Microsoft Donates Code To Apache's "Stonehenge" Project 184
dp619 writes "Several months after joining the Apache Foundation, Microsoft has made its first code contribution to an Apache project. The project, known as Stonehenge, is made up of companies and developers seeking to test the interoperability of Web standards implementations."Reader Da Massive adds a link to coverage at Computer World.
How will this turn out? (Score:5, Funny)
If only we had some history of technical partnerships with Microsoft to use as a guide.
Re:How will this turn out? (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA: "The project, known as Stonehenge, is made up of companies and developers seeking to test the interoperability of Web standards implementations"
The first thing I thought of when I read this, is that Microsoft updated the project so it was compatible with IE (not making the project more standards compliant, but that it made IE appear to be standards compliant).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Silly me, thinking Billy being gone and Ballmer's comments about OSS interest [slashdot.org] meant Microsoft would start supporting open source without any ultimately evil intentions.
Re:How will this turn out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Close.
The sample app is a .NET application [microsoft.com] that's tied into the Windows Communication Foundation. It's the "Embrace" phase of the plan.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the point of WCF was that it supported standards so that Windows apps could interop with the outside world.
Why is it bad that a test project is using WCF? Maybe I'm wrong, but I would think that it would be good to test with realistic applications that might be coming from Windows shops.
Re: (Score:2)
WCF.. from the book by Juval Lowy, I read that WCF supports many different communication protocols, including TCP/IP.
Only thing is, the TCP/IP endpoint is "optimised" for communication with other WCF services only. Not so good for standards-based interoperability. MS says themselves that if you want to communicate with 3rd party systems, then a web service is the only option - not a socket.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Windows Communication Foundation is a framework so an application can expose services over a variety of protocols with different config changes. One of the protocols supported out the box is SOAP.
So enjoy spreading that FUD.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Here's [wikia.com] a good one.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe only an AC would bag it on Slashdot.
.
.
.
Oh shit, I forgot to post anonymously!
Re:How will this turn out? (Score:5, Informative)
I know you are kidding, but since they restarted Internet Explorer development, Microsoft have submitted thousands of testcases to the W3C CSS Test Suite, which were welcomed and almost entirely accepted without change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Because they were delivered with cookies like all packages from the dark side!
No, no. Not cookies. Cake! [arcanology.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How will this turn out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, and I've made this is a point I've made in the past. I personally believe that while MS is generally evil, and Ballmer rates slightly below Dick Cheney on the evil intentions scale (decidedly lower on the actual evil scale due to Ballmer's patented apeish idiocy), Chris Wilson, program manager for IE, is trying to do The Right Thing.
Personally I think he gets away with it only because Ballmer hasn't noticed.
Re:How will this turn out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Chris Wilson, program manager for IE, is trying to do The Right Thing.
The right thing is to let the truly inter-operable standards - the standards which won't require anybody to depend on somebody's charity - to come into acceptance. What MS has been doing will only contribute to the rise of pseudo-standards - standards whose inter-operability depends on one company's charity. This, in turn, leads to the death of other web-servers because they can't implement these standards in inter-operable ways. After that, MS quits Apache Foundation to be the single player.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
ah, but who tests the test-suites?
Before you know it, all CSS standards will conform to the IE 'standard' only.
Other browser developers will be scratching their heads, "I'm sure I followed the standard document correctly, but it fails the test-case. What could be wrong!?!?" :-)
Re:How will this turn out? (Score:5, Funny)
Im sure Ackbar would have something to say about this situation.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Good luck with that (Score:5, Funny)
Embrace - you are here.
Extend
Extinguish
You did it wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Embrace - you are here. Extend Extinguish
I do believe "Embrace" was covered when Microsoft joined the Apache foundation. Now that they're actually adding code... that's represented by "Extend."
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, good point.
Re:You did it wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Two words: Dot NET.
Mark my words. .NET extensions are on their way placing Microsoft in the hot-seat of Web development technology standards. They integrate .NET into the most widely used Web Server software on the Internet and then Introduce Windows .NET "Cloud." It releases as the only fully compatible Web-OS that works with this server launching it into a premium spot.
Re:You did it wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)
I do believe "Embrace" was covered when Microsoft joined the Apache foundation....
Microsoft did *not* join the Apache Software Foundation, companies cannot be members in any shape or form. I have written about that before at http://grep.codeconsult.ch/2008/07/26/hey-el-reg-microsoft-is-not-becoming-an-asf-member/ [codeconsult.ch]
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Funny)
Other notable contribution (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Other notable contribution (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
How much did that cost them?
Microsoft, or the apache committers?
Re:Other notable contribution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Other notable contribution (Score:5, Insightful)
But it makes Apache better too.
Sometimes it is possible for everyone to win.
Re:Other notable contribution (Score:5, Interesting)
It allows the apache developers to do compatability testing on MS os's without having to go to the store and buy a copy of each OS for each developer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Other notable contribution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I see the value in what they provided. But is it the same value as contributing code?
One of the things I'm looking for is proof that Microsoft is changing from their past. Providing easier access to their products doesn't really do it. Providing code does as would open licensing of their patents.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I honestly can't fault Microsoft for not open-licensing their patents. They do that, they lose their own weapons in what is basically a corporate cold war of patents.
Either everyone is going to open-license their patents, or nobody will.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. However, one of the key players in this patent cold war is IBM which has done some of this. And they contribute code. It's not that I trust IBM per se. But they've done a lot more than Microsoft has.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't specify the GPL, but rather OSS licenses [ibm.com]. And it should be noted that this particular pledge only covers 500 patents (which is fairly select considering the bredth of IBM's portfolio). However, it still strikes me as much more good faith effort than Microsoft has produced.
Again - patents come in to play only because Microsoft's FUD puts it in play. If Microsoft really wants these initiatives to be accepted, I'd expect them to produce code (appropriately licensed - let's say BSD since they're
Re: (Score:2)
Actually in the server market, microsoft DO need you, and dear god theyll do anything for that extra install.
the idiot, please, explain (Score:2, Interesting)
how long do we have to endure fanboyism ? when will the win7 hype pass ? im new at this. does it take long ?
Obligatory Spinal Tap joke (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft submitted the code on a napkin and specified inches instead of feet.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that Stonehenge is at risk of being trampled by dwarves?
Interoperability? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting. At this rate in 20 or 30 years I may take them seriously. If they don't do something else sinister in the mean time.
One think that might cause me to think less favorably if it happens in the meanwhile is another EULA trap. (I *did* say another. I've counted every EULA since and including the MSWindows2000 as a trap. To be fair that should just be every one that I've read, which is only a small percentage of them.)
Numerous factual errors in article and summary (Score:5, Informative)
Corporations can not join the Apache Software Foundation (ASF). Microsoft became a "sponsor" of the ASF last summer, but only individual people can join the ASF.
This is also not the first time Microsoft has contributed code to an Apache project, pulling one quick example out of google...
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2008/10/14/microsoft-s-powerset-team-resumes-hbase-contributions.aspx [technet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I concede that the bylaws of the ASF [apache.org] state "To be eligible for membership, a person or entity must be nominated by a current member..." however as a matter of practice the current membership of the ASF consists solely of people, and to the best of my knowledge no company/organization has ever been a member (or even been nominated to be a member)
It doesn't change anything about my underlying point: Microsoft did not join the ASF, and it is not Microsofts first code contribution to an ASF project.
Re: (Score:2)
In a general legal context a corporation is a "person", not an "individual". There may be some specific legal contexts where "individual" includes "corporation", but generally "individual" would be equivalent to a "natural person".
I don't get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an open source project about web standards.
If Microsoft really cares about these things, why have they continued to hack on Trident, which has been so far behind in both of those areas? Why not just adopt Gecko or Webkit as the IE/Windows rendering engine?
As it is, they've consistently shunned open standards, including the Web. Only recently have they been starting to fix IE to follow web standards, and it really seems like they're doing the bare minimum they have to do to claim they're making an effort.
Maybe that's what this is, too? Good press for them, while at the same time, they're doing more to undermine web standards with things like Silverlight than they have ever done to support them?
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Informative)
Correction: this is an open source project about Web Service standards. If you see the development history of the various existing WS standards, especially the W3C ones, you'll see that Microsoft was a major driving force behind most of them, and many related standards (such as XML Schema), dating back to early 2000s. Then you may want to remember why .NET was called that in the first place (back when all MS products also got that prefix - Windows Server 2003 was originally Windows Server .NET, for example) - it was supposed to be all about web services (which were the Next Great Thing that will Revolutionize Software Development, Proactively Synergize your Paradigms, etc - the stuff which had essentially evolved into SOA today). Of course, Microsoft is still the big player on that market, and "interoperability and standards" has been the talking point for all that time, so nothing new here.
Re: (Score:2)
If you see the development history of the various existing WS standards, especially the W3C ones, you'll see that Microsoft was a major driving force behind most of them, and many related standards...
That also seems odd, especially in light of the Halloween documents. A web service protocol (WebDAV) would've been great for Exchange, but was instead extended/extinguished.
I'm not just talking about web standards. Microsoft has been against any standard they can't control for pretty much their entire lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
That has been quite a long time - and, more importantly, several anti-trust lawsuits ago.
The point, anyway, is that in areas where standards sell, Microsoft is quite willing to sell you standards - but usually when it gets to write them (see OOXML). This wasn't quite the case for WS, but the influence was strong enough regardless.
By the way, MS also had pretty strong involvement in XQuery in a similar fashion - as I recall, they were the on
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a lot easier to fix IE than to ditch IE and shoehorn Gecko/Webkit into the IE programming model. If developers miss their COM objects, there will be riots in the street. When I say easier, I mean for a company that would have to throw away a huge investment as well as have many people around who know so much about a product that doesn't behave like that any more. Plus, not invented here.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a lot easier to fix IE than to ditch IE and shoehorn Gecko/Webkit into the IE programming model.
Except that it's already been done, to an extent -- Gecko can be embedded in Wine, and used as a browser activex control.
And, current evidence would not tend to suggest that. Consider how many years Microsoft has been at it, and IE is still not fixed. Compare to several browsers which have been built from the ground up since IE6.
When I say easier, I mean for a company that would have to throw away a huge investment
It didn't work out. Oh well. Now would be a very good time to cut your losses.
as well as have many people around who know so much about a product that doesn't behave like that any more.
If you're talking about code, I can't imagine people want to work on IE, considering the alternatives.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe that's what this is, too? Good press for them, while at the same time, they're doing more to undermine web standards with things like Silverlight than they have ever done to support them?
When did Flash become a web standard?
If it is one, what's so bad about competition forcing it to become better or die? Doing Flash programming used to be about as much fun as repeatedly slamming your junk in a car door. Now it's getting better from that perspective and I don't doubt that competition looming from Silverlight is some of why.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ok, but which one is Alien and which one is Predator?
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to add "Whoever wins... we lose."
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Informative)
Like BhaKi says below- "a fight between two evils".
Except that Flash:
1) Has been around a lot longer
2) Works on all major browsers (Firefox, IE, Safari, Konqueror, Opera, Seamonkey, etc)
3) Works on all the major operating systems, and natively (MS-Windows, Linux, Mac, Solaris)
4) Is self-contained
5) Has development tools for most platforms
I have no great love of Flash, but at least it works and works on all the machines I need for it to work. I can't say that about Silverlight. And based on MS's history, Silverlight seems very much "isatrap".
I would feel much better about Flash if Adobe would just get over itself and open source the client- they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Time is ticking... open sourcing it NOW might be their own weapon against Silverlight.
Re: (Score:2)
6) does not work anywhere but x86 CPUs which are going out of fashion fast :)
Re: (Score:2)
When did Flash become a web standard?
When did Flash become the only alternative?
We've still got HTML5, SVG, Javascript, etc.
Silverlight could've been cool -- but they built it on .NET, which means it's going to be hard for a lot of people to trust. In any case, it's a plugin, as opposed to an actual, direct improvement to the existing technologies.
And they still haven't got those right. Why not take all of the Silverlight developers, and have them work on maybe finally getting CSS right in IE?
Re: (Score:2)
Because those people are not very bright.
Or because they understand how the patent system works, and they've seen the upgrade treadmill of .NET?
Haven't you noticed? Mono has been playing catch-up with .NET for a long time now.
Have you used Silverlight 2.0? Because I'll tell you, writing code in .NET beats the pants off ActionScript any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Who said anything about ActionScript?
Now, Javascript is actually a nice language, once you get to know it. I much prefer it to C#, though I'll grant that things like IronPython and IronRuby may eventually make .NET interesting...
Fred Brooks something something Man-Month...
So you say, and that's become the rhetoric of people making excuses for how Microsoft, with their
Re: (Score:2)
No, not really. Flash sucks badly, it doesn't belong on the web. Silverlight is no better than Flash.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Insightful)
they're doing more to undermine web standards with things like Silverlight than they have ever done to support them?
Oh, you mean giving competition the alternative to Silverlight, the extremely web-standards savvy and committed Adobe/Macromedia Shockwave/Flash? That doesn't even have a really XHTML standardized way of being embedded yet? link to w3's entry on embedding flash [w3.org]
I guess I should stop using Apache. It's funded by MS :) On the other hand, I refuse to take the "karma" approach to companies, and will praise MS on their good actions and complain about their bad actions. I will not complain about their good actions because I am still sore from their bad ones...
Re: (Score:2)
First, I'm not female ;)
Second, likening marriage to a corporation is an interesting view of marriage, but I won't go there.
The main issue though is that I refuse to buy into the "entirely bad" or "entirely good" thing. The tendency of most people's reasoning appears to me to be like this:
Re: (Score:2)
The reasons they dont abandon MSHTML/Trident and use gecko or webkit include:
Licensing (webkit is LGPL, gecko is GPL/LGPL/MPL) and Microsoft doesn't want to use LGPL software in their OS for obvious reasons.
Code ownership (Microsoft has no way to be 100% sure that the code in there is written by the people who claim to have written it and with Microsoft and Windows being such a HUGE target, its a risk Microsoft cant afford to take no matter how small it is)
Application Compatibility (Many apps use and embed
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft doesn't want to use LGPL software in their OS for obvious reasons.
Sorry, it's not obvious. Were it GPL, you'd have a point.
Consider that Apple uses Webkit in Safari, which is shipped with OS X. Why is that not a problem for them?
Microsoft has no way to be 100% sure that the code in there is written by the people who claim to have written it
Apple has already taken that risk. No one has come forward. The iPhone is getting pretty huge, and it has Webkit on it.
Google has also taken that risk. It's on Android. It's in Chrome.
Many apps use and embed MSHTML/Trident including htmlhelp, MSDN library, the GameSpy Arcade frontend...
So include Trident as a legacy version. Apps which support the newer library can use it.
But when Wine uses Gecko, these same applications don't seem to have any problems.
Many web pages, especially on corporate intranets wont run in anything other than IE
Those pages are abortions. No new pages like that should be built.
For the existing ones, they don't necessarily work with IE7, and IE8 is about to be released (or is it out already?), so I think making a newer, incompatible version wouldn't be such a tragedy.
nor do these other browsers support any kind of "protected mode" ala IE7
...except Chrome, which is splitting it out per-process.
What's more, given the environments we've seen these run on, I doubt there would be any real problem doing that. It's a rendering engine -- why should it care what user it runs as? Everything that needs to run outside the sandbox is chrome anyway, and could be carried over.
Basically its just not possible to replace MSHTML/Trident with gecko or webkit and not break a whole bunch of stuff that is VERY important to Microsoft customers.
You mean, like they did with Vista and UAC? Microsoft isn't exactly known for backwards compatibility.
At the very least, they could start shipping other browsers as the default -- and this takes almost no effort. People for whom the above matters can use IE.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I never understood why some companies avoid even LGPL in a proprietary development environment as well, but recently someone pointed out one interesting bit in LGPL:
You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work
Re: (Score:2)
Usually, people complain about MS not ditching backwards compatibility in favor of "cleaner" implementations and here you are, saying that they are well known for doing exactly that.
Not quite.
Microsoft is well known for leaving all kinds of legacy cruft around, in an effort to preserve backwards compatibility. Sometimes, this works very well. Sometimes too well -- I really can't blame Microsoft for a piece of software being so poorly coded as to overflow when the version number is too big, but I do find it a bit disturbing that Microsoft fixes these problems anyway (by detecting such programs and lying to them about version number).
And yet, this is, in fact, the same Microsoft which co
Re: (Score:2)
Licensing (webkit is LGPL, gecko is GPL/LGPL/MPL) and Microsoft is...
DRM/OOXML/MSBOB?
Re: (Score:2)
If Microsoft really cares about these things, why have they continued to hack on Trident, which has been so far behind in both of those areas? Why not just adopt Gecko or Webkit as the IE/Windows rendering engine?
NIH?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a matter of opinion if I ever saw one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I have used both (albeit in the form of C# vs AS2/AS3.) If you were comparing .NET with AS2, then I agree, but AS3 is (in my mind) a very capable scripting language.
Nothing to lose, only to win for Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
Interoperability simply means that Microsoft stuff that was not used (or possible to use) with OSS projects, will be used now. Which leads to more sales.
Microsoft still charges for its products, it just has opened doors to more customers.
Re:Nothing to lose, only to win for Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
"News Flash: A business acted last night in a move that is expected to increase it's revenue. A spokesperson for the business did not comment on whether or not this move is expected to directly, or indirectly increase revenue. She only told us that it is a general policy of the company to act on behalf of the financial interests of it's share holders and employees".
*World Gasps In Shock*
This story's tags are killing me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm surprised it's not tagged "itsatrap" yet.
Re: (Score:2)
The night is young...OK, OK.... I just did. But, if they can hold the course for 8 or maybe 10 years like this, I will be willing to consider partial forgiveness their some of their numerous past evil doings and resend the "isatrap" on this one.
Besides, this is much less of "isatrap" than Silverlight.
What a choice for the name (Score:5, Funny)
Project Stonehenge!
Abstract:
Nobody will know why something so large and simple was created, what it's good for, how it's supposed to be used. It will face complete abandonment and isolation, only to be admired and appreciated by a handful of people once a year.
I keed I keed!
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you'd have to ask the creators why they chose it. Trouble is, no one knows who they were, or what they were doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering this, they really should rather have used that codename for the original W3C committee that developed the WS-* standards stack.
Look at the big picture (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Create protocols/formats/standards/specifications which are not inherently inter-operable. (Remember how buggy, incomplete and inaccurate OOXML spec was. Remember how Windows-specific the .NET and Silverlight specs are.)
2. Pick one of your competitors, give him (and him alone, not the whole public) code and/or patent-freedoms so that he can make an inter-operable software. (Remember Novell OO.Org plugins, Mono and Moonlight.)
3. Claim that the standard itself is clean and inter-operable by showing the existence of the above competitor's inter-operable implementation as "proof". In making this claim, take advantage of the fact that most people, organizations and courts make the mistake of not seeing any difference between the original definition of an inter-operable standard - "A standard whose specification is public, true to reference implementation and complete so that any developer can make a fully inter-operable implementation without paying any fees or signing any license agreements" and the twisted definition given by Microsoft - "A standard that has at-least one competing implementation besides the reference implementation".
4. As the claim gradually gets accepted, the "standard" becomes a de-facto standard and more people and government will adopt it. This leads to the death of 1) other standards and 2) other independent implementations of the same standard. (because the top implementations are not inter-operable with them)
5. Now you and your friendly competitor are the only ones in the business. After everyone forgets history, pull the plug and let your competitor die.
Re: (Score:2)
i believe ackbar was more to the point, but wholeheartedly agree with the entirety of your post.
Re:Look at the big picture (Score:4, Insightful)
Create protocols/formats/standards/specifications which are not inherently inter-operable. (Remember how buggy, incomplete and inaccurate OOXML spec was. Remember how Windows-specific the .NET and Silverlight specs are.)
The WS-* standards are OASIS open standards. Microsoft has been a leader in this area - this is a simple fact. For example, the Metro/WSIT stack specifically targets Microsoft .NET 3.5 compatibility.
Pick one of your competitors, give him (and him alone, not the whole public) code and/or patent-freedoms so that he can make an inter-operable software. (Remember Novell OO.Org plugins, Mono and Moonlight.)
Many competitors have access to these web service standards. See: Sun, IBM, Apache, Anyone with a web browser, etc...
I could go on. You're on your soapbox all right, but you're way off in left field with no real understanding of anything to do with..well...anything.
Take, for instance, Mono. Microsoft didn't grant shit - the CLI spec is open. Mono is implementing compatible clean-room class libraries to mimic the .NET ones.
Really - just give up. If you want to say something bad about Microsoft don't exhibit your cluelessness and instead just say "Micro$haft is teh suxx0rs!".
Re: (Score:2)
Micro$haft is teh suxx0rs!
I whole-heartedly agree!
It's a decent addition (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The code that Microsoft contributed was the Happy Slider
I know a certain Genuine People Personalities prototype which could use one of those.
You better replace the diodes down his left side first, though :)
Great... (Score:3, Funny)
It's a patent trap (Score:3, Insightful)
// Code originally contributed by Microsoft Corporation.
// This contribution to the Stonehenge project is limited strictly
// to the source code that is submitted in this submission.
// Any technology, including underlying platform technology,
// that is referenced or required by the submitted source code
// is not a part of the contribution.
// For example and not by way of limitation,
// any systems/Windows libraries (WPF, WCF, ASP.NET etc.)
// required to run the submitted source code is not a part of the contribution
Why is Microsoft so pesky about this? It's all about patents. The Apache License requires each contributor to give a patent license for the code they have contributed. By stating that all the patent-emcumbered libraries are not part of the contribution, Microsoft does not give you a patent license, but you still have to acquire one if you actually want to use their code. So don't use this code, it's a patent trap [quantenblog.net].
In other news... (Score:2)
...the Devil was seen shopping for skis recently...
Re:so, is it safe? (Score:4, Interesting)
If the company itself, i.e. the patent holder, donates the code, then it is probably safe. I'm not in a position to judge how useful it might be. But MS has long taken the position that it supports the BSD license, and other similar licenses that allow it to take code contributed by others, close it, modify it, and sell the closed & modified version under a new name.
I can't say that I know that they actually support such projects, but that's been their official position for over a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not that big a deal (Score:5, Funny)
1: // Code Submission by // Our first "open source" code contribution to this thing called "an Apache project" // // // Copyright (c) 2008-2009 by // // // Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited. // Use at your own risk. // Read the EULA. You have been warned!!! // All Rights Reserved
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
10:
11:
12: System.out.writeln("All your base are belong to us.\n");
13: System.out.writeln("Have a nice day.");
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You forgot one last line:
14. // Why this isn't compiling? Stupid Java. -chandram
Re: (Score:2)
parent is not so troll (Score:2)