Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
Best Office Suite
Microsoft Office XP 42%
StarOffice 6.0 28%
gobeProductive 3.0 0%
Lotus SmartSuite Millennium Edition 0%
602Pro PC Suite Plus 2001 0%
ThinkFree Office 2.0 0%
WordPerfect Office 2002 28%

Votes: 7

 Sun's Ulterior Motives

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Mar 27, 2002
 Comments:
Recently, Sun has received much press regarding their self-acclaimed Office XP clone, StarOffice from reputable news sources, as well as the aforementioned Slashdot articles. Much has been said about their effort to overthrow the king of Office suites, mainly praise from the overly optimistic Open Sores movement. This praise is misplaced for several reasons, with the blunt of the blame directed solely at Sun themselves.
diaries

More diaries by Yoshi
AOL in Negotiations to Buy Red Hat
Major Linux Bug Discovered... 16 Months Later
My Chat With Tim Mathews
Who's Copying Whom?
Overview of Instant Messaging Applications
Cisco's SecurityThreat
This Has Gone Too Far

Open Sores advocates, led by Grand Wizard Richard M. Stallworth III,  actively purport their software's superiority simply because they distribute their "sauce codes" - the illegal underlying mechanisms forbidden under the DMCA. By basing their FTP servers in foreign countries, they are able to illegally transmit their sauce codes throughout the world using their "PGP" virus propagation services. Imperial Klansman Eric K. Richmond Jr. has come out on several occasions stating his intentions of purposefully violating the law for his own giddy pleasures - `bragging rights,' in the criminal and hacker world.

What this has to do with StarOffice may seem distant, but look no further than the horse's mouth - Sun itself. Sauce code distribution is catching on like hot pants on a Florida beach, and even semi-established companies see benefits in jumping on the bandwagon. Obviously, "Sun Microsystems Corporation" - a play on the world-renowned "Microsoft Systems Corporation" trademark, can not afford to simply break the law like so many of their racist GNU brethren. Thus, to get around the DMCA laws governing our great nation, Sun, taking a page from Stallworth and Richmond, exports their sauce code to an offshore corporation, not unlike failed energy giant Enron.

In creating their overseas organization, which they dub "OpenOffice" - a clear jab at the closed market in which they cannot illegally force their way into, Sun set up a labor factory in beautiful Barbados in the British Virgin Islands. This, for Sun, has several advantages. Because the population of Barbados is mainly black and poor, they ensure their membership in the "Liberty Alliance," a group of oppressing corporations who claim to support the Open Sores movement by employing bands of children, blacks, and others who wouldn't know any better. The origins of the "Liberty Alliance" are not known, but some companies have looked into joining, like IBM, and rejected the application form on the grounds of refusing to sign a "three-fifths clause," according to one high-level IBM employee.

Since Sun gained the resources needed to build their software, and the triangle of illegality to market it to the pirates, hackers, and elderly Wal-Mart shoppers, they are planning on releasing "version 6" of their Office clone. Version 6 in quotes, because there exists no version prior to 5.2, the product simply dashed into existence, much like Sun's other products, including Netscape "6.0" and "Java Apache."

Many critics have reviewed StarOffice since its 6.0 debut last week, and most of them drew the same conclusion. For an Office clone, it has a long way to go. Rudimentary spell checking has finally been added, but it still cannot open documents created using the industry standard Word 2002. The interface of StarOffice 6.0 leaves one to be desired, as well. The actual document editor is a solid contender, mainly because it utilizes Microsoft's OLE/DirectX technology to embed the Word 2002 control into its application, much in the same way that Neoplanet encapsulates the Internet Explorer DirectX control. Is it then legal for Sun to market an application which is merely a repackaged version of Microsoft's software? It is indeed, as Microsoft allowed the DirectX embedding in the first place. It's not the first time a company has tried to profit off of repackaging something Microsoft has done - Opera has done it for ages.

So why then, if it is simply a reimplementation of Word 2002, is it so much worse than Office XP? For that, you can thank a key component of Office XP often overlooked - Access 2002. Access 2002 is the bread and butter that unifies all of Office XP's interfaces together. It provides the MFC interpreter, which allows for Office XP's unparalleled interface unity across all of the Office suites. Word, Excel, FrontPage, whatever component you are in, you can be confident that you can interact with each one of them individually and as a whole due to the Access glue that Microsoft patented. All of the illegal emacs reverse-engineering in the world would not be enough for Sun to contrive such platform unity, as they are still stuck on their own 1994-generation technology, Java.

StarOffice, while relatively new to the field of word processing, still cannot take the cake when it comes to Microsoft Office XP. With all of the features that Sun managed to illegally clone under the cloak of racial labor in the sugar-cane pits of Barbados, StarOffice still manages to fall several magnitudes short of Office XP. Until Sun gets its act together and implements, at the very least, Personalized Menus, I am forced to urge anyone and everyone to stay clear of this blatant imposter.

       
Tweet

Oh my gosh! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 11:22:21 PM PST
This either has to be the greatest work of fiction or the best bullshit story I have ever read. I mean I really liked the part about how Netscape sudden;y appearing and being developed by Sun Microsystems none the less. I wonder you developed Netscape 4.7 then. My other favorite part was when you added to words to the company names like Microsoft Systems Corporation and Sun Microsystems Corporation even though it's really Microsoft Corporation and Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Keep up the good work. I mean people always need a good laugh.


Save the sarcasm (none / 0) (#8)
by Yoshi on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 06:39:00 AM PST
Listen, NAWL, you can disguise your blatant Lunix agenda behind your own lies, but it's not going to change the truth.

I wonder you developed Netscape 4.7 then.

I have never heard such a proposterous claim. Upon consulting with my webmaster colleagues, we have all drawn blank stares when mentioning this vaporware "Netscape 4.7" operation you speak of. If it's some sort of "I Love You" virus, I don't want to know of it. My Outlook 2002 is protected.

My other favorite part was when you added to words to the company names like Microsoft Systems Corporation and Sun Microsystems Corporation even though it's really Microsoft Corporation and Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Who died and appointed you chief of the US Patent and Trademark Office? It's clear if you do any bit of research, you will immediately find that Sun Microsystems Corporation was, at its conception in 1987, a company destined to create the "MS-DOS Killer" with its Java software. Microsoft Systems Corporation was only 12 years old at the time, and while only rising to the level of market dominance and superiority that they have today, refused to press charges against Sun's founder, Tony Joy, as he didn't perceive them as a threat. A prophecy, if you ask me, because Sun Microsystems Corporation never was, and never will be a competitor on the desktop arena, no matter how hard they try with illegal racial labor building up StarOffice technologies and cobbling together Access 2002-like Java codecs.


you are confused (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 09:23:06 AM PST
Sun Microsystems was founded in 1984. Why would they have been interested in making a and MSDOS killer? Microsoft was really as popular as it is today. Besides they were never competing with Microsoft on the desktop level. Think beyond Java (which is not simply some desktop thing).

Sun Microsystems was about Unix. And just because they develop an Office Suite does not mean they are competing solely for the desktop market. There are plenty of business applications in which people use Unix (or a unix variant). There is a an enitre world of computing beyond your little desktop running WindowsXP.

I went to the US Patent and Trademark Website and ran a little search. I suggest you do the same. There you will find the registrant for all Sun related technologies has been Sun Microsystems Inc.

Until you can actually provide some solid proof I seriously suggest, if you wish to be taken seriously, that you provide proof. You claim one thing while facts and history claim another. It shouldn't be the job of the reader to attempt to find this supposed information when it conflicts with every known fact. If actually want to be taken seriously as a journalist you must remember the rules of journalism. In other words provide proof. If you fail to do so you may as well write for the National Enquirer.


I don't believe it. (none / 0) (#16)
by Yoshi on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 09:41:02 AM PST
Congratulations, everything you said was wrong. Sun Microsystems Corporation was created in 1987 by Tony Joy with the intentions of convincing business execs to switch from Windows for Workgroups 3.11 to their own proprietary Sparc OS, written in Java.

Unlike what you think, Sun is only interested in the Windows/Office market. Why? There are more customers there. No one who uses Lunix has the intention of typing up documents - they're all about "hacking" and "TCP flooding" anyway. Anyone who would wish to use their computer as a tool for document management has Windows anyway. Sorry to break it to you, son.

I don't know about you, but my proof is in the pudding. 400 million computer users and still going strong, compared to your 0.24% of the market. My proof is twofold, yours is nonexistent. Perhaps you should perform a reality check before you dispute the obvious, because your flagrant idiocy runs rampant in your posts.


more funny (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 11:42:57 AM PST
Congratulations, everything you said was wrong. Sun Microsystems Corporation was created in 1987 by Tony Joy with the intentions of convincing business execs to switch from Windows for Workgroups 3.11 to their own proprietary Sparc OS, written in Java. One more thing. Windows 3.11 for Workgroup wasn't released until November 1993.


Funny, the link you provided to the US Patent and Trademark Web site tells a different story. The company was founded in 1982 with the trademark being registered in 1984.

When Stanford M.B.A.'s Scott McNealy and Vinod Khlosa teamed up with Stanford student Andy Bechtolsheim, who had developed a new high performance computer using off-the-shelf components, it was natural for them to adopt UNIX, the popular university operating system, as the operating system for their new computer. And it was natural for them to bring in as a co-founder Bill Joy, the premiere UNIX and ARPAnet programmer at UC-Berkeley. I believe possibly you are think of Solaris (also known as SunOS). By the way it's not written in Java.
Unlike what you think, Sun is only interested in the Windows/Office market. Why? There are more customers there.
Why go after a market you don't compete in heavily? Sun does servers and workstations. People generally think MS is more popular in every aspect based on this magical 90% market share. I hate to inform you but that the desktop market share. Why don't you do a little research to found what the numbers are like for servers, embedded systems, and the like. Would it surprise you to learn that IE is only actually has a little more than 1/3 of the market? Sure it's on your computer but it doesn't mean you use it or it is set as the default broswer.
No one who uses Lunix has the intention of typing up documents - they're all about "hacking" and "TCP flooding" anyway. Anyone who would wish to use their computer as a tool for document management has Windows anyway. Sorry to break it to you, son.
More paranoid rantings I see. Besides, anyone looking to do truly exciting work/play on a desktop buys a Mac.
I don't know about you, but my proof is in the pudding. 400 million computer users and still going strong, compared to your 0.24% of the market. My proof is twofold, yours is nonexistent.
You're comparing the market share of Sun Microsystems products to that of the Linux market share? HAHA! Also I hate to dissapoint you put according to the Gartner Group (Microsoft's buddies) and IDC the current market share for Linux is 5% based solely on sales.
Perhaps you should perform a reality check before you dispute the obvious, because your flagrant idiocy runs rampant in your posts.
Perhaps that would make more since if you bothered to do some real research. Of course you limited knowledge of computing would make this rather difficult now wouldn't it? It's so hard for anyone to accept your comedy as truth when the facts speak so loudly.


 
O.I.C (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 12:16:37 AM PST
It's not the first time a company has tried to profit off of repackaging something Microsoft has done - Opera has done it for ages.

Yeah it's nothing like how Internet Explorer is based on Mosaic. However, it's strange as Opera's core and that in IE are rather different. Hell, the Opera UI doesn't even look similar to IE, even when run on Windows.
Mosaic was the first popular Web browser, and greatly helped spread use of the web across the world.

In 1992, Joseph Hardin and Dave Thompson worked at the NCSA (National Center for Supercomputer Applications), a research institute at the University of Illinois. When they heard about Tim Berners-Lee's work, they downloaded the ViolaWWW browser, and then demonstrated the web to NCSA's Software Design Group by connecting to the web server at CERN over the ARPANET. The group was impressed.

Two students from the group, Marc Andreessen and Eric Bina, began work on a version for X-Windows on Unix computers, and released the first version in February, 1993. Bina provided expert coding support. Andreessen provided unprecedented customer support, monitoring the newsgroups continuously to ensure that they knew about and could fix any bugs and make desired enhancements.

A version of Mosaic for the Macintosh was developed by Aleks Totic and released a few months later, making Mosaic the first browser with cross-platform support.

One of the NCSA's missions is to aid scientific research by producing noncommercial software, giving Hardin and Thompson a ready-made vehicle to set up a funded project to develop Mosaic as a free, publicly available browser, managed by Hardin, and with Andreessen as the software lead.

Mosaic built on Berners-Lee's server, and provided support for graphics, sound, and video clips. An early version introduced forms support, enabling many powerful new uses and applications. Innovations with use of bookmarks and history files were added. Mosaic quickly became the most popular web browser, helping accelerate the growth in web usage even more.

In August, 1994, NCSA assigned all commercial rights to Mosaic to Spyglass, Inc.. Spyglass subsequently licensed their technology to several other companies, including Microsoft for use in Internet Explorer.

The NCSA stopped developing Mosaic in January 1997, since Netscape and Microsoft began to bring large development teams to bear on development of their own browsers.



Ahh, Mosaic... (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 02:16:40 AM PST
What a piece of shit that was. IMHO, Internet Explorer is a work of art. All the progress and innovation in the browser market since then has been due to the hard work of Mr Gates and his loyal band of merry programmers.

It's very similar to the compiler market. Sure, Visual C++ Studio may have been based on gcc, but just try and compare the two. I think it's clear that this is another area of the software market that has been saved from a pathetic lack of innovation.


Innovations.... (none / 0) (#4)
by budlite on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 03:34:54 AM PST
They're not really that innovative. Why is it that I have an absolute minimal installation of Internet Explorer? Because I don't want all the useless crap MS seem intent on bundling with most of the their products.

Oh, by the way, It's simply Visual C++. It's a part of the Visual Studio suite. The problem is, it's not very visual.


Naivety. (none / 0) (#7)
by Yoshi on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 06:28:42 AM PST
Because I don't want all the useless crap MS seem intent on bundling with most of the their products.

You mean like Favorites? Listen, Stalin, if you don't want to support the American economy and would rather relish in your own socialistic paradise, go right ahead. You're not even American anyway, judging by your plural use of "MS." You're just part of the problem.

It's a part of the Visual Studio suite. The problem is, it's not very visual.

What do you want, strobe lights and a disco ball? It's about as visual as you can get compared to your underground 'gcc' propagation. When 'gcc' properly implements Windows .NET Forms, let me know. This is the 21st century, lest I remind you.


Nitpicking (none / 0) (#9)
by budlite on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 07:27:24 AM PST
Favourites (or "Favorites" as you language-mangling USians call it) is a standard part of IE anyway.

The point about Visual Studio is that it's a total misnomer. I've certainly seen no visual form designer, bar the dialog editor which can't be used to edit MFC windows anyway.

I should also say, that gcc probably already could implement Windows .NET Forms - if someone would write a library to allow it to do so.


Ugh (none / 0) (#11)
by Yoshi on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 07:38:29 AM PST
Favourites (or "Favorites" as you language-mangling USians call it) is a standard part of IE anyway.

First of all, it's "Americans." If you can't get that right, I'm afraid a cloud of uncertainty is cast upon the entirety of your argument.

The point about Visual Studio is that it's a total misnomer. I've certainly seen no visual form designer, bar the dialog editor which can't be used to edit MFC windows anyway.

Since you're talking about Visual Studio, I assume you haven't looked at Visual Basic at all? Or are you completely clueless? I don't know what school of obvious you flunked, but Visual Studio is about as visual as you can get. You edit your legal code in an integrated editor which accepts mouse input - something Lunix users are relatively new to, and still have not integrated into 'gcc.' Moreover, "bar the dialog editor"? That's the entire thing you use to design your dialogs. It'd be like me saying, "except for IE, Windows doesn't come with a competent web browser." Your conclusions are ludicrous.

gcc probably already could implement Windows .NET Forms - if someone would write a library to allow it to do so.

Hey, thanks for the obvious. No shit. And you know what? Lunix could 'probably' run The Sims if someone would write an emulator to do so. For Christ's sake, you're incredibly dense.


I'm dense? no, I don't think so (none / 0) (#12)
by budlite on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 08:42:06 AM PST
Sims if someone would write an emulator to do so

There is one. It's called wine. Although strictly speaking it's not an emulator, it provides Linux with the means to directly run Win32 executables, hence the acronym expands to Wine Is Not an Emulator.

Since you're talking about Visual Studio

Typo. I meant Visual C++. As it happens, I have Visual Basic. I don't like it. I prefer the excellent Borland Delphi, which allows you to design each form visually, like VB, except that the resulting programs don't rely completely on MSVBVMxx.DLL. And the Object Pascal language has decent object-oriented features.

Moreover, "bar the dialog editor"? That's the entire thing you use to design your dialogs

Yes, dialogs. It can't be used to edit the main window of an MFC program. You have to do that yourself in code.

You edit your legal code in an integrated editor which accepts mouse input

I use KDevelop. A very slick, Visual C++-like IDE.

First of all, it's "Americans."

I'm being accurate. If I were to call you American, I'd be insinuating that you could equally be from Brazil, Canada, Ecuador, Mexico or any other country on the American continent. I'm referring specifically to people from the United States here.


evidently (none / 0) (#14)
by Yoshi on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 09:24:28 AM PST
it provides Linux with the means to directly run Win32 executables

Isn't that cute. I have forwarded this information to the legal department at Microsoft Systems Headquarters. Illegal system reverse engineering is forbidden and action will be taken.

And the Object Pascal language has decent object-oriented features.

Whatever. Not being part of the nerd social outcast community, I don't feel the need to reply to your garbled nonsense about object delphi and visual owl nonsense.

It can't be used to edit the main window of an MFC program.

As opposed to, say, the entire program which you must write in archane text editors on lunix? I think I'll take the former, thank you very much.

I use KDevelop. A very slick, Visual C++-like IDE.

Imagine that. The GNU racists "innovating" yet another Microsoft clone. You guys will never stop, will you? KKKWord, KKKDevelop, KKKonqueror, it's all the same to you. Reverse engineer, rename, and distribute. That's the Lunix manifesto.

I'm being accurate. If I were to call you American, I'd be insinuating that you could equally be from Brazil, Canada, Ecuador, Mexico or any other country on the American continent. I'm referring specifically to people from the United States here.

No, you're being politically correct, just like all of the other Communist euroliberals. Let's just clear this up for your infested mind - People from Brazil are Brazilians, people from Canada are Canadians, and it goes on. None of those people have any wish to confuse others by calling themselves "Americans," and quite frankly, the only people I've seen even adopt this silly pretension is you and all of your fellow K5 wankers. So please, fuck off, and don't think that the whole world wants to change their adaptation of Americans just because you want to do your part to piss off residents whom you deem to be more right-leaning than your Marxist ideals. It's just like the hacker debate, except worse - instead of you filthy, scummy hackers trying to forbid society from the obvious, you're now trying to force society into rejecting the obvious. All of you liberals are the same - tolerance is great when it's for your homosexual agendas, but when it comes to common sense, "tolerance" is suddenly thrown out the window.


Yoshi.. (none / 0) (#18)
by DG on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 01:16:51 PM PST
Please.. i'd think MS knows about wine.. like all companys the only time they give a shit about something like a emu is when it hurts thier buisness, i have yet to see anything that hurts them from it, since you don't need windows to begin with, prove to me you anything to back up anything you say and i will prove what i say
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
But... (none / 0) (#19)
by budlite on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 01:20:09 PM PST
How can I be a "K5 wanker" when I never even read the site?

I have forwarded this information to the legal department at Microsoft Systems Headquarters.

Oh yeah, fat lot of good that'll do. Read up on Microsoft vs Lindows

, it's all the same to you. Reverse engineer, rename, and distribute.

In fact, KDevelop is a hell of a lot nicer than Visual C++. It may look SIMILAR, but it's not exactly the same. Plus, copying a basic interface design idea isn't reverse engineering.


 
Windows on Lunx (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 09:34:33 AM PST
Actually I recent read a news report about the successful attempt at running quite a number of Windows programs on Linux.

I suggest taking a look at the article.


 
What the hell? (none / 0) (#6)
by Yoshi on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 06:22:02 AM PST
Yeah it's nothing like how Internet Explorer is based on Mosaic.

Says who? Microsoft created Internet Explorer from scratch when the "Internet Revolution" was just starting to taking off. The first version was released simultaneously for OS/2 and Windows 98 in 1994, and it was an immediate hit. Subsequently, Internet Explorer 2 was released several months later, adding the revocation of OS/2 legacy compatibility and support for Microsoft JavaScript and DeCSS 1.0.

it's strange as Opera's core and that in IE are rather different.

Different in that one was created by an American Captain of Industry company and the other was blatantly reverse-engineered by European hackers.

the Opera UI doesn't even look similar to IE, even when run on Windows.

Yeah, they even managed to screw that up. My version of Internet Explorer doesn't have an ad banner in the toolbar at all times, yet if I were to install Opera Gaelon 0.99 Pro, it would. Imagine.


Right, come with me (none / 0) (#10)
by budlite on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 07:30:06 AM PST
I'm entering you into the nearest comedy competition!


 
Keep it up man! (none / 0) (#5)
by budlite on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 03:36:25 AM PST
With all this material, I could become an award-winning technical stand-up comedian!

So many laughs at Adequacy!


Keep it to yourself (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 01:57:53 PM PST
If you tried to use any of Yoshi's dire materials, your audience would supply you with a lifetime's worth of fruit and veg, and not the fresh kind.
The Anonymous Isn't


 
Yoshi, I LOVE YOU BUDDY!!!!! (none / 0) (#21)
by skilm on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 12:38:43 AM PST
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


-------------------------------------------------

Bread + Egg Nog = Bread Nog

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.