Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: CADD: Microstation/J: Why Isn't It Platform Independent?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Thanks for the clarification, but I'm still puzzled.

The quotes you provided seem to indicate that Bentley had at that time
(January 1998) every intention of supporting multiple platforms.

But the literature provided, now that Microstation/J is available for
download, states that it is now and is foreseen to be in the near future,
available for the Windows platform only.  Seems as though the intervening
nine months from the time of the Bentley quotes and now has changed their
perspective.

I just find it interesting that, now when MS is in trouble with the DoJ,
seems to be losing the abject loyalty of many of its staunch supporters
(such as Intel), and is threatened by the rising popularity (and robust
performance) of Linux, Bentley decides that they are changing their policy
of multi-platform support.

Let me include the quote from the Bentley flyer I received in the mail
yesterday (the EMPHASIS is mine):

"MicroStation/J is available for 32-bit Windows operating systems on Intel
architecture, including Windows NT, Windows 98 and Windows 95. Currently, WE
HAVE NO IMMEDIATE PLANS TO OFFER MICROSTATION/J ON ADDITIONAL PLATFORMS OR
OPERATING SYSTEMS, such as Apple and UNIX. This decision is the result of
careful consideration of technology dependencies and enterprise demand in
today's engineering marketplace."

The flyer goes on to say that "when platform alternatives prove
deserving--without impairing complete forward and backward compatibility of
data and applications--we will again consider adding to MicroStation's
platform offering."

Now, a couple of phrases above give me cause to think that the second quote
you gave, about there being "not a single line of Microsoft code in JMDL"
may not be true any longer. I refer you once again to the injunction handed
down last week ordering MS to comply with the Sun Java standard (see
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2166056,00.html). If there is
no MS code involved in the MicroStation JVM, then why do they specifically
state that their Windows-only platform policy is prompted by a need to
ensure "complete forward and backward compatibility of data and
applications"?  If this were so (as Java is platform-independent, meaning
Java apps would be also) why would this be a concern?

I can only conclude that Bentley DID succumb to the lure of the MS "altered"
Java VM, which was the subject of Sun's lawsuit, which has led to the
judge's ruling against MS.

The most interesting aspect of the story on ZDNet, above, is the mention
that MS may cease supporting Java altogether (apparently the JVM for NT 5.0
will be an "optional download" not distributed with the OS).

So, has MS left Bentley in the lurch?  It'd be interesting to get Bentley's
comments on that (and parse them for "truth," since this situation may have
put them in a bad position that they may not want to admit).

Anyway, it's just more food for thought in consideration of the anti-MS
stuff we've all been talking about.

IMO, the sooner we don't have to depend on a closed/proprietary OS to run
our stuff, the better.  Linux is looking better all the time!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Phillips [mailto:jphillips(--nospam--at)fdva.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 21, 1998 5:24 AM
> To: Bill Polhemus; seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Cc: rhonda.wood(--nospam--at)fluordaniel.com
> Subject: Re: CADD: Microstation/J: Why Isn't It Platform Independent?
>

[DELETIA]