Slashdot Mirror
Corel-Microsoft Deal Means Potential .NET for Linux
Thanks to Scott McNeil for pointing out that in the SEC filing concerning the recent Microsoft investment in Corel that it grants Microsoft the /option/ for the next three years to have Corel port the .NET framework or portions by assigning at least 20 full time developers and 10 full time testers - or the equivalent thereof. Now, it is an option, but that's interesting that it's in there. It's Point 3 of the section I linked to.
The more I read about .NET, the more I like it. The commonly advice "use the right tool for the job" seems to suggest using something exactly like .NET and its CLR. In a large project, ML may be the best tool for some portions, JAVA/C# for others, and maybe C++ for still other portions. With the CLR, it's easy to pick the best tool for the job. This is reason enough for me to investigate it a little further and hope for something similar on Linux.
-ec
Look, SOAP is a protocol. I read the other day that IBM has a Lixux beta of SOAP-based web services available. Try reading the w3.org SOAP proposed spec. Microsoft is just one member of this spec. So is IBM and lotus.
to quote: "SOAP does not itself define any application semantics such as a programming model or implementation specific semantics; rather it defines a simple mechanism for expressing application semantics by providing a modular packaging model and encoding mechanisms for encoding data within modules."
It is a standard way of doing functions over the Internet thru HTTP. On port 80 (i.e., through firewalls). Instead of spending time (or money) getting our shipping calculator to talk to fedex instead of UPS, they just publish a web service, and I use it like a function. In VB, in Perl, whatever. I'm sorry, but this is a BIG DEAL, and microsoft is playing nice with lots of other folks to do it right. Deal with it.---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Section 4 does not give Corel a license.
Microsoft is simply promising not to sue Corel over those patents until Corel is sold, tries to transfer rights or sues MS -- Including for anti-trust violations. If you add in section 5 (unconditional surrender of any legal rights WRT past MS actions), it's kinda like:`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
According to nasdaq Corel's share went up sharply
early october to take a dive a few days later.
Whoever bought millions of shares of Corel
then made a killing as the shares doubled in value.
I wonder who dumped those millions of shares as
the price went up to $6 a share from close to
$3.50 a share.
The share have now gone back up a bit.
3 years ago, this is how I said Microsoft would destroy Linux.
Windows is not important, it's not the OS that gives Microsoft it's power anymore. Microsoft GOT there originally from it's OS market domination, but now it's the PLATFORM. All they have to do is move the PLATFORM over to other OSes. What I didn't forsee is them integrating it all with the internet/ASP-plan thing.
Of course, Apple/NeXT could have done this with OpenStep (Yellowbox for Windows) and WebObjects two years ago. But they don't seem interested in world domination so much anymore. They could still do it, but it looks like Motorola is doing all they can to stall Apple on it's native platform. (PPC).
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Using PHP doesn't lock you into not charging for the use of a web based application just because it's a free, open source technical.
That Bill I am that Bill I am, I do not like that Bill I am. Say, do you like .NET?
I do not like .NET.
I will not in C Sharp, I will not on a lark.
I do not like it so you see.
Try them, try them and you may.
Try them and you may I say.
Hmmmm, ,
Oooh I do so like .NET, I will code in C Sharp, I will do it for a lark.
Now that you've tried it you must pay.
You must pay and pay I say. Upgrades are
on the way. Incompatible upgrades that may break your day.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
how is .NET a technological break?
It's basically just OLE/COM/DCOM/DNA repackaged to look like Java.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Controlling the servers alone doesn't work.
Look at the ones who failed that route;
Novell
Banyan
Sun
Linux (sort of)
-
Look at the ones who've failed because they only controlled the desktop;
Amiga
Apple (sort of)
Windows has the magic formula, desktop, low-end server, and commodity hardware.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Yeah, I was mildly aware of that when I posted.
So the question is: When are you Unix boys going to use DCE to start reverse engineering the Exchange wire protocol? (grin - it looks like it costs $100,000 to redistribute...)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Thanks for that well-reasoned rebuttal from a MicroSquish shill.
We've already been down this road, with every luser on the net trying to send us mail in a proprietary microsquish format (Word 6 attachements, anyone?)
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Come on Linux already is fully capable of doing .NET . .NET is nothing more than a fancy way of saying SOAP which is the underlying base of the .NET architecture. The original specification was XML-RPC which was enhanced to the new SOAP standard. SOAP is already implemented in both PERL and PYTHON so .NET is already here someone just has to use it. As for M$, I see them exploiting the binary implementation to break or disallow compatibility.
Got Code?
That being said I like the idea of the .NET platform moving
to Linux. My reasoning for such a positive outlook on this is, that my company
uses ASP, COM, and SQL if this took place, I could at least persuade them to
move over to Linux for our OS needs. After that the may warm to the notion of
J2EE.
Crack |
Applications belong on a hard disk not a network.
It will be a cold day in hell before they can take my hard disk away from me.
Respond to s
Believe me, I am the closest thing to a Microsoft fan/apologist that you will find on Slashdot. I am not bashing .NET simply because MS makes it; I am bashing .net because it, combined with Passport, will give MS far too much access to users' personal information.
.net, Microsoft will not only be able to track user behavior across its web network, it will have a comprehensive database of every Windows user's preferences--right down to what wallpaper he uses on his desktop.
Hotmail alone has 60 million registered users. Windows sells hundreds of millions of copies. With
The registry concept was pretty cool, because it allowed network administrators to standardize and modify desktop configuration settings remotely. That was a good feature that MS developed. However, putting this power in the hands of MS or malicious Internet users is not a good feature. Besides, MS has no right to compile a database of my preferences simply because I use Windows.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
What would happen if (very big IF) MS actually start producing Linux software that is well wrote and shows off what Linux can do? Would the Linux community snub any software simply because of who created it? or would they be more impartial and judge the software on its merits? Can practicality overrule principle?
"We hate to admit it by ie 4.5 mac (very very different than windows internet explorer) is the best browser on the mac..."
Not hardly. OmniWeb, the browser that Netscape studied to copy the features that MicroSquick then copied in turn, is available for Mac OS X, and it kick's IE's ass.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
...to suggest that would make a Corel port of the .NET frame work poor quality?
.NET framework and CLR have no VM
Not on purpose, just they dont have the wherewithall to do it properly.
The
Gee it's nice to be pedantic.
If you agree that a VM is tough to build, then you'll agree that a CLR would be tougher to build, seeing as it's more complex than a VM.
Plonk!
About a week or so ago I posted the original news about the SEC filings. I guess you really have to be someone to be posted on /.
Look, SOAP is a protocol. ... Try reading the w3.org SOAP proposed spec. ... It is a standard way of doing functions over the Internet thru HTTP. On port 80 (i.e., through firewalls).
SOAP can be used with HTTP, but my reading of the spec is that that is just an example, not mandated. SOAP is mostly about using XML to represent data.
Anyone who knows anything about firewalls also knows that port 80 is not the real issue. Using HTTP or HTTP/SSL many, but not all, people can get out through a firewall around their organisation, to at least some sites. If it works, it usually works for ports other than 80 as well as the defaults. This is a quite separate problem from getting in through a firewall to a server that provides access to the data. For many organisations, that takes you into the world of bastion hosts, perimiter networks, and firewall configurations that explicitly cater for the access to that host from outside.
In my opinion, the bottom line is that SOAP will work for simple stuff, but if you care about security you are on your own. The people griping about firewall problems with CORBA, RMI, DCOM etc. will be disappointed if they adopt SOAP as a 'solution'.
As for the rest of .NET, it is a very mixed bag; some is good, some is bad, and some is just ugly. Microsoft will make it happen, we will have to live with it, it will be change, but no guarantee of progress.
IBM already shared their SOAP implementation to apache and I think they've already modified/extended it a bit.
I suppose I'm not too threatening, presently, but wait till I start Nautilus
Corel may be perfect for the task in Microsoft's eyes. .NET will run on Linux, but not as well as it could. Porting to WINE will make the system just run slower. MS can then say "Switch to Win2k if you need more speed or power."
Think of how well MS Office runs on Macs....
Fair notice: I own Corel stock and wish it would go up in value.
Viv
-----------
I Use Napster. I use DeCSS. I buy over $1000 a year in CD/DVDs.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
Could you have told use what Corel would port .NET to? Presumable Linux, but the idea of reasing an SEC filing this early in the morning without a few more cups of coffee really makes my head hurt worse than it hurts now.
Thanks,
Well, from what I've read, it allows you to pass actual data between languages without marshelling, the thing that COM does for you. It will also hide COM from you so you can just work with straight data types. Apparently.
SUN has it's head up it's ass. It's a Microsoft-wannabe - it's stuck between trying to own and dictate java while at the same time trying to claim it's open. Depends on which department you talk to. The only reason it's finally moving forward again is because IBM beat them with a wet noodle. I would _love_ to switch to java. I think it could be a great(tm) thing. But, like the Apple, Sun is going to keep SCREWING around until Microsoft REVs them to death. HOW many times has a great potential product/software/etc came out only to have MS trample it? Look at Word Perfect & Office. Office use to _SUCK_. It took them a long time, but Office pretty much kicked Word Perfect into the dirt. Once Microsoft gets rolling (and this takes a long time) it's practically impossible to stop. Java had a, what, three year leap on them? And Sun has squandered it. The window is quickly closing. Java could have owned the market. Now, who knows? .NET is pitched at EVERY level. You're delusional if you think the MS is going to settle for small piece of the market. C# is targeted at client & server side - and it's a direct competitor for Java, or it will be. I know, I know, it's vapor right now. So was MS Office.
The Game Guy
Frigging .NET has nothing to do with a compiler. It has everything to do with SOAP and there are already SOAP implementations for Linux. So what the hell is everyone bitching about if you wish to build a Linux .NET app today you by all means could.
Got Code?
Let's keep you martyr linux coders in the closet. Less competition that way.
The Game Guy
Just so you know....
Microsoft also intended for NT to be multi-platform as well.
.NET for other platforms? Lip service enough to rope in the non-x86 people, less features, more bugs, slow painful death, make x86 the most attractive platform, help migrate people to x86, then kill off the others one by one.
We no longer have with us:
NT-MIPS, NT-PPC, NT-Alpha
Whaddya think is going to happen when there is a
Just like they did with NT.
Not because they're in any secret conspiracy with Intel, mind you. It's because it's a profit-optimization to support only one platform. This is why companies standardize on one platform.
There are lots of good reasons why this is a bad idea, but haven't bean-counters been running things for quite some time now?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I don't care if it runs on Windows, Linux, or the next create OO operating system. I ain't gunna use it.
.NET?
"Sorry, the server hosting your documents directory "Business Plan" is temporarily unavailable. Please try back later. We apologize for this inconvenience."
All I am saying is that if Microsoft can't provide a simple, stable web mail service, how can we expect them to reliable handle the complex architecture they have layed out in
-josh
Ahhhh then you can't trap people into using windows in any way. It's really not smart for them to shoot themselves in the foot.
Respond to s
Obviously, M$ is being very careful to make sure that they get NO competition in the Office arena, however
.NET enable WordPerfect. I'd imagine that if they see it as a feature that will help them gain market share they can. This seems more likely correct given the rest of the sentance: "...Products for which Corel chooses to make no new commercial releases...".
That depends on how you read it. I read it that Corel is not required to
Ad in classifieds: Pandora's Box (no box) $5
Okay, point taken. Some of it could turn out good (easy multi-language development) and some of it could turn out plain eeeeevil (pretty poor privacy).
in the right direction for Linux. Now, im setting myself up for failure here...but.. My biggest gripe with Windows and Microsoft in general has been they refuse to even acknowledge linux as a viable solution for the desktop or the enterprise. The thick-headedness these people exhibited has been down right sickening. The fact that they will port a major framework, thus enabling linux to act as a contender in the marketplace, is a remarkable milestone for the Linux movement. Once these bigger companies start seeing, and accepting, Linux, more progress will be made. I know it sounds like big bad MS moving in on our territory...but think about it. What if MS opens their eyes and learns something? What if they actually take the knowledge and build windows to be better and as reliable? Sure, its a long shot, but I think its a good stepping stone for both sides. We can co-exist, and It will happen, people just need to lose the ignorance
"sex on tv is bad, you might fall off..."
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
Corel appears to be required to support .NET to some extent in its products (section 2). But the last paragraph of section 2 appears to "clarify" that they aren't really required to support .NET. It seems contradictory.
The agreement also gives Corel a license to four MS patents covering (as far as I can tell) spreadsheet technology, database technology, UI technology and (apparently) spell-checking technology. This is in Section 4 of the agreement.
Section 6 renews Corel's license to VBA (Visual Basic for Applications). Has Corel used VBA in any applications thus far?
Steve
Democracy is a poor substitute for liberty.
Let's put it in the terms of a scenario: Some arbitrary Linux company, say Corel, is the only Linux platform to support Microsoft's one and only
Recompile yer kernel when you feel like it, run ASP+ for your webserver if you want to, run Apache if you feel like it, run both if you want to have an interesting benchmark between the two, the possibilities are quite frankly exponential.
So here's a serious question for those of you who aren't so quick to blow it off or fully embrace it with all of your uninformed conviction: What could this mean if it happens?
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
Corel's original OfficeSuite 8 was developped in Java....
No, you're mistaken. Corel was, at one point, developing an office suite in Java, but it was cancelled back in the summer of 1997. Every version of WordPerfect (well, that Corel has released) has been written in C and C++.
-j
That's the funniest thing I've read for a long, long, time.
Dominate? What gives you that impression? Please give me a real citation. Sounds like wishful thinking.
The Game Guy
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The initiative behind .NET is to open up MS Office to the NET. With Office 2001, Office is now not only being componentize but is also being wrapped with XML interfaces. This setup allows MS to provide Office as service over the web.
.NET strategy, will win the OS, Language (Java) and Office war hands down.
MS can do this easily for the existing Windows platform. The idea of using Corel is to use it as a *client* to MS Office on Linux (and Unix) platforms.
This strategy allows MS to put Office "everywhere" without having to have Windows "everywhere" -- after all how else can MS take over the remaining 15 or the market?!
The way I see it, MS with their
-- George
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
"During the presentation I was asked about whether or not there were 2 or more implementations of the CLI. At Microsoft we have implemented 2 versions of the CLI. These are known as our .NET Frameworks and .NET Compact
Frameworks. Further it was asked what platforms these were running on.
Currently Microsoft has these frameworks running on all the Windows
platforms (Win2K through WinCE) and 1 non-Windows platform. Unfortunately
I'm not able to comment any further on the non-Windows platform."
Not only that, but when you combine such power with unscrupulous practices (I'm not saying that Microsoft is unscrupulous - this is a what-if scenario ;-) - you have tremendous potential for abuse.
.NET/ASP service. Now, Microsoft has MANY avenues of leverage here. They can probably gain access to this potential competitor's source-code. They could make all kinds of moves like cancelling the service at their whim - paralyzing the startup's developers, and they don't even have to be in breach of contract to do that; the services rates could be changed, the payment could be "lost in the mail", or they could simply be found "in violation" of Microsoft's usage policy, or Microsoft could simply run into "technical problems" on the application server. The independent developer is at Microsoft's mercy. They could even be as subtle as, run a screen saver on the application server, slowing it down to the point where the startup's deadlines are impacted because of the increased time it takes to launch Visual Studio, or just access files.
.NET, they're also open to espionage of documents and spreadsheets.
.NET. There's no more choice because MS is the only vendor, and they vend only service, no software anymore.
.NET-ified, so the RIAA no longer has to worry about piracy of digital media thru CDs. Microsoft probably gets a nod and a wink from the record companies, who are beholden to MS anyway, because MS 0wns their SDMI music servers like everything else.
For instance, say some independent software vendor has come up with some hot new product idea, but because they're a cash-starved startup, they "rent" Visual Studio from Microsoft, via
This is all above and beyond the present tactics MS uses with MFC, altering APIs at their whims, misleading documentation (intentional, or just economizing on tech writers, you be the judge), and providing "secret APIs" to their own developers (none of which will not change with the DOJ-mandated split, by the way).
Since this company also "rents" Office from
Eventually, this company runs into trouble, no revenue, lagging product releases, lays off half it's staff, starts looking for financial rescue, or a partner, and along comes Microsoft with a stock buyout. Microsoft very cheaply buys this "great idea", and completes it, integrates it into it's product line, and comes out smelling nice a purdy.
Eventually, nobody starts up computer software companies anymore, and all the major competitors have been beaten down or dissolved, and the only place to get software/service from is Microsoft. Never mind that no consumers want or ever wanted
**conspiracy theory** and the best payoff of all is that computers no longer need to be sold with CDROM drives, because everything is
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Oh come on now moderators? Surely I deserve something more fitting than 'overated'. Troll or flamebait maybe? Or did you fail to read my post? Ah yes, another informed moderator on the job.
Bite my yammer.
It could just as likely be a Linux based .Net server that they (or a Windows user for that matter) connect to.
with humpy love,
with humpy love,
humpmonkey
It makes perfect sense if Microsoft wants total market dominance: they have something that, on paper, looks like a good response to Java. At the same time, they get their proprietary software onto other platforms and drive competing application vendors out of business. And since they control .NET, they can always stop support for other platforms when it suits them.
Of course, the problem with this is that Microsoft will probably have trouble delivering a good version of .NET (it's even harder than a good JVM) and that many peopel feel that their applications and web software sucks. So, overall, it probably won't make much of a difference either way.
.NET is used to transact data via servers and hold applications on remote servers via a single remote provider of applications (ie microsoft). They hold the apps, they hold your data therefore you don't have the apps or their data and you have nothing hence the comment.
Respond to s
But you don't get something for nothing. If you put C/C++ into Java or C#, you lose the runtime safety and security guarantees. Or, if you try to build special versions of C/C++ to preserve safety, you lose C/C++'s efficiency and control over memory usage. Microsoft has the same problem as anybody else: it's a fundamental mismatch between the design of C++ and languages like Java.
However, a safe-but-slower version of C++ make sense for Microsoft because they have been using C++ as a high-level applications programming language for so long. But people don't get the "advantages of both" that way because that kind of applications code never took advantage of C++'s strengths in the first place.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Plus it's a neat way to get your foot int he door and pollute some code.
.NET seems as if it will help us integrate GNU/Linux into the Windows workplace. If we can get more people to use Linux, even if it is through .NET, this can mean more mindshare.
If we can relegate Microsoft to a particular service that works with our GNU/Linux setup, I'm in support of that.
The GPL also prevents Microsoft from coming too close to the distributed OS. My question is: what about modifications to the OS?
For instance, to use .NET, if Microsoft decides to "innovate" a stock /etc file, adding information that is not what we're used to or changing the format such that certain other programs won't work with it anymore, is this something that is legal?
Let's take it a step further. Then, is it legal if they decide to replace certain command programs with ones that work with that particular /etc file? If these link against the kernel dynamically, they can be precompiled.
In essence, these are established standards that we have been in place for a long time... and we know about Microsoft and standards. Would people tolerate it?
Lucas
--
He's not calling the shots anymore. Microsoft is Ballmer's puppy now. Sure, Bill probably has a hell of a say in what happens, but he's not the ringleader any longer.
"Gates" is chief software architect. Ballmer is the one running the show.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
This isn't true. One of the main points about .net is providing
write-once, run-anywhere code, and a consistent set of libraries
(ie. compete with Java), and this needs compiler support.
So THIS is how Microsoft is getting their vile asses into Linux! Probably, the source code that they deliver to Corel will be hopelessly fucked up in some way to keep it from actually working right no matter what Corel does, though it will vaguely work (hm,, like most MS products.. hmmmm...) enough to seem liek it works until you actually try to do anything but look at it.
If they had anti-Netscape code, then how about anti-Linux code? Of course. Well, Netscape was pretty fucked up anyway by Windows98... didn't really even neeed anti-Netscape code...
Juln
But, they have to at least devote the manpower to developing in house. See section 2.5..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
IMHO, this is nothing but good for Linux. Because Linux doesn't have a robust enterprise application framework it is missing out on *some* (and increasingly more) of the .com action. Granted there's the Java/JSP/JavaBeans/Corba package, but I think that MS hit the nail on the head with ASP/COM/MTS. The .NET strategy WILL come to fruition and maybe Linux will be there to participate.
jc
It was back in the day when I actually believed most of the stuff that got posted here.
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
We hate to admit it by ie 4.5 mac (very very different than windows internet explorer) is the best browser on the mac....
Mac users love to hate MS, but mant have had a slow change of heart because this browser is good fast and stable, (much more than netscape and mozilla).
It is also very standard complient unlike its windows conterpart. This might be because Apple ships 2 browsers with its OS, and there is more competion. (apple bundles ie so that microsoft wilil keep Office comming....)
If MS was making linux software it would have to be good software then only slowly would it be accepted.
.NET, like Java, is an attempt to provide an appliation framework for the internet. With only 30%-40% or so of internet servers running on Microsoft platforms, they have to port the server side of .NET or it will die on the vine. (Unless, of course, they are arrogant enough to think that the mere existance of .NET will instantly bring them to 100% server market share.)
.NET).
On the client side, it is also to their advantage to port it because this will give them credibility in competetion with Java. The fact that they will be releasing the C# language specification to an open standards body unfortunately already gives them a head start on the credibility. Client side support for other platforms also means they can extend their Office monopoly onto other platforms without having to port it more than once (to
Despite all this, however, you can likely count on the Windows implementations being much more optimized, at least at first, and they will use this as leverage to try to increase there presence on the server side, where it currently lags more.
I would argue that Corel has the Java experience that you claim. They have laid off almost everyone who worked on the original WP office suite and Java implementation.
This is also off a
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
this is something i think i will def. boycott... .net that isnt already taken and get trademarks on any bob.NET you can before someone else *cough cough* does ... again the earlier story on slashdot amazes me still that they can do campaigning on something that is so widley used around the world in a different font (lower case) is utterly amazing i hope somehow this is overturned :)*
Linux.NET? so in my opinion everyone should rush to buy one or more of any
-ME
There is no can/cannot, there is only DO/DONOT
-------------------- Success is a Journey, NOT a Destination....
As soon as I check this out with the Linux port of Internet Explorer, I'll do a big writeup using Microsoft Word for Linux.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
I know a popular Slashdot image is Bill Gates cowering behind his gigantic desk, quivering in terror over the Linux threat, but in reality he's got bigger worries (the Government).
.NET solves all of this -- it's the first Microsoft initiative that treats Windows that the commodity that it is, and it firmly moves *all* of the sexy system stuff to the "middleware" MSAppsCo layer. It's amazing leap for Microsoft if only because it does not have "Windows" written all over it. (Microsoft didn't even know if the "W" in the NGWS codename stood for "Web" or "Windows".) And furthermore, it has a real enterprise sell to it, much like Java does, except that it also has an instant foothold -- the real monopoly of MS Office.
.NET, the OS company can go into low effort maintance mode, making commodity profits for a commodity product. Meanwhile, the Apps company can continue with it's extend-and-embrace jihad against every other computer company. And if Linux or something gets popular on the desktop -- no problem, just port the .NET virtual machine, and let the OS Co wither and die. On the other hand, if they win the anti-trust case, no problem either - just use their Windows monopoly to force the OEMs to pre-install the .NET runtime on millions of machines and continue as usual.
If anything Linux just represents what Gates already knows -- the OS is a commodity, and in the long run somebody could out-commodity his biggest profit center. When Andreeson and McNeely stated back in 1994 that the web and Java makes Windows irrelevant, Gates knows that someday they will be right. If not Java, then Linux. If not Linux, then handholds or NCs or somehthing else will eventually get onto a large percentage of Gates' corporate and home desktops.
Meanwhile, Microsoft's attempts at getting a real foothold in the meat of corporations infrastructure haven't been going that well. Despite 10 years of COM/DCOM "integration", it hasn't really sold well in the larger sense.
So, along comes the US Government with the proposal to split the OS division off from the rest of the company. Under the current integrated COM-based system, this could be a technical disaster.
But
Under
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I am generally quite wary of moves like this that Microsoft makes, but how can this be a Bad Thing? Embrace and Extend is your argument??? Embrace and Extend what exactly? Their own .NET framework? Hell - it's their framework - let them extend that all they want. They can't do anything to "extend" linux itself simply by allowing the porting of their .NET to the platform.
.NET framework available to it...yes of course, behind the scenes they're saying that they can only benefit from having the .NET framework available to Linux developers...but either way, I can't see how a linux port of .NET will hurt our community.
.NET for linux will make that less and less of a valid argument.
.NET for the very reasons that I detail above. Let those of us who do accept it with open arms. We don't all need to go about our computing in the same way. Thankfully, There Is More Than One Way To Do It.
All they're really doing is saying that Linux is a platform that could benefit from having the
One of the main concerns many people have about switching over to linux is the lack of solid, useable, apps. Allowing developers to work with
And I resent your suggestion that GUI fans are clueless users. I'm a fan of a good GUI, but I can compile a new kernel about as quickly as anyone. Sure, I may choose to work out of Gnome 75% of the time, and you may choose to work at a command line prompt 90% of the time...that's the beauty of Linux - we can both do that with the same OS.
Some of us might want
Exactly, and given MS's past record with embrace and extend, .NET for linux will only work with MicroSoft's own new linux distribution. ".NET is not available for regular linux, you need to download our enhanced linux OS"
It's free until you switch over to it and come to depend on the .NET functionality, then they charge $100 for the upgrades.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
Well, what do you think this is? .NET servers running MS Software, on ANY OS that you care to use. Realistically, they'd probably rather you use Windows 2000 (or 2001 or whatever) as your server platform, but if you need to purchase a .NET subscription for every server, (so that you can support your users who just NEED .NET to run their favorite applications) be it Windows (oops! .Net is already included) or Linux, or Sun, or AIX, or ... they'll still get their market penetration, profits, and control.
To email, do the obvious.
To get a Linux distro with .NET runtime, all you'll need is one with IE for Linux preintalled, which is what Corel's Linux will deliver.
Which is even more insidious than lock-in to a Linux.NET at the OS level, since it raises the possibility that via IE, Microsoft will extend desktop platform control to Linux. After all, new applications will all be accessed through the browser very soon.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
No. The real worry he has is about not growing in revenue. There's so many copies of Windows that can be sold. There are so many features you can put in Windows after which people will stop feeling the need to upgrade. Linux is also a factor in this, but not the major one imho.
It's not Linux or the government that's causing this, it's the stock market and the simple requirement to grow revenue to keep the stock moving.
Mmmm.. Donuts
My whole point is that the desktop OS monopoly is irrelevant if they control the servers that desktop OS works with. Microsoft is working to move up the food chain. They've been trying for some time now with NT, which has met with mixed success. .NET is Microsoft's way of implementing the web-centric computing model that scared them so badly when Netscape came along.
In order to continue to expand, Microsoft MUST make it big in the server/enterprise market. If it doesn't then its growth is capped. Its stock price is so heavily tied to its accelerated rate of expansion, that should that acceleration stop or become negative, the stock price will quickly fall.
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
While .NET supports COM interoperability, it is definitely not based on COM... it's hard to believe that so many people either ignore this, or decide that they just missed something, and .NET is just another name for the latest flavor of COM coming out of MS.
The overhyped XML compliance, I'll agree with :-)
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
It all comes down to how the economics of this pan out. IMO, .NET sounds like a great enviroment to work in (excluding the fact that MS always screws up a great idea.) Common VM and libraries that can be used from basically any OO language. What a dream.
.NET software to user of every platform than you can make selling a proprietary system and supporting software from it.
.NET peices that require Windows 2005 or whatever. If things go as the could, you have this multi-platform dev base that then becomes tied to following up their software on a Windows based system if they want to continue using the newest features.
On the surface, this constant should exist whether you're developing server or client software. The nature of a VM is cross platform compatibility. It makes sense to me that you can make more money licensing and selling
It also helps their monopoly case alot since they are enabling other platforms to compete for users of their software. You're simply moving the Microsoft tax from being on each PC sold to each program developed. That's smart since it completely dismantles the goverments original case.
AND, it it ever makes sense for them to start relying on the OS again, they can simply start creating
It's a win-win situation for them.
Keep in mind that Linux is starting to dominate the server market, and that many web sites run off it. Compatibility with Linux would be key to having their VM implemented in far more places.
Putting a truly cross-platform VM in place that recognises Linux's heavy hitting in the Internet world puts them where the money's going.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
No - it's not. (Non-technical || non-programmer) != clueless As a programmer, I love the CLI (I frequently do most of my work in a gnome-terminal using vi), but I can also appreciate a good GUI. The largest segment of users out there are not clueless, they simply use applications without caring about what goes on behind the scenes. I wouldn't call that clueless. I would just say that they're clued in to a different skillset than we are. That's that challege that we, as programmers, must face when we're designing programs and interfaces for Non-technical/non-programmer types out there. And no, that doesn't mean dumbing down functionality...it just means making high-powered functionality easy to access. Two VERY different things.
Try actually reading the post and doing some research. You can run a SOAP-compliant Web SErvice on any web server, any plaform, any language....
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Try actually reading a technical discussion of the .NET platform. SOAP is only a small part of it.
The real problem is the .net name is so all encompassing. If you're talking about the whole .NET visual studio languaes, yes, the CLR (common language runtime) would have to be ported. Although, as I pointed out in a previous post, I don't think it would be nearly as hard as, say, WINE. But SOAP is just a protocol, so you can run web services on anything.....
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
NET isn't subscription based office software. .NET is a runtime, its closest competitor is Java. So basically you'll have a virtual machine that runs on any OS, that supports components and programs written in any language. A .NET runtime on Linux would be pretty cool - if it works as well as they say, you could write a Python or Perl app that would run on Windows or any other OS that had the .NET VM installed.
Great - so now everything will run against the Microsoft layer above linux, VMS, *nix, BeOS ect ect. Of course none will perform as well as the Windows version and people will say "thats becuase the OS is crap". Terrific.
The minute I heard about the MS investment in Corel, I immediately assumed that it was a way to maintain The Man's monopoly on MS Office file formats in the enterprise by adding 100% compatible MS files to WP Office. It's exactly what MS did with its similar stake in Apple. After all, does any Apple user use anything other than Office 98 for an office suite? Seriously, who cares about .Net?
If Microsoft controls the back-end, does it matter what the front end is?
If Linux is the pervasive front end, then it's a simple matter of substituting a different backend. That's what encapsulation and a billion other buzzwords are all about. They can try to make themselves relevent for a few more years, but that's about it.
-- Anne Marie
Does anybody else find the technologies Corel is investing in questionable?
Debian is great. KDE is great. Debian and KDE is just weird from a licensing standpoint (I'm talking pre QPL days here... not GPL.)
Wine, while a cool technology unto itself, is memory hungry and not terribly stable. Certianly less stable than Windows at running Windows applications, and less rich in features. Wine is also restricted to the Intel architecture, shooting the splintered HCC(Rebel) in the foot.
Debian makes a great server OS, KDE makes a great desktop, Wine makes a great pseudoemulator. Put them all together and you get...
An easy to use GUI with extremely bloated unstable applications, and very little application interoperability... locked to the Intel Architecture no less. I would honestly rather run Windows.
The only reason I can think that they would choose such technologies would be because they were in a hurry... otherwise they should have cooperated with Redhat, ported their apps to GTK, and run Gnome (pre QPL becoming GPL days here! No Gnome/KDE flames!)
On the upside, they gave Wine a boost.. but as somebody commented regarding the Corel/Microsoft combination, new Corel contributions to the Wine codebase may now be tainted by NDAs and anti-compete clauses or something dumb like that.
This .net thing might make Corel kick butt on the markets in the short term, but in the long term they're doomed.
What about the Linux communicty in general? We couldn't agree in a common component standard yet. Do you think we are able to port/develop a framework (yao) if we haven't got an unique standard as Windows COM/ADO/OLE, which are the basic infraestructure of .net together with their over hyped XML compliance.
Guys, go to the roots, get a common user interface first, or at least a common "desktop framework".
Otherwise we will go thorugh the path of implementing a port of:B Script and finally .NET.
Win32API->MFC->COM->MSVM->ATL->ADO->COM+->ADO+->V
If so, I would prefer to buy Windows2000 before installing a bad clone on top of Linux.
--ricardo
sgis ddo ekil t'nod i
Okay, maybe it's just my slant on things, but this is how I see things at Microsoft.
Gates stepped down as CEO because he was getting bored with CEO type duties and responsibilities. He's still calling all the shots, but he's not handling the day-to-day stuff that Ballmer is now. Never mind the fact that if/when the $(1* hits the fan, Ballmer is now set up as the fall guy, and Gates will remain unscathed.
Don't fool yourself - Microsoft is still very much Bill's baby.
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
Blah. Who cares if it's ported? None of you will ever use it, lest you burn in hell for violating the commandments of ESR. None of us (the NT users) will touch it, because we know it'll run better on Windows. And the layman won't use it, because he doesn't know about Linux.
.NET would run on Linux (and it would, with all the rewriting and hacking they'd have to do), this is a waste of money for them.
Unless MS wants to show how much slower
I actually agree with that, and it's what I was getting at with the term "commodity". If they are broken up, in the long run, the OS Company does not have a sustainable business model, despite the fact they get a monopoly cut on almost every PC sold. Especially with .NET on the horizon, they will need to get into other markets fast, which will be difficult without established products.
On the other hand, the App Company needs to figure out a way to go "enterprise" and go there fast to keep the profit levels up. The "Windows DNA" COM stuff wasn't getting them there, so they are going with a pretty radical technological break. The price of this is that all of the current MS Office/VisualBasic/COM-based tech deployed by their fanbase has been declared obsolete. Too bad for those guys.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Not just the Government - the European Union are after him as well.
The full name, though, is "Microsoft .Net". I think that pretty clearly identifies it for most people, and it certainly would be a shame if we had to censor people who wanted to call it ".Net" amongst their peers as an abbreviation.
After all, you wouldn't want fisheries companies suing providers for offering access to the "net"
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
In an interview with CNBC or somebody, Corel's CEO said they'd likely be doing .NET for the Mac. Which makes more sense if you think about it.
And if you don't like it, you're welcome to find a job somewhere else...
Why wouldn't they? If you're fool enough to pay MS every time you want to send an email, they'll take your money even if you're running Linux.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
Microsoft are gradually becoming the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation. They already made, in the form of Actimates, 'Your Plastic Pal That's Fun To Be With'. All we need now is someone to utter 'Go Stick Your Head Up a Pig!'
They started switching the web servers over to Win2k a little over a month ago and appear to be complete.
Check out www.netcraft.com, point it to www.hotmail.com and see what they are running today.
There never was a migration to NT4 that failed miserably, but nice of you to fall hook line and sinker for that tale.
I think you meant "silicon" and "collagen"
Rich
Since it's OSS, though, NOBODY NEEDS TO USE .net, even if it is included. So, who cares? Besides, Corel has almost no market share anyways.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
Wow, I'm sure that's exactly what future Corel employees are looking forward to.
"Congratulations on being hired at Corel. Your first project will be to work for Microsoft, the exact technology you were trying to get away from!"
_________
Did I miss some simplification? I thought .net was going to be built on COM (or SOAP, which is at least as complicated in its own way, and at least as slow).
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Corel agrees that at least one version of each Major Upgrade of each Corel Product that Corel releases after the Ship Date shall include Material Support for the .NET Framework, except for WordPerfect and Products for which Corel chooses to make no new commercial release whatsoever after the Ship Date (together, the "Excluded Products"). "
.NET get spread out into more arenas, but that they still will get NO competition for their little cashcow, Office.
---
Obviously, M$ is being very careful to make sure that they get NO competition in the Office arena, however.
Just make sure
Stop over-analyzing your analizations
[Microsoft] OK guys, you can go ahead and port .NET to Linux
Great! But umm, isn't it difficult to port something when no one (even Microsoft) understands what it is?
Well if it's any help, it's not a user-tracking technology.
.Net is an application framework, it involves how your write applications and how those applications can communicate with one another over the network.
But they don't seem interested in world domination so much anymore.
With MS owning such a chunk of Apple - what would be the point of competing with yourself? Im sure Apple's desire to really _GROW_ and take over the world is simply put down by the MS influence in the company. Same goes for Corel, they will maintain their forward motion.. adding features to apps.. but you'll _NEVER_ see another* ground breaking, truly innovative product from Apple or Corel. The twisted part about all this is Microsoft really now _OWNS_ most of its competition... the US DOJ should break them up into 12 companies to introduce some better dynamics into the SW industry.
*Im not sure how OSX fits into all this... im sure MS will have planned the reason why it wont affect the MS goosestep.
.... until the user out there actually wants to call a routine.
I bet Gates is sitting back right now already have used Linux before and seeing what he can do with it and how it will fit into the future. He knows he has to look post-breakup and no breakup into the future. Here is to Gates using Linux!!
The GPL on the Linux kernel covers only the kernel, not application software, which is what all, or at least most, of the .NET implementation would be. The GPL does not protect things like file formats in any way whatsoever, so if MS wants to replace all config files in a hypothetical Linux.NET with XML files, they can do that, as long as they rewrite the tools or release source for tools licensed under GPL/similar licenses. The GPL only applies to derivative works, not new works.
As for whether people would tolerate it, that's another matter, one which I can't answer.
Anyone checked to see if they sold all of them to help along the >50% stock collapse Apple had? >:)
MS does not own a chunk of Apple. They bought a TRIVIAL peice of non-voting stock like 3 years ago.
The only leverage MS has over Apple is Office. Yes, that's a big lever. But it's the only one.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Well I guess the URL of "linuxfanatic" is appropriate for you, isn't it? :)
Just plain evil. This is evil in a bad way not evil in the good way that we all like. This is just plain old fashion evil.
What does this mean for GNU/Linux? It means Microsoft sees it as a viable platform, in spite of some of the past statements Gates and Ballmer have made.
I don't actually know all that for sure, either. I did hear that they once tried, maybe with NT4, and failed pretty miserably. It'd probably be pretty safe to assume that they're trying, though.
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
I think whether they do it or not has a lot to do with how much of an inroad Linux makes into the clueless desktop user market. The more lemmings use Linux, the more likely Microsoft is to do this.
To the contrary, I think Microsoft would be more likely to exercise this option if Linux fails to make substantial inroads into the desktop market. If Linux is turning up the heat, Microsoft needs exclusive .NET support as a key differentiator to keep people on Microsoft operating systems. However, if Linux doesn't make much of a splash, Microsoft can "safely" promote .NET support on Linux to try to project an image of being open, standards-compliant, and cross-platform. It's a low-cost PR move that could also help protect them from future legal troubles.
At least, that's what I'd be doing if I were Microsoft, and if I wanted to protect my OS monopoly as effectively as possible. Of course, I've heard that they get more revenue out of Office sales, so maybe they have a different take on the situation.
The heart has reasons that reason does not understand. - Jacques Bènigne Bossuet
You don't appear to have any concept as to what .Net is.
Linux is what they will be embracing and extending, and it is potentially bad for Linux.
.NET server somplace. What would that mean? Well it means that they are using a Microsoft NT/2000/???? based SERVER and that Linux is simply being used as a glorified terminal.
Lets say that some user or another is using Linux on their desktop, but connecting to a
Linux has always been a burr under Microsoft's saddle in the server arena. Wouldn't it be ironic if pushing Linux onto the desktop helped Microsoft promote its servers?
As for wether GUI users are automatically clueless, it is not the use of a GUI which makes one clueless, it is dependence upon it. If you know what you are doing and prefer a GUI, fine. If you prefer a GUI because you don't know how to handle anything else then that is another thing. I work in a computer lab where I have to try and help the truly clueless all day long. People who don't know how to do something simple such as copy a file or save something to disk. The real kicker is that these are college students, supposedly among the most computer literate segments of society. GUI based systems were supposed to make computers "easier" for the clueless to use. After over a decade of watching and waiting, I've seen no evidence that they have been a great success at doing this. Someone who is willing to learn how to use a computer will learn how to use one regardless of the interface. Someone who doesn't want to learn or thinks that they shouldn't have to learn, is not going to learn regardless of how much you try to cater the system to them. Much like stupidity, there is no easy cure for willfull ignorance.
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
As the end times near, the lamb shall lay down with the lion, the eagle will nest with the penguin and all manner of unholyness shall spew forth upon the face of the Earth.
Let us Pray.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Now, I've tried for the last couple years to maintain optimism about Corel. I've been a fan of WordPerfect since I was a kid using WordPerfect 4.x in dos, and I was more or less pleased with WP7 and 8 when they came to Linux. Functional, faster than StarOffice. Did the job.
.NET to Linux? I mean, sure they have a Linux distro, but they didn't write any of it. At most, they wrote an installer, a KDE file manager.. Few utils here and there, but the rest of it is Debian. WordPerfect had a motif port long before Corel got their hands on it, so I assume that was the starting point for WP7/Linux and WP8/Linux. And then there's CorelOffice, which isn't ported to Linux persay (No native toolkit), it's ported to Wine, which is a completely different endeavor. So, I say again. Is Corel equipped to port .NET?
But Corel has only been going downhill in my book. My question is, is Corel actually up to the task of porting
Now, a business perspective. Corel has been losing money, and demonstrating just how low your stock can go for the last year or two. This MS investment seems to be in line with MS's extremely well-established history of investing, partnering, embracing, and extending other companies (Not just their products). I wonder what the future of Corel will be.
You don't seem to realize the end result of that .NET system is in place, you rent all
.NET bullshit. I see a new way of delivery for
software when one has no longer to worry about
having to deal with stolen software as Microsoft,
Corel and many others have to deal with.
When the
your software much like you rent your cable TV or
satellite service, à la carte.
You may get a few little things for free like
the mine program or notepad but for real
applications you will pay forever. No more buying
software but you are just renting. A dream come
true for Microsoft, Corel and other companies
who will buy into the system.
IBM and Sun will ultimately look for systems
like this. IBM will most likely still pursue
both avenues since their money is in hardware
and services.
To think that we Linux users are moron enough
to buy into this bullshit shows an excess use
of some strange substance or an excess use of
Microsoft's products.
I will never buy into this as I want to run
either software that I write, software that
I buy, Freeware or Shareware.
To those who think that I will rent software
from them someday instead of buying it :
"FUCK YOU"
1. 25% of corel
.net on windows by corel products. The value of this to MS is to ensure that if .net is crap (memory hog or slow), it doesn't lose any market share to non .net versions from its competitors.
.net to linux, at which time the port is wholy owned by MS with no benefit to corel. Its not an OSS port.
.net platform. Why should ms care if corel products uses .net or not otherwise?
2. Forced support of
3. An option to force corel to spend 3-5mil in employee time to port
4. very soft value in PR, keeping a weak competitor afloat, and so maybe preventing amunition in its anti-trust case that would be a corel bankruptsy. (?)
Item 3 is the only one with tangible value. $3-5 mil. As pointed out in the post i'm replying to, more capable subcontractors could be found, and if MS cared about the output, more incentives for the contractors put in.
To me, item 2's only value is the show of industry support for its
Most of the value must be in 4, although its hard to see how it makes up what they paid.
Ballmer may be the ringleader now, but Gates is still the Godfather, and don't you forget it.
Neither Gates nor Ballmer have.
Corel's original OfficeSuite 8 was developped in Java and now that the Java VMs and average processor speeds are adequate to support it, they have the experience (and a codebase to start from,) to build M$ .NET and propagate it beyond the x86 architecture, something which M$ has repeatedly and demonstrably failed at.
But M$ file formats are locked tight and get changed every time M$ needs some cash.
If we can't obstruct, we can at least RESIST!
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Does Corel have any experience in developing compilers, VMs, or systems libraries? This is a far more complex problem than making slight additions to the WINE project that had already been in progress for years before Corel came along. If Corel takes a lead role in the production of Linux.NET (which, luckily, I think is already trademarked by someone else), the results will be a farce, especially since so many of their best developers jumped ship during their incredibly-prolonged financial troubles.
I'd much rather see people like Borland, Tower Technologies, Appeal Virtual Machines, and SGI, who have the necessary skills and resources, take the initiative. But I guess there's not a lot of reason to make sure Linux has a GOOD implementation of
--JRZ
to port the .NET frame work to Corel Linux Products, not corel. Corel would probably do it, mircoshaft until its broken up won't even think about it.
Do you -really- believe that non-voting has anything to do with the influence they have? Office/IE aside, dont you think that being OWNERS of the company they can say to the board "If you make this decision/direction we will sell the stock." I was understood they owned greater than 10% of the company - if anyone knows actual value please clarify but a chunk of that size could move the stock significantly. Basically, they have undo influence on the company which is supposed to be its major desktop alternative.. Apple is defently ruled by M$. Like Gore/Bush, they (MS & Apple (and now Corel)) are conspiring to present a single option.
I just knew it! Why else would Microsoft make such a huge investment if not to evangelize CLR and C#???
Well?
I don't know the actual value of the company, but I DO know that after the first year after this investment, (when they had their first 4 consecutive profitable quarters) Apple reported that they had ONE BILLION in cash. Versus the trivial $150 million MS invested.
Although I did omit a second "lever".
IE.
The fact that OmniWeb for OS X exists, is a sweet exit-strategy for Apple. As is AppleWorks, which is Carbon. MS Office is not yet Carbon.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
And, considering StarOffice, you think this is needed? I would suggest otherwise. The best thing that can happen is for a major competitor to arise. But compatibility is necessary for interoperability. So CLR and C# are standards that can be implemented on any platform by any individual at any time without any obligation to Microsoft. Huh? What words don't you understand? Microsoft is desperate for a strong rival. It would help in court. What better than Linux?
Imagine being able to install and run your code in C# regardless of whether you are using Corel's implementation or HP's on your favorite Linux Distribution. Of course IBM is playing over here in the Linux market and has from time to time regretted investing time and energy on Java.
Looks like there might be 20 jobs coming up ...
:-)
http://news.gnome.org/gnome-news/969680451/index_h tml
.NET Internet-distributed applications and components), but without the subscriptions and restrictions (how information is shared using Gnutella, for example).
http://bioinformatics.org/piper/
From their announcement on gnome-news:
"What we need is a Free Software alternative that uses a similar approach to
With such a system...
You won't have to pay a subscription when you can use free resources available on the Internet, akin to the way you can access most web pages for free.
You won't have to rely on one (guess who) company for access to the infrastructure and resources, and be held hostage by its whims.
You can copy, modify, and re-distribute resources as you please.
You can run local copies of resources and keep your information local, under your own control!
Piper is an effort to bring "The Unix Way" to the GUI, "connect-the-dots" to the CLI, and to distribute interconnected application components (not just whole applications) throughout the Internet.
The basic idea behind Piper is that anything and everything should be buildable by linking small components.
This is "The UNIX Way" and even how object-oriented programming works."
>> that last reason to bother with alternatively licensed (non-GPL) software is gone
That's something any open source developer should be extremely careful with if they are going to try the .NET thing. M$ philosophy of making money is extremely ingrained in all their software, down to licensing things you have to think about just to write a component. There are good things about it. Microsoft has it set up to make it easy for individuals and small groups of people to make money writing software(just don't get too big). But being that you are forced to hide your source & program with lots of binary components whenever you use any M$ programming software, I don't see how it could possibly be compatible with anything that's GPL'd.
I watch the sea.
I saw it on TV.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Im sure one of the reasons they are 'permitted' to succeed is because they are allowed to ride in Micro$oft's 'sidecar'. Without ties to Microsoft, they wouldnt be considered 'friendly'. Instead they would be a target of some embrace/extinguish scheem employeed by the Redmontonian Monster. There is little doubt that Corel will now enjoy a similar privilage. No better case than the 'if you cant beat them; join them.'. Its almost too perfect. Will the US DOJ look at this and think "we certainly like that MS helps in the life support of all its dead competitors" or "they OWN parts of all their competition. Collusion must be occuring". I think the latter. M$ is doomed by doing this. Unless the US Gov is as corrupt as I think it is - in which case this will all be allowed to continue.
.NETize their OS? Will IE/Office mean that the runtime _must_ be present? Rendering the Apple 'choice' a non sequitur.
But here's the best question, will Apple be permitted to
So you like getting screwed by the RIAA/MPAA and all the rest of the monopolist pigs? No? Then:
At least Microsoft isn't spending it on something else.
In a weird way, it could turn out well.
It is sort of a back-door endorsement of Linux by Microsoft. That may not impress anyone with full cranial capacity, but CIOs don't appear, as a group, to fall in that category.
I think we're missing the point here. Sure MS would like to see .NET on Linux. But thats not the reason for the investment. MS has a history of dumping money into troubled "competitors" just so as it (MS) can continue to argue that they are not a monopoly. Think Apple, Borland, Corel. All of them produce things that were at one time or another a competitor to MS in some are. If these companies go under, MS's argument that they (MS) are not a monopoly looks a bit weak. So they put money in to keep 'em going. Sure, now MS has a seat on the board. So they can still claim to have competitors, and yet they have a big stick to beat 'em with.
Wibble-Wobble, Wibble-Wobble, jelly on a plate
Ok great, so we may one day see the .NET subscription software available for GNU/Linux ?
/if/ some day maybe it is really ported, and, if it actually works sufficiently well to be usable ?
.NET for GNU/Linux) that last reason to bother with alternatively licensed (non-GPL) software is gone.
:)
I'm really happy now.
What is it exactly this will mean to us,
With Koffice (and GNOME Office Suite which will be out and in good shape long before
Let's face it - we're in a position where such news are irrelevant
What benefit could MS hope to gain from .NET on Linux? It certainly would not benefit it to have Linux servers holding a significant part of the .NET server market - unless of course it all ends up with a closed-protocol and closed-source project and they can charge mega-$ for it.
On the client side though it might be a significant benefit for MS as the Linux desktop market grows to have .NET connectivity from a market penetration point of view. If MS holds the reins of power on the server end of .NET, and .NET clients become ubiquitous, it gives another market stranglehod to MS. That strikes me as the desired business direction - .NET servers running MS Software on an execlusively MS platform.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
Corba, XCOM, QT, GTK, KDE, TCL, perl, ODBC, PHP, etc. etc. Yet another one framework ?
Please, leave .NET out, don't port it, we don't need more bloated virtual machines.
Future requirements for Linux+Gnome+.NET+Mozilla XCOM: Pentium IV quad with 4 GB of RAM. Add a couple of GB for apache and mod_perl.
sgis ddo ekil t'nod i
This is simply a way for Microsoft to leverage Linux. If Microsoft controls the back-end, does it matter what the front end is? Gates knows that Linux is becoming more popular. Unlike other competitiors which he could simply buy or drive out of business, Linux represents an amorphous target that simply can't be hit. Porting .NET to linux is nothing more than a method to turn Linux his own advantage.
.NET on any platform." But what about all the clueless users that projects such as KDE, Gnome, and especially Eazel are working to attract? Do they understand that by using .NET they're giving even more power to a man who thinks he is the reincarnation of Napoleon Boneparte?
Now you might be saying to yourself that "I would never use
Its just embrace and extend all over again. Assuming of course that this is something they truly intend to do. I think whether they do it or not has a lot to do with how much of an inroad Linux makes into the clueless desktop user market. The more lemmings use Linux, the more likely Microsoft is to do this.
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.