microsoft to include any of Sun’s products in Windows 98.

Rather than suing Microsoft, create a better browser and/or a JVM and you can beat Microsoft. Consumers want the best product and they’re willing to pay more for it. But if they can get a good product for free, why should they buy another one?