From: Adam 

Rich wrote:

>    Still trying to change the topic.
>

Bullsh*t.

You are simply trying to say that Java is a a brand applied to many things
where .Net is some srt of tight spec. That is bullsh*t. .Net is a branding
exercise.

Do you ever feel like a mushrom?


>   Yes.  Your examples are Visual Basic.NET and ASP.NET which are
> successors to Visual Basic and ASP.  The ..NET is a qualifier.

ROFLMAO. Do you rock backwards & forwards when you type stuff like
this? It is a branding exercise. B R A N D I N G .



> Both
> these happen to be components of the ..NET Framework.

Much like the .Net Connected Logo & program is?

> Compare this to
> sun's use of java where it is java this and java that with java being
> the first and foremost part of the name, the opposite of Microsoft's usage.
>

.Net Connected.....Net Passport...what's the first & foremost part of
that name.....Gee it's almost like you've evolved nostrils on top of your
head given the depth of cr*p you're spreading.


>    I disagree that .NET is generic in any way and until you changed the
> topic it wasn't even part of the conversation.

ROFLMAO. Ummmmmm you were the one who introduced the java is a sun brand
comment to which I simply pointed out that that made it just like .Net.

People were asking what .Net is (many are similarly confused) & the
obvious & correct answer is that it is a Microsoft Branding exercise.


> On the subject of java
> being a generic term, you failed to answer the question and instead
> stated that it is as generic to you as ..NET without answering that
> either.  Are you unable or unwilling to give a clear yes or no answer?
>

Sun have used it as a B R A N D. Just like .Net(TM MicroSoft) is a B R A N D.

>    As for your statement that java "is a branded language/runtime/set of
> specs etc. exactly like .Net is trying to be".  I have to disagree on
> the comparison to .NET.

Of course you do coz things like marketing are too much to burden yu with.

>  The .NET Framework is Microsoft's
> implementation an international ECMA/ISO standards plus value-added
> features.

But obviously you've got a keen grip on management newspeak.

> Sun could implement these standards.

Gosh could they? I'm sure there are lots of ECMA/ISO stds. Does MS
implement every ISO/ECMA standard?

>  They could even call
> use the java brand if they wished and call it something like java 7.
> The key point remains unchanged and you have not responded which is java
> is used in a way that some folks, as evidenced by this thread, think it
> is generic.
>

It is used as a brand just like .Net is.

Adam

> Rich
>
>
>
>     "Adam Flinton"      > wrote in message
>     news:4293725e{at}w3.nls.net...
>     Rich wrote:
>      >    Still trying to change the topic.
>      >
>
>     No not at all .Net is a brand which is applied to many things.
>
>      >    They are not all called java as sun has done.
>
>     Blimey neither is java. No your have "Java Enerprise Edition
& "Java
>     Desktop System" etc.
>
>     Are you saying that .Net does not feature in their names?
>
>      >  It's not that java is
>      > a sun brand.  It's that it is used in a way that blurs the meaning.
>
>     ROFLMAO Hello Mr Coalmine kettle.
>
>     Gee what does ".Net Connected" mean?
>
>     Does it mean that it must use ASP.Net? VB.Net? That in order to connect
>     to it you must be running ".Net"?
>
>
>      > For
>      > an example of this look no further than this thread where it was
>     claimed
>      > that java is a generic term.  It was that claim I disputed.
>     Since you
>      > are arguing with me should we all believe that you believe java is a
>      > generic term?
>      >
>
>     It's as generic as .Net. It is a branded language/runtime/set of specs
>     etc. exactly like .Net is trying to be.
>
>     Personally I don't like things like using java in a linux distro name.
>
>
>
>     Adam
>
>
>      > Rich
>      >
>      >
>      >     "Adam Flinton"      
>      >     > wrote in message
>      >     news:4292ef1e{at}w3.nls.net...
>      >     Rich wrote:
>      >      >    Nope.  Everything has its own name.  Even so
there has been
>      >     confusion
>      >      > so .NET was removed from some names.
>      >      >
>      >
>      >     Chuckle. My my my my what lovely revisionism. It's like
>     airbrushing
>      >     trotsky out of the photos.
>      >
>      >     So is VB.Net a web URL?
>      >
>      >     How about ASP.Net?
>      >
>      >     & what about .Net Passport? & Then there is the
.Net Framework.
>      >
>      >     If "everything has it's own name" in the above
style then
>     gosh it must
>      >     just be a coincidence that so many MS things have .Net in
>     their name &
>      >     not that .Net is a brandname which MS applies to many things.
>      >
>      >     & then there is the "look for the ..Net
connected" logo  campaign
>      >     etc.etc.
>      >
>      >     No sign of branding there.....except possibly across your butt.
>      >
>      >     Or did you opt for the .Net Connected logo tatoo instead?
>      >
>      >
>      >     Adam
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >      > Rich
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      >     "Adam"      
>      >     
>      >      >     >
wrote in message
>      >      >     news:4291a4ac$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>      >      >     Rich wrote:
>      >      >
>      >      >      >    java is not a generic term.  it is a
brand name sun
>      >     applies to
>      >      >     mmany
>      >      >      > different things.
>      >      >      >
>      >      >     Just like MS does to .Net.
>      >      >
>      >      >     Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5