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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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!
That's the funniest thing I've read for a long, long, time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
.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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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!"
_________
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
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.
.... until the user out there actually wants to call a routine.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. $3-5 mil. As pointed out in the post i'm replying to, more capable subcontractors could be found, and if MS cared about the output, more incentives for the contractors put in.
To me, item 2's only value is the show of industry support for its
Most of the value must be in 4, although its hard to see how it makes up what they paid.
Corel's original OfficeSuite 8 was developped in Java and now that the Java VMs and average processor speeds are adequate to support it, they have the experience (and a codebase to start from,) to build M$ .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
I am no Microsoft fan, but bashing .NET just because it's from them is very short sighted. Some of the ideas are very intersting, for instance common binary data types. This allows different languages to cooperate without the requirement of complex (slow, hard to understand) arbitration methods such as COM or CORBA.
Remember, people use computers to get things done, not to show off their latest window mamangers. If Microsoft make it easier to tie tools together people will use Windows and put up with its tempremental behaviour. Believe me, I've seen it where I work.
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.
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 $150 million MS invested.
Although I did omit a second "lever".
IE.
The fact that OmniWeb for OS X exists, is a sweet exit-strategy for Apple. As is AppleWorks, which is Carbon. MS Office is not yet Carbon.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
http://news.gnome.org/gnome-news/969680451/index_h tml
.NET Internet-distributed applications and components), but without the subscriptions and restrictions (how information is shared using Gnutella, for example).
http://bioinformatics.org/piper/
From their announcement on gnome-news:
"What we need is a Free Software alternative that uses a similar approach to
With such a system...
You won't have to pay a subscription when you can use free resources available on the Internet, akin to the way you can access most web pages for free.
You won't have to rely on one (guess who) company for access to the infrastructure and resources, and be held hostage by its whims.
You can copy, modify, and re-distribute resources as you please.
You can run local copies of resources and keep your information local, under your own control!
Piper is an effort to bring "The Unix Way" to the GUI, "connect-the-dots" to the CLI, and to distribute interconnected application components (not just whole applications) throughout the Internet.
The basic idea behind Piper is that anything and everything should be buildable by linking small components.
This is "The UNIX Way" and even how object-oriented programming works."
>> that last reason to bother with alternatively licensed (non-GPL) software is gone
That's something any open source developer should be extremely careful with if they are going to try the .NET thing. M$ 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?
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.
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.