the two main forces behind Java, Sun and IBM, are trying to ensure interoperability between their development environment projects. it's a consciously Microsoft-like strategy to ensure that developers can become reasonably productive with Java right out of the box.

it's yet another sign that the very thing that's made Java as successful as it is -- the fact that a number of vendors have been able to participate -- has always been the platform's Achilles heel. multi-source, best-of-breed solutions just mean that all of your vendors can blame one another when you encounter problems. as a c|net article puts it:

The key for Java's continued growth, analysts say, is to emulate Microsoft's work with Visual Studio.Net, which offers integrated features such as testing software for finding bugs, as well as point-and-click application development.

it's worth mentioning that when this approach is extended to web services, it also means helping developers with application deployment, and this is where the rubbber hits the revenue model. for Sun, it's critical that the Java developer's thought process terminates with something like "...and then we deploy it on iPlanet servers," since application servers are one of the few ways Sun can make money from their investment in Java. unfortunately, it's also one of the ways IBM and BEA make money, and i doubt the three will be willing to turn their cash cows into interchangeable, commodity products.

this is a nice little twist -- an Enron executive managed to get Chung Wu, a PaineWebber broker in Houston, fired within hours of his advising several Enron employees (PaineWebber handled their stock-option program) that they might want to sell some of their Enron stock.

a day later the PaineWebber reassured the Enron employees they served that Enron's fortunes were likely headed upwards, and that the company had a "strong buy" rating on Enron.

naturally, PaineWebber insists that it acted entirely according to NASD guidlines and that the millions of dollars in investment banking fees it generated from Enron had nothing to do with their frogmarching Mr Wu to the door. (via NY Times)