This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
.Net:... 3 Years Later
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A giant panda bear is really a member of the racoon family.
FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A giant panda bear is really a member of the racoon family.
Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, its time for them to move on. But they won't. They have an idea, and will force it down everyone's throat until they get their way.
Reality is quite nice though (Score:5, Insightful)
And so it should - it's better than the alternatives which preceded it. It's just important to divorce the .Net marketing cloud from the actual technology on the ground.
Cheers,
Ian
Only 3 years... (Score:2, Insightful)
But i think its crazy to judge something is big as
If something doesn't 'take off' in 3 years time it's now a failure? Lets not be silly...
NO tolerance for standards wars (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, so he and everybody else is sitting back and waiting for a clear winner with mature functionality to materialize.
In other words, he's saying "Screw
It takes insight to notice these things take time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of .NET was puffery, to be sure (I read a piece on MSDN more or less admitting this), but that's largely because it was a working title given to a number of next-generation technologies that may or may not pan out, many of which haven't been released. You can't really consider C# or Hailstorm to have been around and competing for three years, can you?
fun with fud. (Score:5, Insightful)
Likewise for you "java" programmers out there who in actuality have only ever compiled one applet, and it was a recompilation of a decompiled shareware scroller that you removed the copyright notice from. Well done. On the other hand, if you've solid experience developing beans, rmi and other such projects, we also welcome your comments.
The rest of you shut up and learn.
Rant over.
- Oisin
What about Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
all about the Benjamins (Score:5, Insightful)
that is the only reason I could see why
I'm not saying it is a useless bit of technology, I'm just personally partial to using any number of existing technologies that do the same thing and are cheaper to implement.
my current employer is retarded when it comes to computers and they paid someone to do a very basic web project in "dot net" because there was a general misunderstanding in the difference between the domain and the programming structures.
In the end it cost them a ton and now it is costing them more to maintain. I am trying to get them to port it all over to a much lighter system (php on linux or freebsd), but they are currently not interested.
's GOOD (Score:3, Insightful)
.Net a complete success (Score:5, Insightful)
It can do most of what they say... (Score:2, Insightful)
The only problem is that they've made the damn IDE too simple and now every Tom, Dick, and Sally thinks they can program. Writing code and actually developing applications are vastly different.
With XML Web Services (granted, not MS proprietary) and Remoting, .NET make remote procedure calls somewhat easier.
If Mono ever finishes, the platform-specific CLR can run most code. Even though Java's done it for a long time, you're tied to one language: Java. The .NET class library can be used by any language that targets the CLR - and that's quite a few; so any developer can write for .NET.
If the industry could actually start hiring good developers again instead of brain-dead code monkeys who's jobs at McD's got too tedious and their sole purpose for coding is more money, the field of .NET - not to mention a lot of other projects on any platform - would be much better. Who's to blame is all those middle managers out there that hire two code monkeys for the price of one good developer. At least they get what they pay for.
Re:You are kidding, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would
A few weeks uptime is nothing to brag about [netcraft.com].
As for total cost of ownership, it's always a case of your mileage will vary, it depends on where your staff has most skills. Personally I consider maintaining unix systems a lot easier and a lot less effort so that would cut down the TCO in that case. Get a bunch of McSE's and the results would be different, as would getting someone with an equal balanced knowledge in windows and unix.
Speaking for myself (Score:5, Insightful)
From that perspective, ASP.NET just totally rocks my world. I can debug more easily. Performance is better. It encourages good architectural practices. And my productivity has gone through the roof - I haven't done any formal tests but based on personal experience I'd say I can develop at *least* 30% faster with ASP.NET compared to any other platform, possibly more. The difference is most pronounced in more complex systems where it really shines. For less than, say, a thousand lines of code it probably doesn't save as much time, but I rarely work on that anyway.
So, maybe
.Net was never clearly defined (Score:5, Insightful)
Three years in and I believe it is fair to say that most people do not understand exactly what .Net is --
other than a vague "trust me" monolithic solution.
Which I believe is the core of its problem. While there are some fools who will buy anything that fill in the name of their favorite supplier offers, more of the market wants to make decisions for themelves.
From the little I've had time to study .Net, there were
a few aspects of it that were indeed superior to what
had proceeded it on the market. But the information
to make a cohesive strategy was just missing. What
if I liked the characteristics of the run-time engine,
but needed to stick with CORBA interfacing?
The most telling flaw in the strategy, for me, was that you could find entire racks of books on .Net.
But absolutely none that explained the basic wire
protocols used. They were all "How to Program a .Net application inside one box using language Y".
When I'm designing a system, the language used on each box is the last detail that I consider. I want to understand the interactions of the remote systems, how dependent they are on each other, how they evolve seperately, how the failure of one will affect the others, etc.
Re:You are kidding, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Albeit, a very good troll in that you ALMOST had me going until I read point 4. Upon rereading your other points:
1) 'Single-source logons' are a function of AD/Kerberos under 2000/2003. In a corporate environment, they give you all the benefits you're claiming that
2) How does this have anything to do with
3) Since the various
4) My windows 2000 servers at work usually only get a reboot when someone installs a hotfix. Since the patch lifecycle is test->uat->production, we have ample warning for this. Uptime, on average, is around 5-6 months. These machines are everything from AD controllers supporting thousands of users, to RDP/MS TS boxes with 50-odd users each.
5) correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't
I'm no Windows apologist (check my posting history,) but surely your argument is bunk
IHBT. IHL. HAND.
That's what they said about Windows CE (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, I'm not saying that
.NET = Windows API 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Reality is quite nice though (Score:2, Insightful)
Ehrm. Point not taken.
If Sun didn't invent Java would .NET exist? (Score:4, Insightful)
If Apple hadn't invented multi-media for micro-computers would Microsoft have it's own implementation?
Microsoft haven't done any (apart from Word for Mac, then later Windows) inventing of their own, and what they have done, has always been a poor copy!
They must be doing SOMETHING right (Score:5, Insightful)
So...it may not DO anything just yet, but in terms of stalling development on other platforms and continuing to put MS in the news, I'd say it's a success.
Re:Reality is quite nice though (Score:5, Insightful)
I will say though that I have recently been working on a project to allow a unix legacy system talk to a web service to do real time credit card authorizations from a COBOL application. Using GCC 3.3, libxml2, libxml++, and libwww to post to a web service, it appears to be transacting quite nicely. I can see a lot of legacy application adapters being developed in this manner in the future. Now if only some of the documentation of these libraries were better....
Re:Only 3 years... (Score:2, Insightful)
The birth of an idea and the release of a platform are two different things. Although if you think life begins at conception, then maybe this 3-year viewpoint is consistent :)
In my Experience . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Then, recently (last year) I've seen a real explosion in
As a developer who has worked in a variety of languages, OVERALL,
Do I think
Will Microsoft give up on
Re:Speaking for myself (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that this has been a problem whenever MS introduces a new technology (COM, COM+, ActiveX). I can find plenty of people using these terms, but no one can give me a two or three sentence summary of what they are. Unfortunately, it seems like
I think you've got part of it (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I think you're onto something here. By pushing
I think they got the best of both worlds - a decent product they paired with FUD. That's a pretty tough combination.
Re:If Sun didn't invent Java would .NET exist? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:2, Insightful)
No matter what the MS-bootlickers say, .NET can be summed up easily:
To sum up, there isn't a real reason to use .NET over Java. The Microsofties who have overrun Slashdot already will crucify me for doubting the invincibility of Microsoft, but Java is *the* standard programming language, and the only language that runs on every major and most minor platforms.
75% of webservers don't run Windows. 100% of cellphones don't run Windows. 60% of PDAs don't run Windows. Let's face it: .NET is just a desktop solution, nothing more.
Using .NET and artificially chaining yourself to one vendor and platform and shrinking your target market is a stupid idea.
Re:Reality is quite nice though (Score:5, Insightful)
MS claim that
Currently MS makes the bulk of their money from the OS and Office. If they truely made
So basically I fail to see how MS could inplement a businees plant such that
Again, MS makes (prints???) money by selling OSs and Office (everything else is just a rounding error). You can be damn sure they're not going to do anything to threaten that cash cow. The interesting thing will be how MS ties
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of things are "easier" than ASP.NET/ADO.NET coded using an OOP language. For simple things you're better off using something like PHP or ASP/VBS. Of course when project complexity reaches a certain point you'll start to find real advantages to going with a modern approach that seperates the presentation layer from the business layer. Of course taking this approach can make writing a simple application seem daunting, but in the long run it pays off.
It has a lot to do with simply knowing what sort of application you're going to be writing and picking the proper tool for the job.
Apache trumps IIS with the ability to do the majority of configuring with one file, instead of having to browse through a maze of tabbed windows with options, checkboxes, pop-up boxes, etc.
Totally. 100% agreed. Much easier to administer Apache via it's text configuration IMO.
Three years is just the beginning. (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact is that the
Microsoft's own apps are only just barely beginning to integrate the core
The best comparrison is probably Java. How logn did it take before Java rocked the world, er, well some of us are still waiting for it. Actual it did have a big impact in some areas, but generaly not the areas it was orriginaly aimed at. Where are all the Java thin clients now? Perhaps the same will happen with
Simon Hibbs
What .Net REALLY is (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is simply taking what they already have and making some changes in the way these components work together and within the context of the internet. The end result should be a computing experience that is fairly smooth to the end user and provides a lot of what's already out there but with different names and faces. This is why they claim to "innovate". Innovation is taking existing "stuff" and using it in new ways. That's not exactly what they do though. Instead they take existing stuff and use it in the same ways they are already used but call them something else.
Examples:
In UNIX we have daemons
In Windows they have "Services"
This provides enough of a distinction that the less technically inclined person is going to thing Services are somehow different. But they are really no more than daemons or backgrounded apps.
In X Window System we have "Window Managers"
In Windows XP they have the "Theme Service"
Don't believe me? Go stop the theme service in XP and tell me what changes. Just the Window widgets and borders and the look and feel of the Start bar.
In UNIX we have "mount points" for file systems.
In Windows 2000/XP they have the ability to mount a drive in an empty NTFS folder.
Microsoft is very good at taking these existing concepts, renaming them and then claiming them as their own innovations even though they haven't changed how the technologies are actually used. They've only renamed them.
Unix = Here's the internet. Go learn some stuff and have fun.
Microsoft = Here's
Personally I prefer the Unix approach, but that's just me.
Oh, I almost forgot:
In Soviet Russia we only had two TV channels. Channel One was pro da. Channel Two consisted of a KGB officer telling you: Turn back at once to Channel One.
-- Yakov Smirnoff
Re:Reality is quite nice though (Score:3, Insightful)
From Microsoft! Because there have been better alternatives on Windows for a long time--both in terms of MUCH more flexible and expressive frameworks for C/C++, and in terms of different programming languages. But as far as Microsoft products for developing for Windows are concerned, yes,
Re:It can do most of what they say... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure how many times I've seen this single point refutued, but your not tied to a single language to use the the JVM. Want proof, here you go [tu-berlin.de]. That's COBOL to Eifel with all the good bits in the middle.
The question is, what do you mean by "Java". There is the programming language "Java". There is the Java Virtual Machine. There is the set of standard class libraries, etc... This is where I think the confusion comes in.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:5, Insightful)
On a point-by-point comparison, .Net frequently is superior to Java. It falls short on the fundamental
points you raise: interoperability, and more importantly
seperability. Using Java you know exactly which technologies you are embracing, and which you
are leaving out. Java/XML, Java/RMI, Java/Corba...
It's all your decision.
The other feature that .Net has is superior native execution,
it was designed to be translated to native code. The .net
virtual machine is better defined than the JVM is. But I
agree that on whole, the tradeoff is not worthwhile.
I have to agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Speaking for myself (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO the biggest thing in ASP.NET that leaves PHP for dust is the separation of code from layout. The other big one (and closely related) is easy componentisation. These two make life so much easier, and speak to much of the architectural niceties I mentioned in my original post. Not only can it be done, but it's easy to do and the flow *encourages* you to do it. I love a tool that makes it easy for me to do things the right way.
I do agree ASP.NET has a steeper learning curve than PHP (or any of the others listed, with the possible exception of JSP). Based on my experience, it's a price well worth paying.
For a small project, PHP would usually be my first choice, but anything medium to large, IMHO, ASP.NET is just miles better. Not trying to start a religous war as I do respect PHP, but I thought this was interesting, a comment from a respected member of the PHP community: http://www.edwardbear.org/blog/archives/000189.ht
Re:Reality is quite nice though (Score:3, Insightful)
This is one big problem with Microsoft. Each time some VP gets all horny for an idea, it seems whatever preceded that idea becomes somehow irrelevant from marketing and, eventually, support standpoints. I would bet there are many many millions of lines of commercial code out there tied by thier guts to COM, BizTalk, and whatever, leaving those Microsoft customers mystified about why they put forth all that effort only to have their vendor spit all over them and push them into the mud. Microsoft has absolutely no sense of being committed to their customers, which, IMO, is a big no-no in pretty much every other industry ever dreamt up by humans. This three-to-four year turnover in technology from them just needs to slow down (hell, the last major inventions elsewhere, UNIX, the WWW, Lisp/Java/VM-stuff etc. are all pretty darn "old", now, but evolving rather than getting uprooted and mulched).
Re:It actually outperforms J2EE by a lot (Score:5, Insightful)
MS knows it's a dog. It's as simple as that.
Re:So much... (Score:4, Insightful)
The main problem with Office and Exchange is that they also tie you to a specific OS. Yet they seem to have done rather well.
I'm sure .Net has many failings, but only being tied to one OS' is probably not the vast majority of companies lists. There are plenty of places out there that are happily MS-centric.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:2, Insightful)
Two points here:
(1) The overall size of the market is different from the actual opportunity in the market. So, yes, there are a bazillion windows desktops. On the other hand, everybody else, including Microsoft, is writing software for them already.
(2) The possible future size of the market is important too. pda's, cellphones, and webservers usage is growing. The pc market is starting to drop off.
Re:Yes (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems like you are not the only one:
stats [securityspace.com]
Also, the only company I know personally which did use IIS for something more complicated than static pages went belly-up 2 years ago...
If you look at some countries like Germany [securityspace.com] or Japan [securityspace.com], IIS is already de-facto dead there. In those countries it's already quite hard to find a hoster that will even offer Windows, either you have to go to one of the few and very expensive hosters who offer Windows or you would have to do everything yourself.
In the USA, Microsoft's strategy to make their products as incompatible as possible might help them because there are enough MS-brainwashed people there, but everywhere else, their "designed for incompatibility" strategy is starting to hurt them a lot.
In many countries, a server equals Unix, so choosing .NET is just plain stupid because you won't find a good hoster for it. The same scenario is coming along with cellphones everywhere including the USA: Java runs, .NET doesn't. If you might ever want to do anything with cellphones, .NET isn't an option because Microsoft isn't even able to get a foot into that market.
If you choose .NET, you have significantly limited your possibilities and your flexibility. (Do you really know for sure that you won't do anything outside the MS-world in 10 years?)
With Java on the other hand, you have all your bases covered: Desktops, servers, browsers, PDAs, cellphones, embedded systems.
In the long run, Microsoft's refusal to cooperate with other technologies will hurt them also in the USA. In case you haven't noticed, the computing desktop isn't the hot thing anymore. A lot of new stuff comes out for cellphones, embedded devices and PDAs, which means no .NET, sorry.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:2, Insightful)
Multi-language is not all it's cracked up to be -- would you allow people in your team to just pick the language of their liking 'because it all compiles to MSIL anyhow'? Of course not. You'd have a humoungous support problem, peer-review would be a mess, etc.
What is going to happen is that people will get on board because they can keep their fav language, and after a while everyone will migrate to C# because it will simply be better supported, and hey, it's a pretty decent language.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:2, Insightful)
Now more to your lack of a point. Java runs GREAT on Windows 95-XP. Hmmm how does
1. All Microsoft shops will use ONLY Microsoft solutions. It comes from Bills mouth to their hands. They will live and die by that motto. Unfortunately there are quite a few shops like this, and these types of morons is what allows Microsoft the time to correct major flaws in products.
2. Everyone else will use the best of breed approach, or what their developers currently know or whatever cost the least amount.
Currently Java does a great job of running on multiple platforms, but in my opinion it isn't the language for complex math, or very simple scripting apps. It is also bad at very simple apps that can only use a small amount of memory.
Microsoft's biggest competitor isn't so much Java with IBM or SUN or BEA or Oracle, but it is Linux+JBOSS+FREE_DB. Microsoft has made a bundle, by offering similar products at a significantly lower price-point. They have been able to do this because they have a monopoly on the desktop, and can allways count on that profit; but they will have a near impossible time of undercutting FREE. Some people base their entire decision on cost! So they are starting to loose that marketshare now. They also have a major issue in that the desktop market is FLAT now. The growth that they came to love is gone.
I am by no means supprised that they want to go to a leasing agreement now! They need those consistant revenue streams!
Silly (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just Slashdot getting its weekly naysaying in.
That's fine with me. (Score:3, Insightful)
In the end, that's fine with me. I'll not support any switch to a .Net framework. Hokey is hokey. If they maintain this approach with promises of e-panaceas and superbright futures, then it will only encourage the skeptics (largely, "us") to stand their ground.
Re:J2EE (Score:5, Insightful)
That's one company with the one technology, and three companies plus "etc." with the other. Wouldn't it make more sense for Microsoft to drop
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, while there are surely more desktops than Java-capable devices, the figures are not as out of proportion as you suggest. There are millions of Java devices already out and soon almost all cellphones will run it which means BILLIONS of devices.
Secondly, for desktops, allmost all the software already exists and there isn't really that much to develop. So for a developer, Java sure as hell is the more interesting platform than .NET.
Re:.NET = Windows API 2.0 (Score:4, Insightful)
That statement is a laughable sham, and I am sure M$ is glad you brought it up. Windows controls the hardware, and not the other way around. It has been this way for a long time - Windows killed Alpha, for example.
I wonder if Redhat and Sun's attempt to open source java [linuxtoday.com] will have any impact on this emerging battlefield??
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Guess which came first?
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:1, Insightful)
I am so sorry, I am not completely sold out on the Open Source mechanism. I mean the solutions are good, but they aren't great (yet). Before you flame me, the above mentioned triad solution do not provide many features found in other enterprise level software. They are also quite slow (overall). The only Open Source solution that performs at an enterprise level is Apache.
When you are a BIG-ASS, Inc. you care little if you save a million on licensing fees, if your software is guaranteed to work. i.e., Oracle, IBM, BEA. (And yes, if they could save money and get 8 sigma uptime...they'll use Open Source software) Plus, there are a billion more folks who know this stuff then the ones who know Open Source solutions.
Yes, these alternate ideas are great for small companies, but, they don't contribute to the massive licensing profits.
And, please let's not go over this one more time: Open Source software is good. And, CTOs aren't all dumb. They *do* want to save money -- you know.
Re:java (Score:3, Insightful)
And history is irrelevant to the current state.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Technical Stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
x86, alpha etc are the platform archetictures. At the moment, x86 is the only one in use since Alpha, MIPS and PPC seem to be non-viable, at least to Microsoft, but I expect to see some new ones as time goes on.
My point was that
Windows95 all over (Score:3, Insightful)
E.G. Win95 mostly served the purpose of creating a middleway between DOS and the Windows Api. All DOS apps ran more or less, and all apps build in the "new" windows api worked a lot better (ofcourse). Then, after 5 years, when even the last software vendor had switched over, they could introduce Windows2000, that ran these Apps better than anything before it, and was build upon actually usable technology.
So... think about
Could MS be planning to have programmers create all of the smaller, not that speed dependent frontend apps to the
.NET a definite upgrade, good competition for Java (Score:5, Insightful)
And I don't agree
The best thing
Re:get a load of this quote (Score:2, Insightful)
The issue is evidenced here [com.com], and here [com.com], and here. [com.com] (I think
You can debate who's to blame, but the SOAP standard has taken a long time in coming. Version 1.2 was FINALLY released like a week ago, but the W3C has been running around like idiots with it for half of forever. I can tell you from personal experience that corporations want to use web services now but are really hesitant to start using web services to build enterprise apps without real standardization. What it comes down to, in my view, is that as a developer, I need these tools now, and I've been waiting for them for far too long because Tim Berners - Lee has been stroking his Semantic Web [w3.org] pipe dream for more than like 3 years.
What Mr. Helms had to say wasn't a cheap shot at open standards. It was a shot at some serious problems with the drafting of these specific standards, and he has a lot of well-documented history to back him up. IMHO, calling the web services standards "immature" was pretty gracious of Mr. Helms.
You should really read up on the topics you post about so you have some better knowledge of what you're saying before you start taking "cheap shots" at someone simply because of where they're employed.
(Mods: "Interesting"?!? Come ON...)
Re:Speaking for myself (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? There are multiple ways to do this, at the simplest level you throw a number of controls on the screen, possibly grouped with panels, and then change the Visible tag accordingly to display the one you want.
On a more complex level, you can create a number of controls which all inherit from a base class, and then instantiate the one you need into the main page. I've been working with the Dotnetnuke framework, and this is the entire basis of how it operates, as custom controls inherit from PortalModuleControl and are loaded dynamically at runtime according to database criteria for the page.
We gave 3 others a chance at it, two of them full time and true Microserfs.
Microserf? What is this, a contest to see who can act most like a child?
Since then I've tried other things and come to the same conclusion.
I guess it's nice that you came to a conclusion, it's just unfortunate that you are trying to extend your technical incompetence onto others.
ASP.NET has rocked my world as well, and I am barely even scratching the surface of functionality.
Re:.net web services (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that a bit like saying that one of the strengths of VB is that it doesn't allow you to run your applications on different platforms so you can standardize on one?
There is always a trade-off between standards and flexibility. This issue isn't exclusive to Sun or MS.
Re:.NET = Windows API 2.0 (Score:1, Insightful)
For shame, everyone is misunderstanding your comment. This doesn't mean that Windows will run on anything you want it to. It means that Windows will run on anything Microsoft wants it to, with minimal effort.
You see, before
Re:You are kidding, right? (Score:2, Insightful)
Same here. This has been a feature of Unix/Linux for many years.
Man, you must have had a really bad network. I don't see how just switching you applications to
Umm, come into the world of Solaris/*BSD/Linux and YOU won't believe our uptimes.
How does using
Why would someone on
Sorry, all
.NET is properly engineered (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, but what the hell is it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Every dog has it's 15 mintues of fame. (Score:2, Insightful)
How can anything that requires MS Windows on both client and server possibly hope to replace Java ever?? I am not saying that Java is perfect, there is no such thing.
Can you really make a
Yeah, I know about Mono but it's not ready and will not never be given any real support by Microsoft to become usable every time they change
I would not want to work/develop on any system where Micro$oft dictates all the standards. I'd rather stop using a computer and resort back to using an abacus for computing and carrier pigeons for networking. If I am not alone then
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
It's just easier to use a gui - not faster but certainly easier.
Maybe for you it is, personally I find a nice clean xml config file way easier to deal with.
I remember one incident trying to get iis to serve up a file. I had to alter the "security" settings in no less than 3 different iis menus befor the frickin thing would serve it up.
The menus are like a maze that one must climb through. The feature that you want could be anywhere in that maze. With XML and a decent editor you can just do a find.
they fall somewhat short on some of the advanced features businesses need for enterprise apps
Or perhaps just think they need after a bunch of marketing mumbojumbo. There are pretty big sites on the net that use Apachr/PHP, Bravenet.com [bravenet.com] comes to mind, you could probably find others at netcraft.com [netcraft.com] I don't use this setup personally, but I see a quite a few large sites that do, and they seem to be making money.
it's java for windows basically
I will never understand why people would write in a "java for windows" when they can write in a Java for all operating systems. C# seems to me like a less sophisticated version of Java that has the added drawback of locking you in to a single platform.
Re:Yes (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm going to come back with this anyway. You have siad that "Windows... is a train wreck for a server", and that the security is bad too. But you are saying it is okay for someone who doesn't know what they are doing to use the pointy-clicky tools to administer the server? They'll get r00ted inside of a week. I'm not saying GUI tools are bad -- I wouldn't mind some good GUI tools to configurate the more annoying Linux configuration such as SysV init and network interfaces, but if you have to use a GUI tool to run the server because you don't understand what you are doing, you HAVE no business running it.
Re:.NET = Windows API 2.0 (Score:3, Insightful)
1 MS wants to be a monopoly on software
2 MS needs to squash all other forms of hardware (including hand helds) to accomplish 1.
3 Cross platform stands in the way of 2. Thus must be squashed.
4 In accordance with 1, MS buys/recreates most/all forms of software especially compilers.
5 In accordance with 4, there is a MS java compiler/environment. To facilitate 3, the MS environment squelches cross platform capability through market share of ms-specific tweaks for applets / java applications.
6 SUN doesn't allow MS to enhance the java language (instigated by 4), thereby thwarting MS's efforts to obliterate cross platforming.
7 MS realizes some benifits to a common API (a la MFC / java.*), and sees a benifit to customers if they only have to learn a single API, but can share code between different developer types (simple ASP / VB, corporate C++). Moreoever, COM is too complex on the C++ side. MS's particular solution to a common environment was to literally have a shared execution space between differing programming widgets. This makes a simpler replacement for COM.
8 MS already has a working and somewhat industry proven java-engine, so only a few minor tweaks are needed to make it CRL/.NET. It is likely that the decision to make CRL was in the middle or possibly even the beginning of the MS java initiative.
9 With the release of
10
So there you have it.. A completely logical motivation chain. As you can see, cross-platform is in violation of some of the steps, so you are very likely to see frustrations in the independent porting process. Moreoever, with somethink is centralized as
Re:.net web services (Score:2, Insightful)
For a lot of people, there are legitimate reasons for dismissing it out of hand. It is an incredible environment for developing apps on Windows, but beyond that problem space, it is not particularly useful.
Re:Reality is quite nice though (Score:5, Insightful)
MS claim that
By the same token (Score:1, Insightful)
It doesn't matter (Score:3, Insightful)
It all still boils down to x86 machine code. With
From a embedded programmers perspective,
Not to start a flame war, but as developers I hope most of us realize that
Enjoy,