Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the fighting-diseases-with-diseases dept.
jeffy124 writes: "ZDNet is reporting a story in which Ximian will announce on Monday a project dubbed "Mono" that will produce an open-source product to challenge Microsoft's.NET initiative."
Re:Is KDE steering clear of this stuff?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5
> KDE's got kParts to match bonobo, but other than
> that, it looks like they're not getting involved
> in this stuff. Why is that?
We try to make KDE fit the needs of our users. I
haven't seen a single request for.NET from our
users. In fact, I haven't seen a single person who
could tell me what it is, what it does, what
problem it tries to solve or for what kind of
things it should be used.
.NET sounds cool, but it is still vaporware. There is no real need for it yet in the OSS/FS community.
Actually, that's exactly why it's needed - this is a shot at getting ahead of the game rather than always being behind the game. If the OSS/FS community could deploy a.NET-like technology before Microsoft even gets out of the gate with theirs, it might cut them off at the pass(port).
It's a longshot - but if IBM, Sun, HP and the rest got behind a true open standard Web services framework, Microsoft wouldn't be able to deny its competitors an equal playing field -- which is exactly what it wants to do with.NET -- they want to deploy pieces of.NET to other OSes to lure people in to using it, but the choice bits will only work with Windows. An open.NET would allow everyone to have an equal footing. Sure, Microsoft could still play ball, but they'd lose some of their bully power.
I think there are some Exchange replacements in the works, but I don't recall exactly what company is behind them.
Why? Just because Microsoft is doing it does not mean we should follow along.
If microsoft does it, companies will use it, when lots of apps use.net and there's no hope of an opensource clone, or it's very difficult to do right, it's going to be rather hard to integrate a linux machine into your office isn't it?
It's not about following along, it's more like we're flanking them. They want to make the internet proprietary, and if nearly every windows user goes along with them, they'll succede, and linux will be useless online. If we develop something to compete, they may not.
Not very well stated, but I'm tired, I'm sure you'll get the idea of what is meant, other posters have said similar things.
As to the point about java/xml, the other post in reply to your's says it very nicely... [aol]Me Too[/aol]
"If Free Software developers can get a version of.NET that is as good or better than the Microsoft version at the same time (or before) "
Ahh the optimism of youth.
When is Mozilla releasing version 1.0?:)
Re:Bruce, what are you thinking?
by
Bruce+Perens
·
· Score: 5
Open standard means that it's published, not that it achieves world domination. MS clearly intends it to be a single "log in" for all internet services. OK, that's not such a bad idea, but it's a bad idea for Microsoft to be the sole organization in charge of such a thing. If we were able to get a look at how it works, then we'd be able to say if it was any good technically or not. MS, for all of its sins, employs some good software engineers and is responsible for a number of standards that have already been incorporated into GNOME. We might well want to go along and do things their way if the main objection to doing so, their central control, was not an issue.
As a general policy, our goal is not to destroy Microsoft, but to make a good partner of them. I'm not sure either one is possible, though:-)
Let's call it MicrosoftFUD. Won't it be amusing to see press releases from Microsoft denouncing some open source project called "MicrosoftFUD"?
Seattle, WA (AP) - Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates said today that MicrosoftFUD was a cancer, and bad for business. After a round of snickers in the conference room, the obviously flustered billionaire shouted "MicrosoftFUD sucks!" loudly and stormed out of the room."
I'm very happy to see Ximian working on this project, and I think it will do much to help Open Source at least stay level with Microsoft. However, I am curious as to what advantages Mono and.NET would offer over Java.
Part of my curiosity comes from the fact that Java already gives us a virtual machine (for compile-once-run-anywhere), Enterprise already gives us CORBA (as opposed to COM), and the Java language at least gives us XML tools. Also, there are already
several languages ported to JVM, including Perl and Python. So, from my eyes, everything that.NET/Mono offers seems to already be present for Java. The only thing missing would be a decent set of GUI components (Swing is bloated and slow!), and Microsoft's marketing.
Is there something I'm missing here? Is there some way in which.NET/Mono is not just a reproduction of Java's efforts?
Two orders of magnitude. That's roughly how much faster a desktop app that I rewrote in C++ for my employer works these days.
Can you send me the original Java code? Absurdly slow Java code usually means a very bad programmer. I've written plenty of Java UI code and I've yet to see 10 seconds for a menu to appear.
I'll take that over half assed, broken JDBC drivers for Sybase any time. Does this language have a SINGLE API that's not broken?
Sun doesn't provide a Sybase driver. Sun provides a JDBC spec which driver writers can support. There are several companies which supply Sybase drivers (and I assume Sybase does, too). Blaming Sun for a broken Sybase database driver would be like blaming Microsoft because Dikatana sucked.
I won't even mention the quality of other Java related prdoucts such as servlet containers (yes I evaluated a number of them and they are all buggy as shit) and don't get me started on the dubious benefits of EJB with it's $15000/CPU rates.
I think you're looking at the wrong products.
Take a look at Resin. High quality, very fast, good support, $500/box licence for a servlet engine.
If you want EJBs, look at Orion. $1500/box for a fast EJB container that meets the J2EE spec fully. Oracle just dumped their own internally-developed J2EE app servers to licence and relabel Orion.
Both Orion and Resin are free for non-commercial use, including commercial development. You only have to pay when you deploy.
Oh, and Resin lets you download the source code, too. It's not quite Open Source (you can't ship modifications, I don't think), but I've yet to see the source for IIS on MS' web page...
There are Free (Speech and Beer) J2EE environments, but Resin and Orion are a good start in looking at quality J2EE servers.
We are pre-announcing the announcment of a product that does not exist.
And I thought announcments were always a bit short on details. This is worse...
We apologize for the faults in the announcements. Those responsible have just been sacked.
...[some time later]...
We apologize once more for the faults in the announcements. Those responsible for announcing the announcement concerning the sacking of those responsible for announcing the announcement have also been sacked.
doesn't Ximian do something a little more needed, like make a replacement for M$ Exchange?
.NET sounds cool, but it is still vaporware. There is no real need for it yet in the OSS/FS community. There is, IMHO, a definite need for an Exchange Server replacement, however.
Just a thought. --
-- If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.
That's just it..NET isn't a defacto standard yet. We need an OSS competitor from the beginning. It will be much easier for a company to move to Mono rather than move to.NET and then to Mono. We have the oportunity to get a competing product out early in the game and not have to play catchup. Who knows, maybe this will give OSS the boost it needs?
I guess I can't use it; the doctor said after I had Mono in 10th grade I couldn't get it again:(
---
Interesting .NET technologies
by
Vicegrip
·
· Score: 5
I still think this is a huge gamble for Microsoft which is by no means guaranteed to succeed.
.NET is a an all-encompasing mish-mash of new products and tools all designed to cater to this new "information service" economy that Microsoft thinks is the next big thing.
From a technical point of view, here's what I like in.NET
The new universal runtime takes (obviously) a very substantial amount of ideas from java and expands on them:
- You can pretty much write in the language of your choice on top of it.
- C# introduces some ideas that are, imho, an improvement over java such as boxing, where for example, a native type such as an integer is transparently converted to the object type without the need for function calls.
- A huge cool aspect is that the runtime seemlessly allows interaction between none runtime and raw code. Thus, you can implement parts of your c++ code in the same module to run in the runtime environment and other parts to be 'raw'-- but they can still call each other without the need of special interface layers (aka JNI). Thus your handy dandy super duper collection of anyting in the world could run on top the runtime, thus being garbage collected, and the rest of your code could run 'raw' outside of it.
- COM developers are going to like this runtime a lot. It introduces 'revolutionary' (sarcasam) ideas such as searching in the current directory for a COM object and not requiring really gross GUIDs to load interfaces and libraries.
The obvious attraction of some of these features is enough for any developer to say hmmmmmmmmmmm
But I have a lot of reservations. First and foremost is that the word on the street is that the common runtime is four times slower than java. SOAP transfer data by text over any connection. Thats fine as long as you run over SSL between any two servers, but the whole idea of.NET is a point to point network of servers stepping between corporation bounds and countries. Thus, instintively I think: "how much thought to security have they given". Being unwilling to accept the propaganda, for this reason alone I've adopted a "wait and see" approach.
Trying to reproduce.NET on Linux is not something any one of the main players in our community should try to do alone. Imho, those who have the resources should try to hedge their bets a bit, but "wait and see", because, from what I've seen, I guarantee that the face of.NET tomorrow is going to radically change. If one thing is certain, Microsoft has absolutely no qualms about radically changing directions if they feel it's motivated.
Don't bet the house on something that isn't even guranteed to be the same in six months from now.
-- Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Re:Interesting .NET technologies
by
janpod66
·
· Score: 4
C# introduces some ideas that are, imho, an improvement over java such as boxing, where for example, a native type such as an integer is transparently converted to the object type without the need for function calls.
That idea predates both Java and C# by decades. The Java designers surely considered it.
Is it a good design decision to automate this? That is an open question. If you automate boxing/unboxing, most programmers won't know it's happening, and they will wonder while their code runs so slowly. It also leads to unobvious behavior when people try to use inheritance with number classes.
A huge cool aspect is that the runtime seemlessly allows interaction between none runtime and raw code. Thus, you can implement parts of your c++ code in the same module to run in the runtime environment and other parts to be 'raw'-- but they can still call each other without the need of special interface layers (aka JNI).
Specific compilers do that for Java as well. GNU GCJ treats C++ and Java classes interchangeably, and some commercial compilers do (or have in the past) as well. The disadvantage is, of course, that if you rely on this, your code is now machine dependent and unsafe.
I find the GNOME mindset of copying Microsoft blindly to be somewhat bothersome. I understand the mindset of wanting to re-implement everything MS does (the "me too" syndrome), but oftentimes it seems like they don't consider whether Microsoft is doing things the right way.
Take.NET for example. One of the things it hinges on is SOAP/DCOM, which is essentially XML-based RPC. Now some in the open source community look at this and say "Hey! We can do that too! We have XML support! We have CORBA!", but I see this as a rash move. Without launching into a discussion of XML (which deserves its own rant), consider that RPC implementations are really a poor approach to network-based applications. To a newbie, RPC looks really cool, and it is in some ways a pretty neat-looking trick; just make method calls to another machine instead of your own! In practice however there is no golden rule stating that RPC, at least in current implementations, is the best way to write distributed applications.
A local method call and a network transaction are different things and should be treated as such. When you try to transparently layer one over the other, you end up blocking, which is a great way to write poor applications which use too many threads and end up tied in resource conflicts and deadlocks. Even if you can solve the non-trivial problem of synchronization, who wants all our apps spawning 2-3 threads to do trivial network operations? Isn't it the Linux community always complaining about bloat? The more you fill up your process table, the more your machine slows down.
Likewise, where is the error handling? If a CORBA routine returns failure, how can you be sure that the operation did not actually complete successfully on the receiving machine but that it failed to notify the caller due to network problems?
So anyway, I am all for Ximian et. al. providing an alternative to.NET, but I would prefer that they did it the right way, with actual network protocols which have actual asynchronous non-blocking interfaces.
-- "Well it should be obvious to even the most dim-witted individual who holds an advanced degree in hyperbolic topology...
That's just it..NET isn't a defacto standard yet. We need an OSS competitor from the beginning.
Why? Just because Microsoft is doing it does not mean we should follow along.
Frankly I want to know what compelling components of.Net can't be performed with existent technologies such as Java, XML, etc...
I am no expert so if some one want s to answer this I would like a legit answer. I just don't seen any reason why we have to jump at something because Microsoft does it. It is distracting to the movement.
Besides with the current broadband roll-out timetable, building server side applications/services as a main business is not smart right now,
not to mentions the issues of security when data is centralized.
XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web...
by
e_n_d_o
·
· Score: 4
XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services!
I got a flyer from MS today that used the word XML about 500 times. Just thought I'd offer you all a brief summary:)
Okay, Microsoft, I'm tired of hearing about how the future of the world is XML Web Services. Yes, I think XML Web Services might be a really great idea. I don't think those of us with our heads screwed on correctly can imagine them to be the silver bullet MS does.
Seems the PR folks over there have learned that "if it says XML, it is good", and have run with it. Personally I think C# and the CLR are much more important than XML Web Services. So is Visual Basic-dot-NET, as I've heard rumors that Microsoft has actually made a noble attempt to clean up the evil that is Visual Basic-dot-6.
Can someone please explain to me if I'm missing the point on.NET though? I mean, all I understand is that Microsoft has three fairly cool technologies based on XML and Java-like-technologies (CLR, C#, XML services). They are grouping these together and calling them an exciting new platform, and brand-tying things together in an unheard of fashion even for Microsoft. Then we have a product "HailStorm" built on this technology, whose value I would measure with numbers less than 0. This seems like Windows DNA, take 2, only this time there actually is a little tiny bit of substance to the company-wide branding scheme.
Of course, to me, its really all academic. There's no way in hell I'm going to tie myself to the Windows platform after working so hard to break free. Especially with IBM and Sun putting Java exactly where all the BS hype in '95 said it was going to go and farther (No, its not in your golf clubs, but its on your server).
I just can't wait for the media to kill XML. Remember "Java is dead" or lately "Linux isn't working out?" Well, in six months, our trusty computer media will try to kill XML because its nice and trendy to do so, because it hasn't the saved world yet. While the XML technology is wonderful, I'll welcome this drivel, as XML is currently Microsoft's main buzzword. Hopefully they won't be able to adapt to the change quick enough. (And then of course in 3 years, XML will deliver on all its promises, and the media will turn around again:)) --
Re:There is already open source competition for .N
by
connorbd
·
· Score: 4
The idea being that Smalltalk (which is what Squeak is) was doing basically the same thing as Java and.NET 30 years ago with virtual machines and GUI primitives -- the only difference is that it took Apple to throw a metaphor on the GUI and Smalltalk lost out because it didn't evolve. It's actually a somewhat legitimate comment, even if it shows the person saying it to be a bit of a fanatic...
...since ".Net" comes from the word "networking", while "Mono" comes from the word "monopoly".
.NET cloned or not, Microsoft wins
by
Rosco+P.+Coltrane
·
· Score: 4
The trouble with.NET and the community is this :
If nobody creates an open-source.NET, Microsoft will be its only vendor and, because of their strong monopoly,.NET will be accepted reluctantly by everybody.
If someone creates an open-source implementation of.NET that's compatible with Microsoft's, it will help make the.NET standard accepted, so Microsoft will sell more of it and.NET equivalents (free or not) will die disappear even faster
If someone creates a broken implementation of.NET (or Microsoft breaks the standard afterward), people will fall back reluctantly on Microsoft's version (the original) and the open-source community's ability to create good software will be questioned by Microsoft and the Microsofties.
So, whatever the community decides to do with.NET, Microsoft wins. That's why Microsoft has "no objections" (sic) to third-party open-source.NET implementations, and that's why most open-source public figures look like they're sitting on hot coal when the issue pops up.
All in all,.NET is pure genius from Microsoft, a very subtle game of chicken with the community where they have no chance to lose because of they monopolistic stronghold. Pity for us...
-- "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Why let MS write the rules here?
by
kstumpf
·
· Score: 5
What in the world would Ximian build their own.NET-compatible version of.NET for? If there is a need for a.NET-like service, then so be it, but dammit, dont copy Microsoft's implementation, grow something native for the unix world.
I think it behooves the Linux community as a whole to stop longing for compatibility with Microsoft (they obviously dont want it anyway) and build products that outclass theirs instead. Do you honestly think a non-bloated word processor couldnt be made that would beat out Word? Stop trying to support word's format and build your own wp app. (or maybe a better one already exists, I don't use wp apps, hooray for vi)
Exchange seems like another product that could be bested. Exchange is a total mess! Don't try to make your mail server work with Exchange, make your mail server work better than Exchange. Most Exchange features aren't used anyway, and just add to the bloat.
Why break your backs trying to play nice with.NET? I don't mean to invalidate compatibility for existing standards, but don't help usher in their new MS-centric efforts.
Would you rather support their way... or have your own way?
I know what they should *really* call it...
by
Eryq
·
· Score: 5
.ORG (Since.org is for non-profits).
-- I'm a bloodsucking fiend! Look at my outfit!
completely agree: Gnome should go with Java
by
janpod66
·
· Score: 5
I completely agree. I think Ximian's decision to clone.NET is a mistake. Some specific points:
Lots of universities are teaching Java, and there are many programmers who know it.
Sun has delivered a very complete set of APIs for which we already know that they can be implemented on many different platforms;.NET/C# relies on a lot of Windows-specific APIs.
There are already lots of open source libraries for Java.
It looks like the embedded and handheld market has widely adopted Java already.
There already is a
gcc frontend for Java, allowing you to compile standalone applications.
There are already several open source JIT compilers, including Kaffe, Intel's Open Runtime Platform, and OpenJIT (the latter isn't open source compliant, but maybe could become so).
Despite frequent claims to the contrary, Sun's recent JDK's (1.3, 1.4) have excellent compilers and runtimes, rivaling C++ performance.
Also, while I think it would make sense for the Gnome project to use Java bindings to Gnome, I think Swing itself is getting a bad wrap. It's a well-designed toolkit that runs fine on reasonably fast machines. It's completely written in, and completely extensible in, Java. In a year or two, nobody will think twice about its speed. Most of the performance complaints about Swing are actually just the cost of the initial class loading and JIT compilation. Well-written Java programs structure that load process so that it doesn't bother users, but Sun is addressing these issues with each release.
There are no significant technical differences between Java and C# as languages. C# is neither harder nor easier to compile than Java. C# is not more expressive and it isn't less expressive. As languages, they are interchangeable. The question is: given these other considerations, which is the right choice? To me, the answer is pretty clearly Java, not C#.
Slashdot Mirror
> KDE's got kParts to match bonobo, but other than
.NET from our
> that, it looks like they're not getting involved
> in this stuff. Why is that?
We try to make KDE fit the needs of our users. I
haven't seen a single request for
users. In fact, I haven't seen a single person who
could tell me what it is, what it does, what
problem it tries to solve or for what kind of
things it should be used.
Feel free to fill me in on that.
Cheers,
Waldo
bastian@kde.org
Posted by polar_bear:
.NET sounds cool, but it is still vaporware. There is no real need for it yet in the OSS/FS community.
.NET-like technology before Microsoft even gets out of the gate with theirs, it might cut them off at the pass(port).
.NET -- they want to deploy pieces of .NET to other OSes to lure people in to using it, but the choice bits will only work with Windows. An open .NET would allow everyone to have an equal footing. Sure, Microsoft could still play ball, but they'd lose some of their bully power.
Actually, that's exactly why it's needed - this is a shot at getting ahead of the game rather than always being behind the game. If the OSS/FS community could deploy a
It's a longshot - but if IBM, Sun, HP and the rest got behind a true open standard Web services framework, Microsoft wouldn't be able to deny its competitors an equal playing field -- which is exactly what it wants to do with
I think there are some Exchange replacements in the works, but I don't recall exactly what company is behind them.
Why? Just because Microsoft is doing it does not mean we should follow along.
.net and there's no hope of an opensource clone, or it's very difficult to do right, it's going to be rather hard to integrate a linux machine into your office isn't it?
If microsoft does it, companies will use it, when lots of apps use
It's not about following along, it's more like we're flanking them. They want to make the internet proprietary, and if nearly every windows user goes along with them, they'll succede, and linux will be useless online. If we develop something to compete, they may not.
Not very well stated, but I'm tired, I'm sure you'll get the idea of what is meant, other posters have said similar things.
As to the point about java/xml, the other post in reply to your's says it very nicely... [aol]Me Too[/aol]
"If Free Software developers can get a version of .NET that is as good or better than the Microsoft version at the same time (or before) "
:)
Ahh the optimism of youth.
When is Mozilla releasing version 1.0?
As a general policy, our goal is not to destroy Microsoft, but to make a good partner of them. I'm not sure either one is possible, though :-)
Bruce Perens.
Let's call it MicrosoftFUD. Won't it be amusing to see press releases from Microsoft denouncing some open source project called "MicrosoftFUD"?
Seattle, WA (AP) - Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates said today that MicrosoftFUD was a cancer, and bad for business. After a round of snickers in the conference room, the obviously flustered billionaire shouted "MicrosoftFUD sucks!" loudly and stormed out of the room."
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Part of my curiosity comes from the fact that Java already gives us a virtual machine (for compile-once-run-anywhere), Enterprise already gives us CORBA (as opposed to COM), and the Java language at least gives us XML tools. Also, there are already several languages ported to JVM, including Perl and Python. So, from my eyes, everything that .NET/Mono offers seems to already be present for Java. The only thing missing would be a decent set of GUI components (Swing is bloated and slow!), and Microsoft's marketing.
Is there something I'm missing here? Is there some way in which .NET/Mono is not just a reproduction of Java's efforts?
Finding God in a Dog
And I thought announcments were always a bit short on details. This is worse...
Everyone has stereo hardware, nowadays. And even prologic and 5+1 . And what's Ximian doing ? Trying to implement mono . It's already obsolete.
-- Pure FTP server - Upgrade your FTP server to something simple and secure.
{{.sig}}
doesn't Ximian do something a little more needed, like make a replacement for M$ Exchange?
.NET sounds cool, but it is still vaporware. There is no real need for it yet in the OSS/FS community. There is, IMHO, a definite need for an Exchange Server replacement, however.
Just a thought.
--
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.
---
I still think this is a huge gamble for Microsoft which is by no means guaranteed to succeed.
.NET
.NET is a point to point network of servers stepping between corporation bounds and countries. Thus, instintively I think: "how much thought to security have they given". Being unwilling to accept the propaganda, for this reason alone I've adopted a "wait and see" approach.
.NET on Linux is not something any one of the main players in our community should try to do alone. Imho, those who have the resources should try to hedge their bets a bit, but "wait and see", because, from what I've seen, I guarantee that the face of .NET tomorrow is going to radically change. If one thing is certain, Microsoft has absolutely no qualms about radically changing directions if they feel it's motivated.
.NET is a an all-encompasing mish-mash of new products and tools all designed to cater to this new "information service" economy that Microsoft thinks is the next big thing.
From a technical point of view, here's what I like in
The new universal runtime takes (obviously) a very substantial amount of ideas from java and expands on them:
- You can pretty much write in the language of your choice on top of it.
- C# introduces some ideas that are, imho, an improvement over java such as boxing, where for example, a native type such as an integer is transparently converted to the object type without the need for function calls.
- A huge cool aspect is that the runtime seemlessly allows interaction between none runtime and raw code. Thus, you can implement parts of your c++ code in the same module to run in the runtime environment and other parts to be 'raw'-- but they can still call each other without the need of special interface layers (aka JNI). Thus your handy dandy super duper collection of anyting in the world could run on top the runtime, thus being garbage collected, and the rest of your code could run 'raw' outside of it.
- COM developers are going to like this runtime a lot. It introduces 'revolutionary' (sarcasam) ideas such as searching in the current directory for a COM object and not requiring really gross GUIDs to load interfaces and libraries.
The obvious attraction of some of these features is enough for any developer to say hmmmmmmmmmmm
But I have a lot of reservations. First and foremost is that the word on the street is that the common runtime is four times slower than java. SOAP transfer data by text over any connection. Thats fine as long as you run over SSL between any two servers, but the whole idea of
Trying to reproduce
Don't bet the house on something that isn't even guranteed to be the same in six months from now.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
I find the GNOME mindset of copying Microsoft blindly to be somewhat bothersome. I understand the mindset of wanting to re-implement everything MS does (the "me too" syndrome), but oftentimes it seems like they don't consider whether Microsoft is doing things the right way.
.NET for example. One of the things it hinges on is SOAP/DCOM, which is essentially XML-based RPC. Now some in the open source community look at this and say "Hey! We can do that too! We have XML support! We have CORBA!", but I see this as a rash move. Without launching into a discussion of XML (which deserves its own rant), consider that RPC implementations are really a poor approach to network-based applications. To a newbie, RPC looks really cool, and it is in some ways a pretty neat-looking trick; just make method calls to another machine instead of your own! In practice however there is no golden rule stating that RPC, at least in current implementations, is the best way to write distributed applications.
.NET, but I would prefer that they did it the right way, with actual network protocols which have actual asynchronous non-blocking interfaces.
Take
A local method call and a network transaction are different things and should be treated as such. When you try to transparently layer one over the other, you end up blocking, which is a great way to write poor applications which use too many threads and end up tied in resource conflicts and deadlocks. Even if you can solve the non-trivial problem of synchronization, who wants all our apps spawning 2-3 threads to do trivial network operations? Isn't it the Linux community always complaining about bloat? The more you fill up your process table, the more your machine slows down.
Likewise, where is the error handling? If a CORBA routine returns failure, how can you be sure that the operation did not actually complete successfully on the receiving machine but that it failed to notify the caller due to network problems?
So anyway, I am all for Ximian et. al. providing an alternative to
"Well it should be obvious to even the most dim-witted individual who holds an advanced degree in hyperbolic topology...
Why? Just because Microsoft is doing it does not mean we should follow along.
Frankly I want to know what compelling components of .Net can't be performed with existent technologies such as Java, XML, etc...
I am no expert so if some one want s to answer this I would like a legit answer. I just don't seen any reason why we have to jump at something because Microsoft does it. It is distracting to the movement.
Besides with the current broadband roll-out timetable, building server side applications/services as a main business is not smart right now, not to mentions the issues of security when data is centralized.
XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services! XML Web Services!
:)
.NET though? I mean, all I understand is that Microsoft has three fairly cool technologies based on XML and Java-like-technologies (CLR, C#, XML services). They are grouping these together and calling them an exciting new platform, and brand-tying things together in an unheard of fashion even for Microsoft. Then we have a product "HailStorm" built on this technology, whose value I would measure with numbers less than 0. This seems like Windows DNA, take 2, only this time there actually is a little tiny bit of substance to the company-wide branding scheme.
:))
I got a flyer from MS today that used the word XML about 500 times. Just thought I'd offer you all a brief summary
Okay, Microsoft, I'm tired of hearing about how the future of the world is XML Web Services. Yes, I think XML Web Services might be a really great idea. I don't think those of us with our heads screwed on correctly can imagine them to be the silver bullet MS does.
Seems the PR folks over there have learned that "if it says XML, it is good", and have run with it. Personally I think C# and the CLR are much more important than XML Web Services. So is Visual Basic-dot-NET, as I've heard rumors that Microsoft has actually made a noble attempt to clean up the evil that is Visual Basic-dot-6.
Can someone please explain to me if I'm missing the point on
Of course, to me, its really all academic. There's no way in hell I'm going to tie myself to the Windows platform after working so hard to break free. Especially with IBM and Sun putting Java exactly where all the BS hype in '95 said it was going to go and farther (No, its not in your golf clubs, but its on your server).
I just can't wait for the media to kill XML. Remember "Java is dead" or lately "Linux isn't working out?" Well, in six months, our trusty computer media will try to kill XML because its nice and trendy to do so, because it hasn't the saved world yet. While the XML technology is wonderful, I'll welcome this drivel, as XML is currently Microsoft's main buzzword. Hopefully they won't be able to adapt to the change quick enough. (And then of course in 3 years, XML will deliver on all its promises, and the media will turn around again
--
The idea being that Smalltalk (which is what Squeak is) was doing basically the same thing as Java and .NET 30 years ago with virtual machines and GUI primitives -- the only difference is that it took Apple to throw a metaphor on the GUI and Smalltalk lost out because it didn't evolve. It's actually a somewhat legitimate comment, even if it shows the person saying it to be a bit of a fanatic...
/Brian
...since ".Net" comes from the word "networking", while "Mono" comes from the word "monopoly".
If nobody creates an open-source .NET, Microsoft will be its only vendor and, because of their strong monopoly, .NET will be accepted reluctantly by everybody.
If someone creates an open-source implementation of .NET that's compatible with Microsoft's, it will help make the .NET standard accepted, so Microsoft will sell more of it and .NET equivalents (free or not) will die disappear even faster
If someone creates a broken implementation of .NET (or Microsoft breaks the standard afterward), people will fall back reluctantly on Microsoft's version (the original) and the open-source community's ability to create good software will be questioned by Microsoft and the Microsofties.
So, whatever the community decides to do with .NET, Microsoft wins. That's why Microsoft has "no objections" (sic) to third-party open-source .NET implementations, and that's why most open-source public figures look like they're sitting on hot coal when the issue pops up.
All in all, .NET is pure genius from Microsoft, a very subtle game of chicken with the community where they have no chance to lose because of they monopolistic stronghold. Pity for us ...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I think it behooves the Linux community as a whole to stop longing for compatibility with Microsoft (they obviously dont want it anyway) and build products that outclass theirs instead. Do you honestly think a non-bloated word processor couldnt be made that would beat out Word? Stop trying to support word's format and build your own wp app. (or maybe a better one already exists, I don't use wp apps, hooray for vi)
Exchange seems like another product that could be bested. Exchange is a total mess! Don't try to make your mail server work with Exchange, make your mail server work better than Exchange. Most Exchange features aren't used anyway, and just add to the bloat.
Why break your backs trying to play nice with .NET? I don't mean to invalidate compatibility for existing standards, but don't help usher in their new MS-centric efforts.
Would you rather support their way... or have your own way?
.ORG (Since .org is for non-profits).
I'm a bloodsucking fiend! Look at my outfit!
Also, while I think it would make sense for the Gnome project to use Java bindings to Gnome, I think Swing itself is getting a bad wrap. It's a well-designed toolkit that runs fine on reasonably fast machines. It's completely written in, and completely extensible in, Java. In a year or two, nobody will think twice about its speed. Most of the performance complaints about Swing are actually just the cost of the initial class loading and JIT compilation. Well-written Java programs structure that load process so that it doesn't bother users, but Sun is addressing these issues with each release.
There are no significant technical differences between Java and C# as languages. C# is neither harder nor easier to compile than Java. C# is not more expressive and it isn't less expressive. As languages, they are interchangeable. The question is: given these other considerations, which is the right choice? To me, the answer is pretty clearly Java, not C#.
That's wonderful. Does this mean that Microsoft has finally decided what .Net actually is?
Or did Ximian decide for them?