Printable View
Palemoon it doesnt matter if Microsoft cant program Theyt have a monopoly which is hard to break. I am no stranger to using microsoft for that one reason. I actually support .NET it will hopefully bring another standard for on and off net content. Lets just hope it doesnt elliminate new developers.
Unfortunately, that's what I see happening down the road. Hell, I've downloaded the Admin Tools for the .NET architecture, just to play around with...and I run W98! Certainly M$ is good at what they do, and I use one of their OS's on a daily basis, but I see a bigger monopoly suit coming down the road...Quote:
It's a good idea to get familiar with a good indie OS, just in case you get too frustrated to deal with the integration of all plug-ins and shovelware into the future Win releases...(how often do you want your screen popping up update information for multitudes of components in WinXP2?)
Ouroboros
Quote:
Originally posted here by Negative
[B]Microsoft.NET
Introduction.
Microsoft spent 40,000 man-years in developing .NET. Never before has any software-company spent such an amount of time and money in a new technology and development-environment. Only the future will tell if it's been worth it.
Philosophy.
.NET is totally language- and platform independent: even a Linux-version is being worked on. Using the .NET-environment, one can develop software for pc, internet and palmtop pc's.
.NET is developed following a strict hierarchy: software should consist of components, and these components should be there where they are necessary.
How it works.
In short: .NET is an initiative that could turn the internet into a new OS.
Imagine .NET as a new OS in development that runs on all computers connected to the internet worldwide.
A pc nowadays has a 32-bit databus (moving towards 64). The internet can also be seen as a databus, turning all computers into one huge supercomputer. The .NET-'databus' will not transport bits though. It will transport XML, using SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol).
To make an OS like that grow, you need an 'organic' infrastructure; such an infrastructure is what .NET offers. Within that structure, there'll also be room for webservices and components developed with other technologies. All MS does, is offer an infrastructure.
OK...heres the view from the street. I worked closely (through a sub-contractor) with MS on the initial roll out of their .NET based products in a support position, so I am familier with the technology and goals involved here. While MS does provide the infrastructure, they also develop products that use the infrastructure, so don't be disillusioned about their motives for .NET. What .NET is at its core is a new stream of revenue for MS and other companies who develop .NET products. I'm not condemning or condoning here, I just want to make sure that my fellow AO members understand the philosophy behind .NET. The purpose of this business model is to sell software as a service where the end users pay a monthly or annual fee to access the actual program, which resides on a server farm in Redmond (or wherever the developer chooses to host the application). Using this method, the actual code for the program does not reside on the clients machine, it is accessed through a browser via the internet. For real world working examples, look at MS bCentral or the Sharepoint services offered through Office XP. One of the main drawbacks of this strategy is that in a business application all data resides on a remote server that is inaccessable if for some reason internet access is temporarily unavailable. Sorry if I've insulted anyone with this response, I just want to make sure that we all understand that altruism on a corporate level is a myth and no company will provide technology without a way to get revenue in return for its efforts.
I suppose my only point is sure M$ dosen't need my support. But give M$, SUN, etc what I do see is a general push to take public funded research and turn it into a profit for their self or share holders. TCP/IP is used in all of this stuff out here it is sort of like one company having rights and ownership to the dial tone on telephones, only out here you won't get a dial tone because in order for your system to even boot up it needs to phone home, and EULA's take aways all ones rights and absolves the mfg of any fault. All of this .NET can be done right now and .NET means yst another standard only this time someone own exclusive rights to it by default their OS is loaded on 94% of the computers made. Yes most diffcult to break that stangle hold M$ has, but it can and should be broken. If I must support .NEt it will be only because I need to make a living, but the move by M$ or any rival to reduce the open nature of the Web and steal public ownership is wrong, impinges freedom of choice, and reduces freedom of speach. As someone here truthfully noted even the service pack one for XP and it's EULA (do your own search) give M$ the right to do anything they want to your computer without telling you, .NET is just going to be a further expansion on that EULA. As AllenB said it is all about money and does M$ deserve or can it be trusted or any company that is for profit the exclusive rights to dominate the WEB?