>>If I understand the Java 2 specifications correctly (from the "Java 2 Bible" by Walsh, Couch and Steinberg), Java applets can only communicate with the server and not the host. If so, and I'll admit to being a rank newbie on this, it would seem to me that any "security" concerns would have to be connected with the VM and its implementation and not the underlying OS.
>
>Yes. There haven't been many security concerns with respect to Java. I was being sarcastic with Mike.
>
>>Further, AFAIK, neither the Netscape nor IE browsers fully support the specification. Again, this is according to the above mentioned book.
>
>Correct again.
>
>>Given the recent legal wranglings, much of which centered around the integration of the browser technologies into Windows, it would seem to me to be a prudent thing to do to exclude the VM from Windows XP. Further, it would seem far more appropriate, if Microsoft were to bundle the VM with anything, that it would be the browser.
>
>What angers me about this whole thing are the "perceived" implications:
>
>[1] No regard for the millions of novice users who will have trouble accessing their favorite web sites. A great majority of these users will not install the plug-in for a variety of reasons. Hell, many of the users I train when I roll-out an app still don't know basic things like copying a file. What MS should do is have XP install the plug-in as a default, but this defeats what I suspect is their real purpose - otherwise, why don't they? There is no logical reason.
>
>[2] The reasons MS gave for this action are bogus. The Java security concern excuse is bogus. The SUN lawsuit excuse is bogus. There is nothing that preempts MS from installing VM - if there was, they wouldn't be offering the plug-in in the first place.
>
>[3] The "implied" real purpose has to do with .NET and MS wanting to control every facet of the Web. I really don't need to start a rant here, because I can't type that fast. But you get the idea.

Jeff,

First, I really don't want to get into a long discussion on this issue, principally because I don't know the details of the settlement of Sun v. Microsoft. Having said that, but having read the AP release, it seems to me that if they can't distribute a VM the adheres to the current standard, what's the point of distributing any? Further, it would seem, given MS's current legal problems from them to make absolutely sure that any action in this area not only live up to the letter of the agreement but its spirit as well.

If you have a different take on this, fine. Just seems from my POV something that I wouldn't get terribly upset about.

As I said, just my take.