Slashdot Mirror
MS To Work To Make .NET Run OSes Beyond Windows
Wattsman writes "Looks like Microsoft is taking a new approach. From Linux Today, Microsoft has announced that will release software that will allow non-MS operating systems to run .NET web services. Ballmer specifically mentions that Linux is one of the platforms."
as is stated elsewhere in this discussion, .NET != SOAP, SOAP is only the RPC for .NET objects and services. so, MS can keep .NET as closed as they want, and still interoperate with other platforms.
i've got an upcoming project that we'd like to deploy as a set of web services. unfortunatly, if we choose XML-RPC in leiu of SOAP, we would be missing out on the future interoperability that SOAP promises. and to make matters worse, the only real choices for implementing web services via SOAP at the moment are (a) rolling our own, (b) MSSOAP or (c) Apache SOAP. both (b) and (c) would lock us into a single vendor (sunjava on the Apache side). a python library for SOAP clients and servers would fit our bill perfectly, but alas, it's just not there yet.
Agreed. Microtrash software won't run on my Linux box until I see a big change in the way they do business or are broken up. Whichever comes first.
...or one came with their computer
--
Embrace...extend...embrace...extend...
Seriously it sure looks/feels like this to me as well.
Plausible MS internal memo: "If we can't beat linux, we'll ruin it!"
-Ought for Nowt
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? - Joshua (Wargames)
How many fucking morons had to point this out?
I get 18 at 1:19PM PT. This guy I am replying to posted almost 2 hours after the first person with the correct answer.
God, this place is just crawling with MCSE-wannabes creaming their pants to make some use of the shit they learned at "cram class" while sitting at their useless fucking telephone support jobs.
All we need now is Juan Epstein going OOOOOoooo OOOOOOooo, along with all of these shitheads and this would be the perfect thread. (Actually, if Juan Epstein and cyborg_monkey got into a flamewar, then it would be the perfect thread).
Many security people, including Bruce Schneier consider SOAP to be a horrible idea. Think about it. Your simple stateful packet filter (i.e. linux 2.4 kernel) will no longer be enough to build a firewall. If applications use XML over port 80 as an API, we will have to put application level proxies on things that used to be simple services. All firewalls will have to include an analytical engine as strong as that of an IDS for each service they want to run. That makes them much more expensive and complex.
Complex firewalls generally aren't as trusted as simple ones. Things are going to get ugly, and SOAP won't help.
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
Thats not what .Net is. .Net is a development platform, upon which microsoft happens to have plans to build some subscription services (office, etc). .Net itself is not these subscription services.
My feeling is that it isn't a general release document - for one thing it's actually a PDF, instead of the usual Word document in a self-extracting EXE.
You are of course correct, posting it to a publicly available web site does call into question its trade secret status. However, it can also be viewed as an automated way for them to share their proprietary secrets with other worthy entities, despite the fact that there is no constraint on who can look at it.
Although anyone is free to view the document (providing they promise not to share its contents with anyone outside of their organization), they are not free to use any of the contained information. It has been provided for the purposes of security analysis only, any other use is strictly prohibited.
The end result? Just one more piece of evidence that Microsoft is nothing more than a group of lawyers, marketers, and managers, with the occasional code monkey to do some actual work and no quality-control people in sight.
---
The Hotmail addres is my decoy account. I read it approximately once per year.
How can linux's use on the desktop go down? It's currently not used on the desktop in signifigant numbers (not counting people who read slashdot).
I suspect you're right. On the other hand (and speaking as a guy with very precious knowledge of the NET platform), I wouldn't be surprised if there are elements of the system that simply don't make sense for Linux, or that would require a herculean effort in order to implement. And even if that's not the case, it would be a convenient excuse for MS to not even try a full implementation.
This is why I'd rather see a decent API set released for public consumption, so we could get folks interesting in building their own implementations busy. However, that's never going to happen. According to Ballmer, "...our overall strategy is not to get [non-Windows based] Web sites over to Windows, but we will provide a way for those Linux servers to use .NET." In other words, they can't allow competing implementations to pop up, or they run the risk of being hoisted by their own collective petard.
-----
"You owe me a case of beer. Sucka'."
Personally, Im not going to comment. I think that it is too soon to tell. Once there is an actual product out and it has been reviewed thoroughly (meaning that either I sit down and give it a shot or a trusted source like Dr Dobbs Journal comments on it) I am not going to give an opinion.
I do agree that it is important to be a little leary of what has been said, but I don't feel that it is to early to proclaim victory or assume that Microsoft's strategy is purely selfish and they are going to make Linux look bad.
Right now the best thing that the community can do is to keep an eye on what they [Microsoft] are doing and be aware of the potential steps they could take in ANY direction. Then it will be fair to react accordingly.
--------
"Counting in octal is just likst counting in decimal--if you don't use your thumbs."
Please give your mod points to others, Im at the cap. They will appreciate it more
Since they, like many others, use BSD code, I would doubt that they are against OS.
I can easily see why they don't like GPL.
Hell, I can see why they think GPL is "anti-american", wasn't it how they put it?
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
I would. I'm stuck developing 60% of my work on Win2000 as my company's tools are mostly Windows based; we'll be doing .NET platform when it exits hypeworld and enters the real world, and this would finally allow me to develop on the platform of *my* choice (ie Linux). So I'm not against the idea.
But Battlefield Earth proved one thing: any invading alien force can be defeated by a fleet of thousand-year-old Harrier jump-jets.
-----------------
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
yeah, but then you're breaking the licence agreement.
Er, overall Linux use has crested and its use on the desktop is going down, not up. Down.
Linux and *BSD are taking over.
How many fingers?
Huh? Blue.
What is your name, son?
Sheila.
...8, 9, 10!
Ok, fight's over.
This was probably a mistake by the reporter who misquoted him. It's hard for me to believe that he got something like that wrong.\ =\=\=\=\
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=
.NET is *not* bytecode.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
WinME is NOT reliable.
Now, if you want to talk about NT line, I might agree.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
When Java was out, MS was *not* a small fish.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Tunneling over HTTP? SMTP?? WTF for? I've heard people say "so they can get around proxies". Ummm, hello--if I'm blocking it I want it blocked.
The article I read said something about a "SOAPAction" header that you could filter on. The trouble with it was three-fold though:
1) Even the article claimed it's usage wasn't widespread.
2) There didn't seem to be any requirement that the header correspond to reality.
3) What if I want to have security based on the parameter values, not on the name of the method?
What's worse, even a system admin rarely knows all the processes that are running on a Windows machine. There'll probably be SOAP servers embedded in Note-freaking-pad. Say goodbye to any sense of security...
--
324006
MS To Work To Make .NET Run OSes Beyond Windows
.NET are all new and shiny--but what do they provide? Don't confuse the shovel with the ditch, as I read somewhere recently. Updating your shovel with no benefit to either the shoveler or the ditch is just technological masturbation.
Wouldn't that be Gates' wet dream come true? I assume you mean "....NET Run On OSes Beyond Windows" though.
In any case--what's all the hubbub? I just finished reading an article about SOAP. Sounded pretty neat. About as neat as when I was reading about RPC several years ago. And still no real difference than just plain old "networking".
When I download my mail using an IMAP "FETCH" or POP3 "UIDL" how is that any different (besides generality) than a "remote procedure call" or "server object access"? Answer: It ain't. Yes, generality is important. No, it isn't a "breakthrough" or a "revolution". It certainly doesn't need to be invented (at least) 4 times (RPC, CORBA, XML-RPC, SOAP).
Sure, SOAP and
--
324006
But seriously, folks... imagine a version of IIS for UN*X... "Application error: IIS cannot get root access to the system". muhahaha
People shape laws. Not the other way around.
Yeah, but I think logically, not where each line should go. It frees me to write, not be an artist. Then again, Im not really a write, per se. Oh well, math is good, and LaTeX does it...
My other car is first.
What a jerk.
Hardware Application Layer, a way for applications to modify the state of the hardware without entering the kernel context. No wonder why apps crash my machine so often...
There's a reason that windows has market share, and its not just predatory market techniques. It is too much easier to use than linux currently is. Too many idiots, let them use what they can. Make me a linux distro that my grandma can setup properly and I'll give it to her. Linux is getting better but we're not there yet.
If not now, when?
I can't believe people still fall for that crap.
.NET is a fad... it'll fall over like push did. The reason? Nobody besides microsoft wants it. (although that may be enough but I doubt it is)
I don't think that they will, either.
----
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Ohhh nooooo! More choices!!!!!!!!
meh.
"In the spirit of frankness and directness of the 21st Century, I never saw the movie," he said. "To most people at Microsoft, HAL stands for hardware application layer." -- Isn't this like a right of passage for all techies?
Unless .NET is an openly specified standard, it may as well be Windows to me.
.NET on linux: they must implement the platform on at least two systems before it can be approved as a standard by the ECMA.
but that's the whole point of MS implementing
if you really want to see an example of vendor lock in, check here.
I liked your sig.
Could you tell me what source you took it from? I wanna check it out.
I believe you, but first show me the average linux user who would readily pay for msoffice.
I could be wrong. But knowing how MS operates, I can see this as being a Very Bad Thing(TM). If they wanted to give a good show of faith to the linux faithful, they would port MS Office and be done with it.
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
Microsoft is certainly extending the reach of their technology with this announcement... but remember, it is _their_ technology. So, only half of your mantra applies here.
Slashdot is entertaining like pro wrestling is entertaining
But they have proven to be anti-open source with recent comments from one of their exec's.
No, they've proven themselves to be anti-GPL, which is 100% completely understandable. The GPL is too viral to be used where a company has hopes of making money off of their software. Don't misquote people. It reflects poorly on you.
Posted by ryanflynn:
.NET is built on XML which is a world-wide standard like HTML. M$ would actually have to take steps in order to keep other OSes from being compatible with .NET, but it's not worth the effort. They know other OSes will figure it out regardless of what they do, so why not make it open? Good PR anyhow.
If everyone at Microsoft died today and all their supprot, knowledge base, etc. was destroyed forever I'd bet that M$ Windoze would be on 50%+ of desktops for the next 20 years. Is this really news?
Ah yes, Java, Office, IE, NT...
.NET for Linux), is if they opened the source, and kept it open, so that if there were any features that were not implemented with full parity, the OSC could fill it in, and if MS breaks something ("accidentally", or otherwise), it can be fixed, and if MS drops support at a later date to force people to migrate to Windows because their data is held captive in a proprietary format, the format can be reverse-engineered and the customer could at least contract a rogue developer to write a conversion tool.
.NET.
Produce software for other platforms to get people "hooked on" proprietary file formats. Support the other platforms as good as necessary, (often not as good as the native platform, some features missing, some features don't work the same, perform poorly, not fully compatible, some features just plain broken) then when their data is captive, and unmigratable, fuck em.
Office for Macintosh, IE for just about anything other than Windows, NT for Alpha, PPC, and MIPS.
The ONLY way Microsoft could be trusted (by a Linux shop wishing to adopt
But it's not likely we'll see an open
I can't believe people still fall for that crap.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
actually, i thought it was hardware abstraction layer...
Probably the journalist screwing up.
I tried to watch it too, but it was too wierd and boring. :-)
I guess I lacked the right "stuff" to smoke while watching it.
"all the colors of the 'bow, man'"
--------
This is the standard M$ move ... Then, slowly, they will leverage the desktop to work into the server market.
.NET in general is not the standard MS playbook.
.NET is an attempt to have his cake and eat it too: They can move to cross-platform server space and still "own the platform", as well as leverage the Windows monopoly to get people there.
.NET allows the "Application" group to divorce itself from the Windows codebase. The problem is, they have just about zero credibility on Unix and with ISPs/ASPs. By doing a soft rollout, they can work the kinks out of .NET on Unix while the Microsoft legion charges ahead and develops on Windows. Then, when the breakup happens (maybe sooner than originally planned!), they've already got a cross-platform product which has been tested and somewhat deployed.
You describe the standard MS playbook. But,
Ballmer has the government to the left of him, and a seriously depressed stock value to the right of him, and
If they get broken up by the government, or voluntarily split to raise the stock price,
Just add the client pieces, and then it's business as usual - it makes breaking off the application group from the OS side much easier.
not if you change that requirement in the registry :-)
My other car is first.
Hell is freezing over.
I can believe, "it'll work with Linux, but we'll disable the useful features for anything non-MS based", but I doubt that MS will make it fully Linux xompatible...
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
hmmph, I write all my papers in emacs. Then I LaTeX them into dvi, dvips, ps2pdf, and get a document that just about any computer can read. For how much money? None!!
My other car is first.
Embrace and extend, embrace and extend, embrace and extend....
As the Talking Heads said so well:
"Same as as it ever was, same as it ever was..."
The revolution will NOT be televised.
you'll have to license some big chunk-o-M$ software to do it .... plobably only runs on M$-Apache .... embrace and extend here we come ....
While on the surface, it doesn't appear to be great, it does appear to be a good step for M$. They acknowledged the existence of other OSes, in a business sense.
:)
Not likely that they're going to go out and revolutionise things as we know it, but in some senses the working to incorporate other OSes could force MS to stabalize the current known problems in their OS as they work for compatibility (IE a bug here could prevent something else from working at ALL). Also, this forces them to start actually competing against other OSes, instead of attempting to warhammer them. If some company was on the edge of the MS/Linux battle, an MS release FOR linux could be enough to convince someone to GO TO LINUX!!
Overall, this could be good. It could be bad. I hope for the first, I suspect we likely will see the second. When we do, it's a great chance for the alternate OSes to stomp on MS and pick up a good quantity of marketshare, and help DOJ's case on the monopoly issue.
We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
Even though there are a number of Microsoft-ism function calls as part of the .NET framework, the majority are pretty generic. The parts that implementors of .NET on other platforms will have problems with are the System.WinForms set of classes. However, even for this, much of the code that was developed as part of the Wine project could be used, since Winelib isn't as platform specific as the Wine standalone executable is.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Then, slowly, they will leverage the desktop to work into the server market.
This hasen't worked out for them to well so far. Sure, there was a boom maybe 4 years ago when everyone just assumed NT would be everywhere. Now it's Solaris, HP/UX, and yes, linux everywhere. NT admins are shunned as infioror. NT is thought of as infiroir.
It's harder to change a mindset. People who control servers still see windows as a buggy desktop OS. Windows 2000, as good as it is as a desktop OS, still can't hold a candle to Unix as a server OS in whats important. remote access, true 99.99 uptime, etc...
Personally I hope it works for for Microsoft this time, as i'm sick of Linux users cheering on every stupid thing that comes out for Gnome (anti alias anyone?), yet never appauses microsoft for anything.
Though in the end i have a sinking feeling this will end up looking more like Frontpage extensions 2.0.. i'm sure more complicated, but the same in the sense that it'll be closed source, ridden with security problems, have scalabilty issues and generally not feel like a real unix app.
-Jon
Streamripper
this is my sig.
..."To most people at Microsoft, HAL stands for hardware application layer."
what a joke - one of the core technologies of NT misquoted....
Dennis Onstenk
Does the open source community have time travel capability?
The Linux Kernel is supposed to have this feature integrated within a few months.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
They probably will. After using MS products under the MacOS I have seen the damage MS can do with something as simple as Office or Frontpage. They install hundreds of files (including extensions) everywhere, can't be "uninstalled" by being dragged to the trash, and usually are not as stable as most other apps. They also usually are plagued with bugs after every system upgrade, though any other app from around 1985 seems to run fine. I think MS definately does it on purpose to make their Windows line look better.
The clash of honour calls, to stand when others fall.
"Just because your paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you" is very aptly applied here. Many people on slashdot don't trust M$ because they screwed so many of us over and over. When they say something, it is natural to ask "what's the catch" because historically, there always was one. A recent example is kerberos, which is just one in a long history of such stuff.
I miss the Karma Whores.
This news is reaaly five months old, this just confirms what all the Tech press was saying back in October when MS invested $135Mus in Corel.
.NET for Linux?
BYTE:Analyzing Microsoft's Corel Investment Strange Bedfellows: Curiouser And Curiouser
ZDNet: Microsoft
WIRED: Corel, Microsoft form alliance
Work for Change & GET PAID!
to have Linux as an access point to .NET? I'm afraid of all the problems that MS will cause for Linux and other non-MS operating systems in using .NET. Do we really want this? I'm not convinced myself.
-- DuckWing
----
Yeah, if the President of the company doesn't know that HAL stands for Hardware Abstraction Layer, how good can it be?
--
--
E_NOSIG
It couldn't have been real quotes from Balmer because
never once did he use the word "Inovate"
http://Lenny.com
-----
crazy dynamite monkey
What some punk-ass linux user wants to or doesnt want to use is irrelevant...Management will see *nix stability with MS software. Drooling will abound.
Huh, since when would I ever post anonymously to laugh at how hideous Linux's user experience is compared to Windows'? Just like I'm not going to care when this post gets modded down. Hint: If I posted my Linux-trashing posts as AC to save my oh-so-precious karma, then how would you guess that a Linux-bashing post might have been mine? Nice to see someone out there obsessing over me, though. Send me someone brighter next time, though, okay?
Cheers,
The same thing that happened the the Unix version of Internet Explorer, or the MacIntosh version of Visual Basic.
-----------------
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
From reading the article, I gather that they're only talking about .net web services, which are just interfaces to objects on a system using XML messsages over HTTP. It doesn't matter how those objects are implemented. They don't necessarily have to run on the CLR.
The article doesn't mention them providing tools to make linux a client .net platform, which seems typical of MS. My guess is they realize the linux makes up a good percentage of the web servers out there, and they need to find a way to have those servers host .net web services.
Wasnt it Hardware Abstraction layer? .NET thing is all about.
Anyway... I sill dont get what all this
just
$ ssh the.big.monster.server.com
$ export DISPLAYblahblahblah
$ soffice
voilà
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
Yeah, that's what I thought too.
Office isn't bad software - I'm waiting for the day after the breakup when Windows and Office are made by different companies - the applications company will want to make software for Linux. Then MS won't be able to leverage its Office monopoly to backup the Windows monopoly and vice-versa. Pray the appeals court sees the light...
I tried the latest version of StarOffice. Saves files as Word docs in formats newer than my copy of Word. It saved me the trouble of buying/acquiring Powerpoint, since the presentation software is an exact ripoff of Powerpoint.
If you're a corporate user, or somebody else who has to pay full price for software, I just can't see how you can justify buying MS Office - it's $599 for a legit copy. The costs to convert to StarOffice would have to be cheaper.
I agree, however Hackers did have some good scenes that kind of got pin pricks of recognition from non-geek freinds, a) the bit with Cereal selling the tapes of musicians that affixiated on their own vomit, a really good example of being so free as to be able to formulate such a perpendicular view of reality b) the rainbow books scene which prompted some questions from people c) the Hacker Manifesto scene in the car, gace a few people copies as they were interested and the scene I liked where Joey says hes not an addict yet has a cup of coffee and a cigerette in his hands, some amount of self recognition there methinks. As for the Matrix that was IMHO more about us humans than it was about the tech, although the tech was cool and it was really beautiful, esp the the lobby and copter crash...hmmm fractals! BTW what about interviewing the brothers W on /. as the actors are now in training for the sequel, or how about an interview with Keanu, then maybe /. would get /.ed??
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
No, Hardware Application Layer is a MS-proprietary alternative to the old-fashioned Hardware Abstraction Layer. I can't give out the exact details of what makes it tick, but I can tell you it involves XML, NetBurst technology, and cannot function without Internet Explorer 5.1.
there are SOAP clients and servers for every scripting language that runs on Linux
could you please point me to a Python SOAP server? or for that matter, a SOAP 1.1 compliant client for Python? i don't think there are such beasts.
The above post is more than a little paranoid. But the paranoia makes sense, given previous behavior by MS.
Standards "extensions", "copy protection", Allchin's recent comments about the need to "educate" legistalators, the Java breakage, FUD, and all the other standard Microsoft tactics mean that any "support" for anything that MS provides is often a cause for concern.
You don't see a hundred posts about how IBM or Oracle or Sun has nefarious intentions whenever they do anything Linux-related because they don't have the same track record as Microsoft does - none of them are saints, but at they don't center their business on anti-competitive tactics.
Is programming for Windows actually coding in C++?
Funny you should bring it up, I remember when VisualC came out for Mac System 7.5. There was no advantage to it, since any of the "visual" features (form builder, class wizard) etc. required you use Microsoft's libraries (so Universal Interfaces was out of the picture). I think Visual BASIC was ported as well with the same result. Needless to say, the Mac development market is still held by Codewarrior and Apple'sMPW.
The clash of honour calls, to stand when others fall.
I went to the forbes site and looked at the list of fortune 500 companies, and then checked at netcraft to see what they were running as web servers, and then tallied up the first 100. 55 - Netscape Enterprise, 26 - IIS, 15 - Apache (I didn't count Walmart). Of the first 50, only 2 sites were running Exchange.
You do realize that Exchange isn't a web server, right? Look at your statistics -- IIS is used on nearly twice as many web servers as Apache in the topp 100 Fortune 500 companies. IIS is Microsoft's web server.
"Let's just buy the stupid software and get this thing running now!"
Too bad that the opportunity costs will be once again, an unstable OS.
"M$: Some of our protocols are just inherently incompatible with Linux/Unix. We cannot make Linux less prone to crashing when running .Net services. That's the developers of that OS's problem, but WinNT, Win2k, and WinXP run .Net services wonderfully!"
Will people (who were bitching about the windows only aspect of .NET) now start with the conspiricy theories about MS trying to kill linux by putting .net on non-windows platforms..... :)
Now, why the heck do I need body? Subject line says it.
and the worst thing is that that acronym expansion isn't even right. :)
back when MS was trying to push NT as a cross-platform (x86, Alpha, PPC, etc), HAL stood for Hardware Abstraction Layer.
"If ignorance is bliss, may I never be happy.
-- Veni, vidi, dormivi
A key question here is "How much of .Net". Are they talking about just the CLR (Common Language Runtime, i.e. a Java virtual machine look-alike), or are they talking about the CLR and a subset of any .Net API's, or are they talking about CLR and the full API. Any less than the last option and all other platforms will be second class citizens in .Net.
Anyone remember what happened to the UNIX version of COM??
> Even if M$ had a .Net platform for Linux, would anyone actually us it?
.NET app up and running on Linux you maye be allowed to have a Linux box doing something that would otherwise have to use an MS product. Imagine slowly replacing all of your Win2K boxes with Linux boxes running .NET servers of some sort. On the other hand, I'm willing to bet that the .NET implementations for non-MS OSes will be broken, incompatible and incomplete compared to the Windows versions, if they ever exist beyond the vapor stage.
Maybe - it depends on how they wanted to integrate with MS platforms in the enterprise. I can see this as potential a way to get more Linux boxes into an enterprise - if you can port the IT-blessed
Um, thats great and all, but .NET != SOAP. SOAP is just one teeny little piece of the whole picture.
I sig, therefore I am.
I would just like to point out that HAL stands for Hilareous Assenign Lamers pointing out the same damn thing!
"I've seen plays that were more exciting than this.
Honest to god... Plays!" Homer Simpson
You scared me there! Really you did! I know you meant it funny, but your expression "Your Honor, we were just trying to innovate Linux" is pretty insightful. Everybody can change and fit Linux to his needs, everybody...including Microsoft. I don't mean it in the typical "MS Linux Distribution" sense. As history have shown, their power is large enough to corrupt anything they touch. Now imagine their hypothetical .NET implementation would require some weird configuration file that introduce something like the registry into Linux. (For example a close-source deamon that provides registry services). They would quicky make any Linux distribution nearly dependent on that fact because their software woudn't run on a Linux distribution without it.
...the worst part is, they could call it 'innovate' and get away with it. Besides, who is going to defend Linux in a court? RedHat? SuSE? VA, the Free Software Foundation? An association of the whole bunch? (sounds like a cartel then) Even if there are people who will stand up to Microsoft, the few funds that they can raise compared to the cash Microsoft can burn will be gone as fast as my Karma for stating this.
Now I know most of you say: I don't care, I won't use it. That is not the point, the people above you will tell you: Look, you always spoke for Linux, now we - because Microsoft is into it too - will use it. Here you go, your beloved Linux will be where you want it to be, but will be controlled by the goodwill of Microsoft.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
"Heck, the open source community stands a good chance of getting to .NET before Microsoft does. "
.Net from Microsoft.
Umm, you can already get
Does the open source community have time travel capability?
Well, not everyone wants to program his documents...
(I'm using \LaTeX{}, too, but I wouldn't expect others to do the same)
<CondescendingParentVoice>Oh, and if everyone installed JumpOffABridge 2001 v1.1, would you install it too?</CondescendingParentVoice>
I guess MS Software is spread by peer pressure, just like other drugs! :-)
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
BIND supports the DNS "SRV" extension and Dynamic DNS, has done so for quite some time.
For sure BIND 9, probably also recent versions of BIND 8.
I often tell myself that Microsoft would have a pretty fine [desktop] OS if they ever finished it!! Stop worrying about the server market. Stop trying to add a video editor, media player, web browser to your base OS. Stop messing around with the 9x codebase alltogether. Just finish merging all the good points of Win9x and NT and they'll have a pretty good OS. Really. I agree that Win2k is pretty nice. But, it's not as good as it could be. I would like to think MS is trying to make useful, reliable products, but I don't know if they are.
"Millions of programmers" is a bit of an exageration to say the least, but what's the problem with KDE and GNOME?
Choice is Good.
Even alternatives from MS are probably good to have in some ways, perhaps even on Linux... Although I personally avoid all MS products for various reasons - that's my choice. Using KDE rather than Gnome, while sometimes prefering GTK+ to Qt are other examples. Being trapped with a single solution is all too often a nightmare, and I won't have it.
and there lies the solution - do it faster, better, cheaper, less buggier than M$ can ..... then we own it :-)
Look at what Micro$oft did with Java. When M$ was the small fish, they licensed Java from Sun and complied with all the standards. But as soon as they gained enough market share, they hijacked Java and created their own version called J++, which only runs on Windows machines.
.net will only run best on Windows. Developers and businesses will be stuck and have no choice but to give in to the M$ hijack.
M$ is doing the exact same thing here. They lay a trap. Get a whole bunch of people running competitor OSs to deploy it. Then after it gets popular they'll start hijacking everything so
M$ keeps using the same damn trick over and over and over and over and over and over agin. Whoever the idiot is that'll fall for this deserves it!
---------
Did you just fart? Or do you always smell like that?
eTrade SUCKS
Yup. They'll make it work *just* enough to say that they don't wield a monopoly with Windows. Of course the Linux version won't work as well as the Windows version and many users will be left thinking that Linux is a shitty platform as a result. MS is essentially planning to piss in the Linux pool, in order to force people to get out and jump in the MS pool. Meanwhile they will be reaping fees from Linux users and putting themselves in a position to suvert Linux users who come to rely on .NET.
The most telling part of the article is that Steve Ballmer hasen't seen the movie '2001 A Space Odyssey'. He and everyone at Microsoft thinks that HAL means hardware abstraction layer :-)
This will be just another embrace-and-engulf move to try to polute other platforms in addition to making the transition away from other platforms to windows easier. A smart move on their part, but bad for folks in the trenches.
I went to the forbes site and looked at the list of fortune 500 companies, and then checked at netcraft to see what they were running as web servers, and then tallied up the first 100. 55 - Netscape Enterprise, 26 - IIS, 15 - Apache (I didn't count Walmart). Of the first 50, only 2 sites were running Exchange.
.Not will probably make it due to monopoly influence, not, of course, on its own merits. It'll be interesting to watch Microsoft's virus problem mushroom like a nuclear bomb...
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Microsoft will allow OSS implementation of there .NET platform to exist. That is the million dollar question.
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft is not going to be able to keep .NET a Microsoft only incantation, and I would bet that they won't even be substantial front-runners.
.NET will basically be a set of prefab schema.
.NET, so it wants to be first out the gate with packages.
.NET support on the desktop, I don't think it will be difficult for open-source developers to make .NET based data readable on Linux. In fact, it may be a boon to Linux users; if Office Documents are generated in XML, it may not be too difficult to reverse engineer rendering engines.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Microsoft is acting on two premises here. First, in order to gain a greater role in the enterprise, it has to interoperate with most common enterprise platforms, including Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, etc. Its implementations of SOAP promise machine to machine transactions through XML.
Second, Redmond knows that since it is basing its initiative on open standards, it will not be difficult for open-source projects to interoperate with
Regarding
Somebody please, tell this machine I'm not a machine.
-----
crazy dynamite monkey
- Microsoft market strategy is based on its monopoly on the windows OS.
- If for some reason microsoft lost it's monopoly(or its "market leadreship", what a cute euphemism) on the OS, all it's structure would surely crumble, because it relies heavily on the lock-in it has on it's users.
- If Microsoft sees this, his most logical move would be start making useful, reliable products, so when it's monopoly fails, it will at least have some other forms of revenue.
Now that i think on it, maybe that's the reason W2K is actually nice...And here's a link Look at the GUI/Windowing system package.
Glad to see someone in the Linux world realized that Anti-aliasing isn't next-gen technology.
Trolls throughout history:
Jonathan Swift
I could guess all the plot "twists", which were really more like 15-degree bends. Is that the contempt of familiarity you spoke of, or am I just sick of the banal "stickin' it to The Man" structure?
:-) I was guessing it was because the computer details weren't acurate. That's what I meant about familiarity. Usually geeks complain about computer movies because the computer events are not technically accurate.
:-) check out SLC Punk. It's about a punker growing up in Salt Lake City. If you tend to like independent films I think you'll like it. Although since you specifically didn't like Matthew Lillard in Hackers, maybe you won't. :-)
Ok. I agree there wasn't much of a coherent plot. If this was what you didn't like, I can't argue with you there.
Fisher Stevens and Matthew Lillard. I kept wishing that the scenery they were chewing was toxic.
I hated Fisher Stevens and the woman he acted with. However, I like Matthew Lillard; I go see movies just because he's in them. If you want to see a movie where his weird personality is actually appropriate to the movie,
Quote:
Asked whether he was disappointed that the world has yet to see a real HAL, the menacing yet highly intelligent computer in Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey," Ballmer made an unlikely confession.
"In the spirit of frankness and directness of the 21st Century, I never saw the movie," he said. "To most people at Microsoft, HAL stands for hardware application layer."
Well, in the spirit of frankness and directness, I'll point out that Ballmer doesn't know his own products. It stands for "Hardware ABSTRACTION Layer".
So there.
Who freaggin cares! Linux was born without MS blessing of any kind, just a FreeBSD was, it will continue development without such blessing. Does anybody think that M$ does this out of the goodness of its heart..? Hell no. The only reason it does it is 'cause it knows the market share of Linux servers is too great to be ignored....! It will probably put out there a crippled version of the .NET crap so as to make a point that people should migrate to the platform where it was meant to run: Win2K...!
I personally couldn't care less. It's even less important that if the FP extensions run on Linux/Apache. Who cares.
Ballmer doesn't know his own products.
AFAIK, it is never Hardware Application Layer
I wish this mattered, but no one is left who believes M$ knows what they're talking about, anyway.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
The word "innovate" is for the courts when
you run out of meaningful explanations for
your past behaviour.
M$: "Your Honor,
we were just trying to innovate Linux."
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
:)
hawk, ducking & running
Don't forget bnetd/fsgs. These are fully compatible battle.net-servers, which were created just by sniffing the packages coming from the games.
You are thinking of the story last week comparing MS SQL (7.0?) running on NT and win2k. It was not a fair comparison. If you benchmark some of the same routines on 7.0 on the NT box and 2k on the win2k box, you will see that win2k is not as slow as they claim. However we still need a benchmark between the two that uses none of 2k's new features. My guess is the speed would not be the 50% loss that was had on win2k.
--
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
I personally am more interested in using XML-RPC with Zope, but the fine folks at PythonWare have a sample implementation of the Soap 1.1 protocol (or so they claim). Take a look at it here
But I found two big flaws the film.
- I could guess all the plot "twists", which were really more like 15-degree bends. Is that the contempt of familiarity you spoke of, or am I just sick of the banal "stickin' it to The Man" structure?
- Fisher Stevens and Matthew Lillard. I kept wishing that the scenery they were chewing was toxic.
The Matrix is still, for my money, the greatest hacker movie ever made. Why settle for databases when you can hack a Massively Multi-user Online Virtual Reality?We're not scare-mongering/This is really happening - Radiohead
This sig intentionally left blank.
Yes, but what they'll end up with is *nix prices and MS stability.
John
John
sounds like he not only hasn't seen 2001, he doesn't even known his own company's acronyms. last time i looked, HAL stood for Hardware Abstraction Layer.
I press "Save".
That explains why it took so long for Windows NT to become even a halfway decent OS. I mean, if Microsoft doesn't even know that H.A.L. is NT's Hardware Abstraction Layer then they really do need to be hit with a cluestick.
Eris
Some people just run buisnesses, they'll use good software no matter who makes it. .Net is a big server thing, I suspect that there aren't all that many linux users(that don't use linux for buisness) that could afford it in the first place. MS makes some good software windows is just not a good example(monopoly's bring no incentive to inovate).
Listen, you really ought to save that mod point for modding up, not down. Modding down rarely discourages people, and doesn't contribute much to raising the signal/noise ratio. I know I browse at 3+, and am willing to bet that most /. regulars browse at 2 or higher, esp since karma came into play. Now, if I had posted at a default of 2, I could understand modding it down, but as it is, I wonder if you just have issues with Christianity... don't take it out on everyone, not all of us are members of the religious right, you know...
-----
IANASRP- I am not a self-referential phrase
-----
-----
IANASRP- I am not a self-referential phrase
-----
email: proprietary becomes free, org to com
Ah... no.
No punk-ass Linux user here. I have actually been an NT developer for the last 5+ years (C++/COM). But at home I run Linux and Linux only. Many feel the way I do. Microsoft can develop for what ever OS they want but MY house stays Microsoft free until they either change or are forced to. Now a few years ago I would have been a huge Microsoft supporter but times I have now seen their true colours. Sorry but no thanks, you can keep it.
My W2K machine can already do this (in one direction only though). Every 3rd link I click on in IE, and the OS transports itself 1 minute into the future. Its a real bummer waiting for local time to catch up to it!
* They will release binaries that harm your system integrity, by either sending MS information about your systems, opening up specific ports, or some other similar mechanism.
Hate to break it to you, but they already do this.
---
Check in...OK! Check out...OK!
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
I purchased Office 97 Pro a few years back (granted, I got a student discount 'cause I was taking a graduate course, but I still paid $150+ for it).
Why? Because it's what everyone else uses. We use it at work, friends use it at home, etc., etc. I'd tried for years to get compatible applications for my NeXT, and never succeeded much, so...gotta bite the bullet. And, truthfully, it's a damned good set of programs. Once you get past the occasional heinous bug.
I've played with StarOffice, and it just wasn't there yet (this was over a year ago, I think). Dunno about the Corel offerings.
No.
Windows XP is Windows 2000 Second Edition, or even Windows NT 5.1
Windows ME is Windows 98 Third Edition.
You can take your experience back to the marketing department.
It's a toss-up between New Technology, or N-Ten, as the project was called when it was OS/2 NT.
Of course the original goal was to set up the hardware, drivers, and OS and never have to reboot it for any reason (application related), but of course its untrue to this very day.
surely the grand plan is to get some m$ ware onto linux to make it crash more often... if you can't beat them, make them crash as much as us. easy
true, true.
they're doing the same thing with Windows Media Server.
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
In news today, Microsquish announced that they will release a version of .Net to run on the Linux OS.
.Not, announced that his uptime was now in excess of 25 hours. "I've only had to reboot my server three times in the last two days, and strip out unnecessary services such as DNS and HTTPS to get it working. Since this is golden code, I'm sure they'll release a patch real soon now, once I send in that check for $500,000 for the bug fix release." said Dirk Quigley, a network administrator for one of Seattle's failed dot-coms.
...
"It's the best thing since pita bread," said San Jose Breathed, a Microsquish spokespenguin, "and will mean a dramatic change in the uptime of Linux servers. Really, really dramatic."
In unrelated news, a recent beta tester of the Linux version, dubbed
Also in the news: the Antichrist grants interviews tomorrow
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Being of the BSD camp I don't much care what the proprietry venders get up to, I and many others won't be paying any attention.
Knowledge Speaks, Wisdom Listens -- Jimi Hendrix
But they have proven to be anti-open source with recent comments from one of their exec's. If I were running a business, I would certainly not want any competition on the block, cause then I could hike prices and get richer. It's all about greed, so yes, lots of slashdotters get pissed off at M$. Slashdot is a place to rant about your least favorite government, law, company, etc. as it pertains to technology. It's also a place to discuss new technology and science and what cool things can come of it. So this just happens to be one of the rant sessions. Let everyone bash M$ as needed. That's why slashdot is here and thriving.
$man microsoft
Crowded elevator smell different to midget. -Chinese Proverb
What about all the users hitting your website, who want to .NET features? Tough? Don't need them? Users rarely need something, they just want it becuase it works everywhere else they go on the net.
Ahh, A nice legally binding electronic signature...
Yeah, but if they do find this out, they won't publish the results or allow the results to be published by a third party. (I'm thinking here of the story last week that MS SQL runs faster on NT than on 2000 but that MS won't let the professor publish his findings.)
According to Steve Ballmer's bio, his degrees are in mathematics and economics. Gates and Allen were/are the geeks. Ballmer's a suit. This would explain his mangling of "hardware abstraction layer".
He probably thinks Hackers was a better movie than Antitrust, too. (Which is true, but in the same unfortunate way Howard the Duck was better than Battlefield Earth.)
We're not scare-mongering/This is really happening - Radiohead
This sig intentionally left blank.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Perhaps if you had a clue what it was you'd feel differently. Your the first person I've seen compare .Net to VNC, so at least you're being original, in taking ignorance on Slashdot to new levels.
what next.. a window slpash screen when booting linux ? the .NET is one of the biggest jokes out there... the opnly reason M$ is making there software compatible on other plateforms is to be able to gain total control. i say, up Y0*RS M$
Office for Mac is already crippleware.
MS Access? Visual Basic support? not that I or anyone I know gives a crap about that, but these are bullet-points that are on Windows, not on Mac.
You also forget the HISTORY of Office for Mac. It has been "used as a club" quite effectively in the past. Don't let their marketroids fool you. The second they feel Apple isn't playing nice anymore (OpenStep for Windows runtime?), Office will be swinging down on someone's head.
Java - MS isn't yet finished with java. Why let a little thing like a $20M judgement stop them?
I wasn't specifically referring to IE on Mac, how 'bout IE Solaris? Aren't there also some Windows only features of IE?
Samba - MS has broken Samba with service packs in the past. Some claim that was intentional. Truth be told, if you're integrating Active Directory Win2k networks with Unix, Samba isn't as full-featured as a lot of NT admins would like. Authentication is broken because of Microsoft's intentionally broken Kerberos implementation.
How about another example? How about C++? Is programming for Windows actually coding in C++? Or is it more accurately described as Writing in MFC? I'm not personally a Windows coder, but I am constantly hearing comments about how MS's implementation of C++ is not really object oriented, and obviously not portable, of course, which was the original intent of C in the first place, right?
My point is simple: Microsoft has no lasting need to provide support for any OS other than 'doze, and any hardware other than x86. They may do it on a temporary basis for the purpose of pushing other players out of a market space, or getting customers committed then hanging them out to dry, but in the long run, they want Windows everyware. Microsoft's long term goals do not include writing software for every platform out there. That's too expensive. It's much easier to make every platform out there theirs.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
My theory is that the .NET is a "good idea". Now what Microsoft needs is a "good platform". Thus, the need to use more than MS as an OS.
.. if only.
I would use it if is good software...who cares who makes it? If MS ever made anything that was 'great' and happened to run on Linux I think most people would consider using it . Of course, thats not anything we will ever see happen, but you never know.
I would surmise that this is Microsoft's response to Java and Linux. Think about it. .NET applications run natively on Microsoft platforms, but run interpreted on others. Microsoft kills Java, Linux, Amiga DE, and all other technologies that make software independent of operating systems.
P2P Anonymous Distributed Web Search: http://www.yacy.net/
Isn't office 2005 also required?
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Don't be impressed, and more importantly, don't be fooled. .NET IS the platform, stupid! They have just altered the game a bit, but the strategy and the aim is still the same - vendor lock-in and world domination. It doesn't matter how and under what operating system you develope for .NET. Even if you run Linux locally, you are still developing for and under .NET. The stakes are even higher this time, considering it isn't just a local operating system, but a global internet-wide platform.
.NET is an openly specified standard, it may as well be Windows to me.
Unless
Translation: .NET Run Poorly on Other Operating systems.
MS To Work To Make
AdFuel
Even if M$ had a .Net platform for Linux, would anyone actually us it? Linux users aren't typically supportive of M$ products, and considering that .Net probably won't be open source, thereby limiting the freedom of the users, what motivation is there for Linux users to embrace the technology?
"Microsoft has made computing accessible to a population who would otherwise not be able to use computers" - B. Kernigha
Java: Yes, Microsoft tried to embrace, extend and extinguish it. And they failed miserably. There are still plenty of pure Java apps that work cross-platform.
.net for alternative platforms. But it's not like this is going to allow them to take over the free software market.
.net takes off, I'm sure within a matter of months someone will reverse engineer the protocols and file formats and write an open source clone that the community can use to connect to .net services. Samba allows us to interconnect Windows and Unix file and print services, without any help from MS. Why would .net be any different?
Office: Word and Excel started out on the Mac, and Mac versions of Office are still every bit as good as their Windows counterparts. Office 2001 has been a huge cash cow for MS, and they've committed to port to OS X. It's highly unlikely that they'll be cancelling support or making crippleware versions of Office for Mac any times soon-- the market is just too lucrative.
IE: IE for Mac is arguably the best web browser on the market. I use it on a daily basis, and I've rarely had problems with it. It's head and shoulders above Netscape for Mac, and is in some ways better than IE for Windows.
NT: yes, there were perfunctory attempts to make NT cross-platform, but those died pretty fast. And it's not like Microsoft had anything to gain by screwing over the PPC or the Alpha-- they don't have a major stake in the x86 market. The simple fact was that x86 was cheapest and had the largest market share and most mature base of compatible hardware. Supporting the other platforms simply wasn't worth the effort.
Now, with that said, if I were a Linux user I would be extremely suspicious of running Microsoft products, because you're right-- they probably will produce half-assed versions of
In addition, the Open Source community is amazingly good at reverse-engineering closed protocols and writing compatible Unix versions. If
Of course, in MS speak, HAL actually stands for "Hardware Abstraction Layer."
Doh.
======================================
======================================
Writers get in shape by pumping irony.
I'll believe it when I see it.  Microsoft was supposed to release IE for UNIX platforms as well.  And indeed they did but it didn't work well and was not supported.
Anyone who believes Microsoft will allow Linux to ride .NET in "First Class" is fooling themselves. We won't even get a *seat* in "cargo".
Sure, there will "be" some support for Linux. One only has to remember Microsoft's other "efforts":
1) Office on the Mac (think it's reliable? Send your resume out from it, without proofing on the Windows version..)
2) Streaming Media on UNIX. They even had a Linux binary, remember. It was so clever of them to trumpet "crossplatform support", while withholding minor features like the CODECS needed to play video!
3) IE For UNIX. Stop laughing... I have this friend who says he knows someone who once had a neighbor who downloaded it. Don't laugh -- IE is now required by companies with lazy QA departments and HTML coders with dyslexia. My credit card company's onliine application pages have *broken HTML tages* that render a blank page in Netscape. They won't even fix something that simple... but they will miss the point by saying "we're following the marketshare of Linux closely". Grr...
They can't even properly support HTML. They go out of their way to hide service packs for Windows, so you have to use Windows Update which of course mandates IE (it's HTML, but structured so if you don't use IE, there's no fallback rendering of the page... not even an FTP-like list of files).
They're trying to give the peception that this thing is as inevitable as anything they do. It will be vaporware long after the mainstream press reports on this as if it already happened...
Heck, the open source community stands a good chance of getting to .NET before Microsoft does. After all, what is .NET running applications over the Internet with SOAP.
It might come as a surprise, but the open source community is well on it's way to having application servers that are .NET compatible right now. Apache's working on SOAP, Ximian is working on SOAP-based SOUP, there are SOAP clients and servers for every scripting language that runs on Linux, and the list goes on and on.
Ballmer has to mention that these services are available for Linux, otherwise the folks in the media will realize that the Open Source community is building the infrastructure without Microsoft's help. At least this way Ballmer can pretend that the Open Source community is following MS's tail-lights.
i never thought i'd say this...
GO MICROSOFT! i dunno if i can beleive it jsut yet...
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
And the really funny thing is, HAL stands for 'hardware abstraction layer,' not 'hardware application layer.' I guess either Ballmer goofed or 'most people at Microsoft' think wrong. Maybe both. :)
See, I firmly believe that MS took to heart the idea that 'the browser is the OS.' Certainly they've been working to kill off Netscape and Java for years, it's so threatening. But at the end of the day, even they know that the real two big monopolies are Office and IE. Windows is very nice, but is ultimately expendible. .Net is an attempt to combine these two monopolies in order to preserve them and in hopes that it will be more a monopoly than the sum of the two parts.
.net client software on it, and it alone. This drives people to their OS, to use their apps, with their browser.
.Net is sufficiently portable to let MS take over two whole markets on it near-instantly if they desire, then use those to harm the OS. (eg the shenannigans they pull on the Mac side with Office)
.net to other platforms. They may no longer have any real reason to conduct shenannigans, but their software is more compelling to users than an OS is. If they withdraw from a platform, that platform will lose all the users who use .net, and the network effects will seriously damage it.
.net clients - which is largely IE - working on Linux and the Mac. But most of it will not be released unless they feel that they have to. Their software may be crap, but they're very smart guys, and it'll take decades or a sea change on the scale of the entire microcomputing revolution to dislodge them. OSS is certainly not big enough, and the Internet has proven not to be either. So you get an idea of how big a change you'd need.
So, assuming that MS retains Windows, they'll keep the
If an insanely compelling alternative OS comes out that can't be competed with,
If MS is broken up into an OS company and an Apps/Internet company, the latter is still in a position to dominate the market by porting
I suspect that MS has been working to get
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Yeah, right. XPCOM (the object model in Mozilla) is based on COM. Bonobo is based on COM. RNA (real-networks platform) is based on COM.
Recognition from software professionals that Microsoft had at least one good cross-platform idea.
Knee-jerk ignoramus.
Do you have a fucking clue what .Net is?
This would only surprise me if they released source code. My guess is one of the following:
* They will release source code, but it's just a repackaging of the currently-available SOAP stuff for Linux
* They will release binaries that really, really suck, so they can say "Linux sucks"
* They will release binaries that harm your system integrity, by either sending MS information about your systems, opening up specific ports, or some other similar mechanism.
Call me paranoid, but if its anything else, I will be truly shocked and amazed.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Yes, I read all that as well (after posting the first response).
However, it isn't just Python that is lacking decent SOAP tools. Apparently it is quite difficult to get any two SOAP tools to interoperate. Python's SOAP tools are just especially non-interoperable :). In the meantime XML-RPC works today, and SOAP will almost certainly be available for Python if and when SOAP actually becomes an important protocol.
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft is not going to be able to keep .NET a Microsoft only incantation, and I would bet that they won't even be substantial front-runners.
Ballmer can pretend that Microsoft is simply being magnamanious, and giving the tech to Linux and these other OSes, but that's not even remotely the case. Microsoft is building their next big piece of tech on a fairly open set of protocols, and the Open Source community is happy to take their research and turn it into working tools.
Microsoft? Porting to Linux? Whuuuuuuuaaa.. [technos falls dead on the keyboard, drooling, and suggests others do the same, for this is surely a sign of the endo of the world]
.sig: Now legally binding!
Novell! Funny how easy Micorsoft always had it laid out to "adapt" a Novell network into an NT network, with using only one user license for an entire NT network to log into a Novell Server, thus making having to buy Novell user licenses redundant!
Wait, let me guess:
1. They open up - "see, they're trying to sucker us in, to extinguish us"
2. They keep things closed - "see, they're trying to tie us in to one platform"
Will you guys ever ne happy with what they do? They're trying to run a business, not a community.
--
OliverWillis.Com
OliverWillis.Com
An Operative with an Agenda
Do you have a fucking clue what .Net is?
.NET.
.NET servers can be running linux.
Subscription based service in which the server does most of the processing, and a client interface makes the user feel just like they are using Word on their own machine.
This is largely created because new computer sales are slowing down and M$'s revenue stream is slowing proportionally. Also, M$ is totally pissed off about copies of their software, particularly in Asia. If people want to use M$'s software, they will pay a subscription fee and use
And, according to M$, the
----
Actually, Hackers is one of my favorite movies. The thing is, it's just an art film. Cool music, clothes, colors, dancing, flashing lights, virtual reality. Lots of different visual and audio techniques to bring it all together (rotating phone booth, interposed video clips, echo effect on a certain typing scene). If it's the realism of the computer technology that bothers you (going out on a limb here) you must realize that they are only abstractions. If it's the "Plague" character that bothers you, then, maybe you have a point. I hate that guy. :-) Funny thing about movies with a certain topic. If it's too close to what you know already, you're not going to be able to suspend your disbelief.
(send me a reply. thanks!)
"In the spirit of frankness and directness of the 21st Century, I never saw the movie," he said. "To most people at Microsoft, HAL stands for hardware application layer."
That explains everything.
They want linux support on the servers. They are not going to support .NET on linux clients.
.NET server, but only Windows can be clients. Then, slowly, they will leverage the desktop to work into the server market.
This is the standard M$ move. They will allow anyone to be a
You can note the recent incompatibility with name service in Windows2000 to try to leverage Windows into the DNS server market.
It's simple: Microsoft is simply deploying .net technology for Linux in order to take over the Linux market. It's the old "embrace and extend" strategy. First they will embrace Linux, get a lot of people hooked on .net technology (which will be forced on people through Windows licensing requirements on manufacturers), then they will come out with incompatible technology that requires changes to the Linux kernel. Since so many people will be using .net, the major packages will be forced to mold the kernel to Microsoft's specifications. If they don't, then the kernel will have to split because of the public outcry.
And thus it's done: Microsoft will have taken over Linux. They will have taken control of the kernel.
And if you believe any of that bullshit above, you may be ready to join the Slashdot "inner circle". :)
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Imagine that, a Microsoft announcement that I like!
Monkey sense
I wasn't talking about using ActiveX components in the browser but rather, in web pages displayed to the user.
--
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
The truth of the matter is that ActiveX web components on non-Windows machines was even less used than ActiveX web components in Windows operating systems.
While .Net has more hope (it is generally compiled to a virtual machine rather than to the i86 platform, etc. etc.), we should certainly not read this announcement as Microsoft committing to allow developers to run .Net programs they have developed on Windows boxes or Linux boxes interchangably.
--
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
I also suspect that this will go much the way of support for Alphas has... the first version or two will support non-Win2K, tying companies into support agreements they can't get out of. Then once they're bound, make the new version Win2K+X only. Watch ASP's convert against their will.
(from your apache server)
<html>
<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; URL=w2k.yourcompany.com">
</html>
...
Don't Panic...
Don't bother developing .NET for Linux, we'll do it. Really, we will...
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
Operating systems sales can't be that good especially since computer sales have slumped. Why would they care what platform you use the software on as long as you don't get to keep it and they're the ones renting it?
But Yogi, the RIAA won't like that.