Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MS To Work To Make .NET Run OSes Beyond Windows

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the well-duh dept.

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."

11 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. SOAP is a disaster waiting to happen by evenprime · · Score: 5
    what's all the hubbub? I just finished reading an article about SOAP. Sounded pretty neat.

    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
  2. Where have I seen this trick before? by jafac · · Score: 4

    Ah yes, Java, Office, IE, NT...

    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 .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.

    But it's not likely we'll see an open .NET.

    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.
  3. In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4

    Hell is freezing over.

  4. Re:Ballmer hasn't seen 2001 by Rupert · · Score: 4

    Yeah, if the President of the company doesn't know that HAL stands for Hardware Abstraction Layer, how good can it be?

    --

    --

    --
    E_NOSIG
  5. Re:Would anyone use it? by plover · · Score: 4
    Management will see *nix stability with MS software.

    Yes, but what they'll end up with is *nix prices and MS stability.

    John

    --
    John
  6. Re:This is purely logical by wunderhorn1 · · Score: 4

    true, true.
    they're doing the same thing with Windows Media Server.

    --
    Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
  7. Re:I don't want to be a wet blanket, but... by jafac · · Score: 4

    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.
  8. Re:This is purely logical by Jason+Earl · · Score: 4

    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.

  9. This doesn't surprise me by johnnyb · · Score: 4

    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
  10. Ballmer hasn't seen 2001 by micromoog · · Score: 5
    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."

    That explains everything.

  11. This is purely logical by blakestah · · Score: 5

    They want linux support on the servers. They are not going to support .NET on linux clients.

    This is the standard M$ move. They will allow anyone to be a .NET server, but only Windows can be clients. Then, slowly, they will leverage the desktop to work into the server market.

    You can note the recent incompatibility with name service in Windows2000 to try to leverage Windows into the DNS server market.