Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To Assist Ximian In Producing Mono
C-JiPH writes: "There is morning I came across a very
interesting article here that describes how Microsoft have agreed to work with Ximian to develop Mono, allowing for 'a version of .NET for Linux and Unix using open source.'"
I'm glad Microsoft is finally coming around. This looks to be a good deal for everyone!
Open your eyes: Microsoft still retains control.
.NET under Linux. You may as well do it under Windows. The platform is a non-issue. The point is that you will still be coding for .NET which will be authenticated by no one but Micro$oft. In the end, you will still be dancing to their tune, and paying continuously for the use of their servers.
I don't care if you code for
Anyone remember when Microsoft helped IBM with OS/2 ?
Cheers,
--fred
Karma Sucks writes:
.NET developers too!". Microsoft basically replied with "OK, you get .NET tech support too," and figured that Ximian was a notable enough developer to warrant a press release.
.NET is the Right Thing(tm), but it doesn't hurt me for Ximian to explore it. If because of this exploration, two years down the line, good cross platform development tools that I can use reach maturity, I'll be very happy. If this never bears fruit, I'll just go on the way I'm doing :-)
Ximian, don't be silly.
Focus on fixing GNOME so that it can compete with KDE and Windows.
I find GNOME to compete just fine with KDE and Windows. I use GNOME all the time personally, and usually recommend either it or KDE to people depending on which suits their needs better.
You *cannot* win with Microsoft, you are in a position of weakness and disadvantage by default. Microsoft will screw you over at the first chance, and along the way you will have helped bolster the mindshare of its questionable strategy.
If Ximian was entering into a business agreement with Microsoft, if there was any contract between them, I'd wholehartedly agree with this. Microsoft is notorious for making deals which screw over the little guy.
Hovever, from everything I've seen so far, this is not the case. Ximian contacted Microsoft, basically saying "Look! We're
The worst Microsoft can do here is give bad tech support or misleading press releases. Ximian steering clear of Microsoft wouldn't save them from misleading press releases. As an MSDN subscriber (by work, not by choice) I can say that, while Microsoft tech support is not good, it's less bad than I would have expected.
You are creating a conflict with your ally Sun by neglecting JAVA. Do not divest your efforts from GNOME. GNOME needs you. Do NOT neglect the ailing GNOME desktop like this.
If Sun wants the Free Software Community to use Java, it should open up the platform. It's scary that Microsoft has made C#/.NET more accessible to Free software development than Sun has made Java/EJB. They know exactly what they should do to make Java friendly to Free Software, the fact that they don't do it show how much a "fair-weather friend" Sun really is.
Personally, I'm skeptical that
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Corrodo asks:
.NET means that the pie gets bigger. Often, a smaller percentage of a bigger pie is a bigger piece overall. While Microsoft's overall strategy (the pie is mine! mine! all mine!) surely hasn't changed, I'm positive that some people in Microsoft have noticed that enlarging the pie can yield both more sales and fewer antitrust allegations.
.NET doesn't look attractive enough to tear apart existing infrastructure for. New infrastructure must work with what's there already, and .NET doesn't look like it will play nicely with existing Java code.
Would it increase their server platform sales? What about increasing their client platform?
It very well might. Increasing usage of
Is this the first step in squashing Java?
Of course not, the first step was them signing up for a Java license, and distrubiting a broken JDK with the Java logo on it. They are well past the first step.
Yes, C#/.NET is supposed to help in the "Squash Java" endeavor. I doubt it will work, since Java has some very strong niches (eg. server-side web apps) where
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
I stand corrected. In double checking my sources for my response to this post, it appears that Sun has stepped back from its earlier stances, and is now allowing Kaffe and GJC to actually call themselves Java, and Japhar to call itself a JVM (or at least these projects *are* calling themselves that anyway and Sun hasn't shut their sites down).
My point was based on old information, that Sun made it impossible for a Free implementation of Java to call itself Java, so you had to run Free Java programs on non-Free Java or Free non-Java. This no longer appears to be the case. Still, Sun could give a lot more support to the Free Java implementations, so they aren't playing a constant game of catchup to a moving specification.
There are no guarantees that C#/.NET won't be just as bad as far as moving the specification, so it's too early to say whether Microsoft is better in this respect or not (history predicts not).
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
... DMCA? The entire project put on trial. Hmm, that should put an end to those diversion attempts by the PacMan.
Microsoft would be much more vulnerable to competing authentication servers than ICANN would be to alternate root DNS servers, for example. A major fork of .NET could be accomplished not only by the Linux enthusiast community, but also by IBM, SGI, or any of the other powerful corporations now ostensibly on our "side" (politics certainly makes strange bedfellows).
I am not a GNOME developer, and there is a great deal that I do not understand about what is going on. However, I still haven't seen any applications that use ORBIT, and I don't see CORBA or Java having a substantial impact on Linux or GNOME applications.
But then again, I don't know what I'm talking about...
How is it possible that such a post has reached a score of 5 ??? .NET is a very good choice for the Open Source/Free Software community and I appreciate Ximian's open-mindedness in going ahead with Mono. If everyone thought like you do, we wouldn't have Samba.
GNOME is not "ailing" as you say. It is quite healthy, and Ximian is one of the reasons for its health.
Supporting
--
The world is divided in two categories:
those with a loaded gun and those who dig. You dig.
--
The world is divided in two categories:
those with a loaded gun and those who dig. You dig.
Possibility #1 Perhaps the same reason that they wrote a version of IE for Solaris - they want to be able to say that their software has "cross platform" support. This was originallly done with IE because quite a few companies listed a standardized client across all their computers as their main reason for not switching from Netscape to IE. Microsoft wrote a Solaris version of IE so that they could convince the PHBs at these companies that they provided cross platform support (as if Solaris and the Macintosh are the only platforms besides Windows), but last I heard IE on Solaris is a joke (big surprise).
I would expect the same thing to happen with Mono. Microsoft could say "if you want to use .Net you can use any platform, but if you want it to be 'optimized' (i.e., to work in a non-crippled manner) use Windows."
Possibility #2 Microsoft is planning on charging for the use of its services which are delivered over .Net. Linux does hold a very big chunk of the server market. Having .Net on Linux would allow Microsoft to collect a toll on the users who connect to Linux servers.
Possibility #3 It would also allow them to gain a foothold on a platform where they have no leveraging power at all today. If Linux, Java, or anything else lives up to its promise of make the OS irrelevant, Microsoft will be one step ahead because they will already control the necessary services which sit on top of the OS.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
Expanding into new markets, of course.
They weren't content to introduce either the technology for viruses in our word processors, or even a prototype virus. Now they're moving into *real* disease. They'l start with mono, then move into chickenpox. Neither of these will be so bad, being the 1.0 and 2.0 releases. But with v3.0 being code-named "cancer" . . .
And just think of your trips to the pharmacist. "I'm sorry, but you need to upgrade yourself to Microsoft Pancrease 2.7 and Microsoft Liver 3.3 before this antibiotic will work . . .
:)
hawk
Personally, I'm going to wait for either EDU or GOV.
Couldn't agree more. It's happened too often in the past. Just look at Citrix or Bristol. But then again, Ximian never really did get it. For a start, they don't understand the small, dedicated apps philosophy of Unix. They're trying too hard to copy MS to gain market share, without stopping to think about the technical issues behind what they're doing. They're also following the MS "screw-security-lets-do-features" route. Witness their install instructions -- download something from a web site, and pipe it into a shell run as root. I think not...
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
--
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
Remember.. it's all about the PASSPORT subscription that Microsoft really plans to get the stranglehold here.. They're promoting .NET as cross platform and open source.. the one key element, however, that is NOT free and open is the identification service (Passport).. that will have a massive stranglehold, and that will be required by any .NET service to identify who is who. If there is any place to make money in this scheme (or control the monopoly), it is this identification service.
--
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
And
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
Doesn't suffer from the same problem?
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
How hard would it be to port Mono - if and when it is finished - to Windows? Probably not impossible if things like the GIMP or gcc are any example.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Microsoft helping an open source project???? .NET platform to be accepted they have to getting working on as many platform as possible so people can start using it. They are really helping themselves to reach a bigger market.
Well yes they are but also they realize that they can not ignore Linux/Unix any more it is just getting to big for them to contain (well they could never really contain the movement it in the first place) if they want their
I'll put on my camel-hair shirt and with locust-and-honey bowl in hand, state that:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I'll say that the bias mostly runs against Microsoft. I'm an open-source advocate who thinks that Microsoft is definitely no worse than Apple or Sun or, god help us, Oracle, in terms of their business practices and even their products - I'm opposed to all of them fairly equally from the perspective that they rely on the control - ultimately arbitrary and draconian - of intellectual property to make their profits, but that being said I don't share any special opprobrium for MS. A lot of the Linux fanboys (who as often as not care more about Team Linux winning than about the principles of openness and freedom) are far more unfair, unobjective and knee-jerk in their attacks on Microsoft than most any MS aficionado I've seen.
If Sun wants the Free Software Community to use Java, it should open up the platform. It's scary that Microsoft has made C#/.NET more accessible to Free software development than Sun has made Java/EJB.
.NET platform to ECMA, a body with a reputation of rubberstamping things. Key parts of the platform (IIS, ADO, COM/DCOM) remain under the control of Microsoft. Nobody knows if the new, improved, standards-loving Microsoft is for real or if the next version of .NET will deviate substantially from ECMA (which wouldn't affect MS-allied developers one bit.)
.NET has some features that Java doesn't have that appeals to free software types (like better Perl/Python integration, for example). But the standard argument is a no-op.
Thanks for swallowing the MS PR like a good boy.
All of the Java platform is under a published specification, including J2EE. In fact, there's existing open source implementations of most of it, and my guess is that they are looking for more developers, better desktop (read Gnome) integration and so on. Some of the OSS Java stuff is even considered to be of the same quality as many commercial implementations.
Total Sun control might not be a great thing, but at least they are a vendor with some history with "open systems".
Meanwhile, Microsoft has submitted *part* of the
Now, maybe
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
You mean very few *MS designed* .NET apps. The main thrust of .NET (and Mono) is to provide competetion to Java for writing net services. Third party net services developers are not restricted to coding massive amounts of Win32 dependencies in their applications.
.NET that needed things like database drivers, a web server, and maybe a RAD-built GUI client, I would end up with something that was tied to Windows. (I highly doubt the VisualStudio GUI sends up a warning when you are doing something non-portable :) Maybe if/when MS breaks up and NET gets 5 more years of development, I might have the pluggable-layer approach of say Java.
No, I'm saying that if I were tasked with developing your typical n-tier application on
'Web Services' in my book is prime example of "Sell the Sizzle, not the Steak". Any web services component would probably a minor part of the whole application package. (And I agree with you in that 3rd party implementations being critical, if only because it will bring out the Windows dependancies in the current platform. Still would probably rather see a full reimplementation of Java.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
* Would it increase their server platform sales? .NET stuff on Linux.
.NET is supposed to be client agnostic. Right?
.NET" application that purely the VM. However, the .NET platform as Microsoft delivers it will have lots of Windows platform dependencies. For example, database access is through ADO.NET which is a layer that sits on top of OLEDB. ASP.NET sits on IIS of course. Windows Forms doesn't even hid the fact that it sits on Win32. Remote components can still be called through DCOM/RPC. And I'm sure there's plenty more.
.NET apps will run on platforms other than Windows without significant extra reverse engineering.
.NET applications in a much cleaner way that pure COM allowed. But only at the periphery of the app.
No, because people would just run
* What about increasing their client platform?
No,
It makes sense if you think about the J++ vs. Java episode.
I gather that there is such a thing as "Pure
But even with all of this, MS is playing the open standards song for the core parts of the platform (the VM, C#, etc). They can afford to do that because the standard is extended-n-embraced right out of the box. Even with Corel and Ximian's work at building the standard-compliant stuff, very few real world
Where this helps Microsoft is that it allows users to connect existing Unix infrastructure to new
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
"Microsoft To Assist Ximian Produce Mono"
Am I the only one who looked at the headline and thought about Zero Wing?
The reason is that Microsoft wants to get .NET everywhere. It's pretty simple. They get everyone using .NET on all platforms. At that point, given their leadership and origination of .NET they will be positioned to make a LOT of money off it. Kudos to Ximian for jumping in early as the .NET architecture really fits well with Ximian's strategy.
Celebrate the finer things in life
However, Mono aims to duplicate these APIs using already existing (and modified) Gnome libraries. From the FAQ:
Question 25: How is this related to GNOME?
In a number of ways: Mono will use existing components that have been developed for GNOME when it makes sense. For example on X systems, we will use Gtk+ and Libart to implement Winforms and the Drawing2D API. For database access, we will use LibGDA (not really depending on GNOME, but related to).
Also, Mono will embrace and extend .NET:
Question 40: Would you allow other classes other than those in the specification?
Yes. The Microsoft class collection is very big, but it is by no means complete. It would be nice to have a port of `Camel' (the Mail API used by Evolution inspired by Java Mail) for Mono applications.You might also want to look into implementing CORBA for Mono. Not only because it would be useful, but because it sounds like a fun thing to do, given the fact that the CLI is such a type rich system.
Celebrate the finer things in life
Granted, I didn't use Ximian Gnome, rather simply the gnome that's in debian/unstable, or at least I did until this weekend. Hello, KDE!! I even moved my mail from Evolution into KMail.
Why? Conviction, pure and simple. The whole thing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's (to me) the same as saying "OK, Bill, we give up! We suck! We can't do this ourselves! We'll use your 'innovative' new language, so the MSDN hordes will write Gnome apps!! You win! Uncle! UNCLE!" (The "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" scenario)
If it turns out to be a good (or indifferent) thing then I may switch back, time will tell.
Blech. Signatures.
If MS helps them, they end up producing something that is .NET compliant, reenforcing the need for MS to supply the server end.
.NET gains an enemy.
.net subscriptions that MS owns.
.net
If MS doesn't help them, they do their own thing, and
In the end, it won't be software subscriptions, but
Of course, 5 years from now, they'll file tradmeark suits for all domains ending in
very few real world .NET apps will run on platforms other than Windows without significant extra reverse engineering
.NET apps. The main thrust of .NET (and Mono) is to provide competetion to Java for writing net services. Third party net services developers are not restricted to coding massive amounts of Win32 dependencies in their applications.
.NET thing could be flop, but do you want to bet your future on that happening? The good thing about Linux getting on board and being ready for .NET early is that Linux can hedge its bets in case .NET ends up being a popular platform for writing net services. If that happens, there will be many more companies than just MS writing those applications, and Linux will at least have a stab at being a platform of choice, just as it currently is for java based net services apps. After all, there are plenty of companies besides just Sun writing Java apps.
.NET (through Mono) is definitely a gamble -- Microsoft could start mucking with the standards specifications mid-stream, .Net could end up not going anywhere -- but the worst cost is wasted time. If Linux is left out and .NET is successful, the cost would be much higher as Linux would then not be viable server platform for developing and running .NET-based web services applications, resulting in a huge opening for Windows.
You mean very few *MS designed*
The whole
Embracing
if I were tasked with developing your typical n-tier application on .NET that needed things like database drivers, a web server, and maybe a RAD-built GUI client, I would end up with something that was tied to Windows...
.NET CLI. This way, all of the current Java APIs (Swing, database, etc.) would be available to people developing in .NET, and this would immediately give developers a way of making multi-tier .NET applications that don't need to use Microsoft specific layers for these things. For example, a GUI client could be done using Swing instead of VB.NET (or whatever). If something like this could be ready by the time .NET starts becoming used more heavily, then third party developers would have options for creating portable multi-tier applications.
You make a good point. Java already has these things. Perhaps Sun could make a preemtive strike by producing an implementation of the entire Java API (not just the language) that targets the
There may be technical reasons why this couldn't work, it's just a thought.
also, as i understand it, there is nothing preventing someone other than microsoft from implementing java as a crl for .net. all that microsoft has implied is that it won't be them.
I hate this conspiracy theories but I think that maybe MS knows that if they help ximian would help denigrate the name of this company in the eyes of the open source advocates.
/. flaming posts begin to roll.
Would MS use their bad name in the open source community to crush another open source company? As we seen with eazel, the company that made evolution just to die after it is ready. Make a company that only deals with open-source it's not very easy. And maybe rumors and flames could help ximian go bankrupt.
I think that if thiI think that if this is really true, ximian should place a very thought press release just calm every one out. before all the
--
"take the red pill and you stay in wonderland and I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes"
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
Just fo curiosity what MS will do? Send them a jumping and talking paper-clip?
--
"take the red pill and you stay in wonderland and I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes"
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
... will they use GPL?
----------------------------------------------
the pun is mightier than the sword
Same old arguments heard dozens of times before.
.NET is cool technology, it is important to start implementing it now, so that Microsoft won't be alone in the field.
a) You cannot force volunteers (or companies) to work in one direction. There are plenty of developers trying to make GNOME a better product.
b) Perhaps Ximian thinks this WILL make GNOME a better product?
c) Perhaps Ximian thinks this will make more money for them then just improving GNOME the "old-fashioned way"?
d) If
e) Most of the work will probably be just as functional under KDE as under GNOME, so that your beloved KDE won't be left out. Should people stop developing the Linux kernel, because the desktop needs more work?
Microsoft has embraced other peoples standards in the past.. it worked for them.
Who is to say that the opensource-community cannot embrace and extend?
Microsoft doesn't "Assist Ximian Produce Mono," they will "Help Ximian Produce Mono." If you're going to type anything at all, please be sure that it is approved by me first.
For more information, click here.
No... OS/2 merely started a VM containing DOS and Windows. This was called "Win-OS/2." The obvious advantage was that if the VM were to crash, OS/2 Crash Protection would make sure that the entire system wouldn't be brought down with it.
However, due to licensing issues, versions of OS/2 with Win-OS/2 support cost about $90 more than versions without. The reason? You actually had to buy a Windows license as well as an OS/2 licenseto use it.
For more information, click here.
I remember that with some OS/2 Warp 3 fixpack (and Warp 4) there was a fix for the single input queue. By putting in the line "SINGLE_INPUT_QUEUE = FALSE" into your OS2.INI file, you could disable that feature and improve performance. It wasn't quite perfect, but it helped.
Now if only there were an option "CRASH = NEVER", I would have been set.
For more information, click here.
Nothing wrong with Ximian as long as you get the CD and install from that.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
I can't imagine how MS can use Passport for anything more than a bullet for thier .NET brocuure, let alone dominate an industry.
/.
You are right there. Pissport is just a beta test of some new ideas. EOL is already planned for next year, to be replaced by newer and costlier and more prevalent technology. They are tweaking the business processes behind the service, to see what flies in the market, and what doesn't produce any revenue, and what pisses off end users to the point of abandoning the service. After the next round of analysis, pissport will evolve into something else with a newly trademarked name and flashy marketing campaign.
M$ has changed their entire focus from being an OS and apps company, to an internet services and developer support company. If the US courts break off their OS and apps divisions, the core will continue to become the dominant force for intranet and internet authentication, using dotNET as the infrastructure.
The scale of the project is huge, and will require years for their own in-house developers to write, as well as years for the 3rd party developers to get on board. But if they play all their cards correctly, they will soon be in the center of a new market, earning regular income from a wide variety of licensing schemes. It will take years until this happens, but they started last year while they still had the 95% monopoly of desktop systems, and that monopoly will continue for long enough for them to muscle into the new internet markets.
The looming battle for the desktop OS will be huge, and largely un-stoppable. Mundie was 100% correct in his assessment of the GPL as "viral" and a "cancer". Soon, FreeOSen will dislodge M$ from their 95% market share, down to maybe 50% or less. But at that point, M$ will be in a new playing field, and will have patented and registered every key technology to lock all competition out. They know they can't compete with a Cisco for networking, or an Oracle for straight-up DBs, or an AOL for control of the cable, or the RIAA for hatred inducing lawsuits. The markets for the 4 A's, Authentication, Authorization, Accounting and Auditing services are very immature right now, and when properly developed will be a new source of revenues. Cisco will be required to license M$ patents on network authentication protocols. Oracle will have to license the patents for DB authentication, or find themselves with no windoze desktop user software. AOL will have to obtain certificates identifying themselves as properly certified by the M$ controlled root, and you can believe M$ will force some concessions before granting a cert. The RIAA lawyers will genuflect in admiration at the gall of the M$ legal team using thousands of newly purchased laws to beat down any free competition.
Its late, I've now ranted enough about M$ to last me a few weeks. I would love to see some well thought out criticisms from intelligent people, to help me sharpen my arguments and avoid repeating mistakes, but alas, this is
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Here is a list of some things that *MAY* be incorporated into XP over the next couple of years. None of them are confirmed, some were tossed out by M$ to see what the corporate response would be, others are just rumours and pure speculation. Predicting M$ future moves is becoming an art form for those of us in the trenches.
:-) IE will NOT have a check box "block all banner ads" :-(
.eu, only gateways would need to add/verify certificates, the end users would never need to see or manipulate a cert. The sysadmins of a gateway would then be responsible for their machines. In case a user started spamming, it would be only the local gateway admin who would know the detail of the user sending the spam, and hopefully take corrective action. ORBS could then become "gateway certificates revocation list of known spam-friendly ISPs".
- browsers that will only show banner ads from "certified" advertisers. When suddenly 95% of the machines don't show an ad unless the advertiser purchases a certificate, watch the stampede over to certified ads. So what if FreeOS users can see any ad without checking on certificates, advertisers will still buy them. To avoid anti-trust problems, IE will have a checkbox "block un-trusted banner ads", which when unchecked, allows a luser to see all banner ads
- checking hotmail. When hotmail servers detect a non-authenticated browser, user gets re-directed to a pissport signup page. Again, since 95% of users will be on XP boxes with an authenticated browser, the loss of only 5% of FreeOS users can be absorbed by increased licensing revenues and re-selling the private data from pissport to spamm^Wadvertising partners.
- certificates buried in Office documents, which can be lightly encrypted, or just signed. The official Office will check the certificate for every document it opens, and refuse to open any non-certified documents. This will be touted as a solution to wurd macro viruses and increased security and confidence in legal documents. Again, since the algorithm for generating the embedded certificate will be patented, and FreeOS package will be attacked by the courts if it can duplicate the functionality(deCSS), there will never be another starOffice-style package offering M$ compatibility. If a FreeOS version somehow triumphs in the legal arena, with dotNET's DCOM features, M$ could overnight change the embedded certificate functions in every currently licensed application, pushing the changes down the hierarchy to the ASPs and then to the end-users. They can keep doing this every time the FreeOSen catch up to the functionality, and most updates will be transparent to XP using sheeple.
- Attaching a certificate to every email sent through a licensed gateway, to prove trackability of emails in case of UCE, ILoveU-style virii, or timestamping ability. Certainly sendmail/Ximian/Kmailgate will have dotNET modules to create and verify digital signatures, but the certificates will still only be available from a M$/verisign licensed crypto-key vendor. To avoid privacy laws in the
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Which clueless are you referring to? Me or yourself?
You are confusing the simplistic communication tools available to programmers in this early round of dotNET implementation. Yes, there are some cool, well developed XML communication procedures. I'll bow to your point about W3C standards, since I'm not a web coder. I seldom raise my eyes above OSI layer 4, or else I concentrate on policy, budget, and religious issues. But M$ themselves have been quietly letting key developers know that they are positioning themselves to repel the FreeOS attack, by including a lot of additional features in future versions of dotNET.
If you want to write an app or web page to do simple communication between processes or from a web server to a browser, XML tools can do the job. But if you are going to use the latest authentication goodies to communicate with objects and processes externally, you will have to pay royalties/licenses/fees to M$ at some point. If you are ever going to write a killer app for a website, or a client/server setup, or a P2P function, M$ will be somewhere in the middle of your transactions. Count on it, it is what they are telling the financial analysts, the corporate planners, the CEOs of favored developers, and a few other elite few.
Passport is a service that is offered to service/content providers.
Pissport is just one service that M$ offers, where they sit in the middle and collect revenues from those sites that want to participate in this new program. They have a whole bunch of other programs in development right now, all grouped together under various codenames, the latest to leak was called HailStorm.
As a provider, I can choose whether to use Passport, Vendor X, Vendor Y, my own authenication scheme, or all four implementaions if I choose to do so.
Great. Use all four. But the market will be dominated by the M$ based one, and few, if any will use a Vendor X. Will you develop for Solaris, Macintosh, HP-UX, SGI, Linux, and a dozen other platforms, even though only 15% of your customer base might use them? As a hardcore *nix person, supporting a huge user base of every kind of machine, I can tell you of the levels of frustration we face every day when popular websites decide to reject all browsers except for IE5 on win98 or 2K. My bank offers banking by internet, and under pressure from M$, they have decided that alienating 35% of their customers is worth the discount that M$ gave them on their web development tools. It is written into their licensing discount they will reject all non-IE browsers, so its no use talking to the project leads, and they reassigned all the programmers who objected, leaving only M$ lackeys.
there will probably be competition in the authenication service market
You are showing how naive and blinkered you are, if you believe that M$ will tolerate any competition in the authentication marketplace. Their stated goal is total domination, using their monopoly position to force developers to use only M$ protocols. Those of us on the sidelines who have been burned by M$ repeatedly are hoping the US Justice Department create a remedy to the illegal abuse of monopoly power that will address the newly mutated M$. M$ today no longer cares about OS or standalone application revenues, since they will decline over the next decade, and has shifted its entire focus to dominating the internet services market.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Yea, that's it $)
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
The article only states that Ximian and Microsoft just *talked* together. Nothing more. Microsoft didn't help the project in any way yet, and chances are that they'll never do.
-- Pure FTP server - Upgrade your FTP server to something simple and secure.
{{.sig}}
This could be one of the biggest news stories in the history of software development.
:wq
What else would you expect? It is in Microsoft's best interest to lure all operating systems into its fold.
"Welcome to my parlour," said the Spider to the Fly.
---
satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
This seems like a much more sound strategy. Give MS a little bit of their own medicine. Why don't we do some "embrace and extend" of our own here? This sounds like a viable alternative technology to the ".NET infrastructure". Why have I never heard of this before? Is anyone besides xns.org trying to promote this thing? This could be the perfect opportunity to really do something unique.
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
No, because people would just run
No,
Hmmm, quite likely. I think it
Yea, that's it!
--
Later...
KangarooBox - We make IT simple!
It's the sound of 50,000 geeks waiting for the other shoe to drop.
And why should anyone ally with Sun and Java? I've read their license and billj's justification for it. Why should anyone surrender their rights in this manner?
.NET. Yet you never hear any of them mentioned in /. news. Seems the editors are to keen on spreading the .NET hype.
What does writing Java software or implementing Java API's have to do with Sun's community license?
There are plenty of Java implementations out there, both commercial and open source, that directly compete with
Jakarta
JBoss
Enhydra
BEA Weblogic
IBM WebSphere
It's scary that Microsoft has made C#/.NET more accessible to Free software development than Sun has made Java/EJB.
.NET more accessible than Java/EJB to Free software development?
.NET platform?
How is
I'm doing Free software development on Java/EJB and I'd really like to know what the difference is to
I do not know how it can be said that Java competes with .NET. "Competes" implies mutual exclusion, and I believe .NET-enabled applications are allowed to use Java's rich APIs.
.NET, as it did compete with MS DNA, which is what the .NET was formerly known (minus stuff like Passport, etc).
.NET platform or you code to the J2EE platform. Java or C# (or C++) are just languages you use, it is whether you deploy your application on the .NET, J2EE, or CORBA platform.
.NET there.
I was referring to the J2EE platform there actually... J2EE competes with
However, most of the arguments are like saying that CORBA competes with Java, because C++ programs can then access Java APIs.
I think its a platform issue... you code to the
There's no money in programming languages for any company, not Sun, Microsoft or IBM. However, there is a multibillion dollar market in the platform, and companies such as Microsoft, BEA, IBM, Sun and Oracle certainly want you to deploy on theirs (and whatever specification their platform may implement). That's where the competition is, and J2EE directly competes with
Still, Sun could give a lot more support to the Free Java implementations, so they aren't playing a constant game of catchup to a moving specification.
Again, which specification are you referring to, the JVM?
I don't have the impression that the virtual machine specification is a constantly moving target, quite the opposite. Sun is often critized by their unwillingness to do *any* changes to the JVM spec. So what is the catchup the Free implementations are forced into?
So your point is .NET is impressive because it contains some open standards, it uses a slow HTTP protocol as a transport for RPC (mostly to get around firewalls, I suppose, which the net admins will block as soon as they figure out what is going on... hmm wonder who will be the first to implement a firewall that automatically drops all HTTP requests with a <SOAP> tag in the payload...), because MS has a monopoly and Java has failed (which it hasn't).
.NET platform. Yet you did not come up with any other explanations why .NET is such an impressive technology.
.NET is targeting and competing with J2EE) you would not make a statement like this. The whole point of .NET (formerly known as DNA) is to compete with Java because Sun is winning A) the application server market place B) the developer mind share.
I'm sorry but you fail to impress me.
Web Services are one thing, its a nice idea for integrating systems that don't need tight coupling. For anything else, it blows. Web Services are only a part of the
Java most certainly has WORA. Without Java I would not ever bother with Linux/Unix implementations of my software. Now I can with very little effort. Java has not failed in the market place. If you actually had had a look at the market place (the same one
I have nothing against SOAP, UDDI, or WSDL. But they're hardly impressive. Yet another spec in the long long long line of XML-this and XML-that. Who is impressed by that anymore?!
Why would you do that? Just to spite Microsoft?
.NET and J2EE platforms target. C# alleviates the problem, but it's a whole new language that the VB developer needs to learn. VB.NET is not a trivial upgrade either. Many VB develoeprs have said the move to VB.NET requires quite a bit of a learning effort.
It has nothing to do with spiting Microsoft, or anyone else. Why does an admin decide to block any of the other RPC mechanisms? To secure their system. It's not like its a huge task for an admin to let a protocol like IIOP through their firewall, yet they decide not to. SOAP is no differnet there, it's just an RPC mechanism. If the web service itself is not secured inside a well defined sand box, it is a security risk to have SOAP invocations being piggybacked on HTTP to the service. Either you know all of the services running on your system, and trust them to be implemented securely, or block SOAP invocations.
VB is still the most popular programming language out there, for better or for worse.
There's been a huge drift from VB to Java in the last couple of years. This what has Microsoft worried, they're losing their developers. I've personally helped several VB developers to migrate to Java, and I know it is a common occurence in many businesses.
VB is lacking behind Java in terms of programmer productivity, especially in environments such as the
J2EE has a two year head start on the application server market. The major J2EE platform vendors already support SOAP, UDDI, WSDL, etc. There's a definitive movement amongst developers from VB to Java. No wonder Microsoft is worried.
Duh!! How are they "not impressive"? If you knew even remotely anything about them you would know that SOAP in particular is only as smart as its payload - its a fricking RPC packet wrapper.
Yes. Your point was?
XML-RPC is nothing new. SOAP standardizes it. That's good. I'm glad IBM dragged Microsoft through the process. But I don't find the spec particularly impressive, from a technological point of view.
UDDI, the same thing. Put together quite quickly by Microsoft, IBM, and some other companies (Rosetta?). It's now borrowing features from ebXML registry which went further in their definition of business registries. We shall see what comes out of it (will they merge?).
WSDL, it just defines the contract of the web service. Compare to IDL. What's impressive here?
go read some of the white papers and come back with an opinion.
I have. I wonder whether you have any technical arguments to present to the discussion, or will you just continue with your trolling.
I don't know about IBM but I doubt Sun feels fucked by the OSS community. There are several Open Source implementations of the J2EE platform or parts of it available and being developed. It's mostly that the Linux community is somewhat ignorant of them. Plus, of course they have more than 20 commercial companies developing implementations the J2EE platform, including IBM, which guarantees competition in the platform implementation and I doubt we will see in the same scale with the Microsoft platform.
For Open Source J2EE, check the following:
Jakarta
JBoss
Enhydra
Jetty
Resin
MS helping out Open Source??
/me checks the date, can't believe it's not 4/1
woah, very...interesting...
-
-
This Post has been brought to you by the letter "E".
Java is as "Write once, run anywhere" as perl, .doc, vb, delphi, etc.
.doc on any machine that supports the .doc format, assuming you didn't write it using asinine .doc features... I hope you're not trying to say java *isn't* write once, run anywhere, while C#/.NET *is*. That would be a farce. And besides there is no multiple C#/.NET to test this on.
i.e. IT REQUIRES SUPPORT FROM THE OS. I sure as hell can write a perl script that wont run on your computer just by using an obscure CPAN module. I can view
Yes. That's why I said debian doesn't use pgp or GPG currently, whereas redhat and ximian do, with their official rpm's.
Yes it is. If you have a jvm that follows spec, and you have java code that follows spec, you have WORA. Sorry I dont see your nit picking as a valid criticism of java. I see it as a valid criticism of certain java implementations. Most noticablely microsofts.
The problem with your rationale is that go-gnome.org, from which the data is piped from, could be hijacked or otherwise tampered with. At least with RPM they are GPG (or pgp, not sure) signed by redhat themselves, (and by ximian through red carpet). Debian doesn't have this but I imagine it's in development.
Facts to be gleaned, piping a url with wget through to a root shell is stupid stupid stupid. But then again, this is the same security model of Windoes 9x and Windows XP-Home edition. Go figure.
Assuming you run redhat, your distro comes with the public key. With Ximian it comes with red carpet. There is usually a file.rpm.sign file that contains the private key signature.
You still haven't given a detailed example.
I'm waiting...
While .NET does allow developers to create web services, so does any other development tool that allows you to create web applications. Instead of sending back HTML, you're sending back XML.
1. As a monopoly, Microsoft is in a position to twist the standards. In particular, they will be able to add proprietary hooks into their tools and services.
2. So, you send back XML. Is there a possibility that there will be extra Microsoft tags thrown in? You bet. No one will prevent Microsoft from throwing in extra, "user-friendly" tags. If developers exclude these tags, for whatever reason, then they will not get the full benefit of the network.
Of course, both of these items are speculation. All disclaimers should be noted. Until we all know more, we are both blowing smoke out our asses.
Back to the question, how does Microsoft levy taxes on a W3C standard?
There is something missing here. XML is a W3C standard, but no one is saying that Microsoft will control XML. They might control certain types of tags, as I mention above, but it is not likely that they own XML. Indeed, they don't own HTML either. HOWEVER, they do own the browser market. They used their monopoly position to gain marketshare.
Now, it is obvious that you cannot easily tax a standard. That is a silly idea and I am not saying that it is possible. Instead, I am saying that you can easily tax access to servers and to data. If Microsoft has your data, and they control the pipes into that data and out of it, then they can make big money.
Here's an analogy. Microsoft doesn't need to control the water in the pipes (XML), and they might not even to control the physical pipe itself. If they own the values and the water meters, then they can charge people and companies whatever they want. Ultimately, they own the water, even though people are able to drink it and move it where they want, if they have the money.
Let's stick with the analogy. If Microsoft gets people to build more pipes and supply more water, then they are going to make more money. Therefore, Microsoft will help Ximian because Ximian is not working with valves and meters, they are working on the pipes that move the water in and out of Microsoft.
Are you under the assumption Microsoft is going to capture revue from Passport and Instant Messaging, or are you misguided assuming MS Office is going to become a web service? (Note: MS Office may not become subscription software, but this doesn't make it a web service)
(1) Yes, absolutely. Microsoft has made it clear that they plan on making money from services, and therefore Passport and Instant Messenger. Indeed, the Hailstorm whitepaper makes it blatantly clear the IM is one of the backbone technologies for developers to move data in and out of Microsoft.
(2) No, I don't think that Microsoft plans on making a ton of money from Office. Possible, but not probable. I think users want to keep Office activites on their systems and networks, not on the web. There doesn't seem to be an opportunity for this kind of service or ASP model.
How to Download YouTube Videos
Let me try answering this again. Three parts:
1. While Passport is not required, it will make life very easy for users. It is easy to sign up and requires no brains to use. That makes it perfect. The more users use Passport, the more they will like it. The mindless masses will eat it up and the intelligent folks will have to follow suit. Inertia will drag us into Passport, just like Internet Explorer, Windows, Office, and so forth.
2. Integration and standardization. More and more of Microsoft's services, and data storage systems, will work with Passport. Passport with Hotmail, Passport for MSDN support, Passport for product support, Passport for MSNBC, and so forth. It is a slippery slope (via integration on all fronts, just like Office). Start to use one service, you are hooked and keep on sinking in deeper. Microsoft will make this too damn easy for people and it will simply happen. It will become the de facto standard. No wars with any companies; it will just happen.
3. I'm not saying that Microsoft will make money directly from services. Instead, they will make money from Passport by providing access (which I suppose is a form of service). However, they will be in a position to "transcend and profit" because all services will require access to your data via Microsoft. If they abuse their monopoly and they do indeed become the central data store, they will own you and they will tax you. And, they'll do it through Passport and related mechanisms.
How to Download YouTube Videos
Microsoft is not helping Ximian. Instead, they are helping themsleves. This is quite clear when you think about what is going on.
.Net, no problem. We're here to help. We're the new Microsoft.
Microsoft doesn't care as much about software as they do controlling network services and collecting payments from various transactions. The idea in this case is to get Ximian to play along so that, ultimately, Microsoft will be able to extract fees from users. Ximian will merely be a small part of the infrastructure that Microsoft controls. That infrastruture will be used to extract new "taxes" from people.
Microsoft to Ximian: Sure, we'll help you build your software. Sure, we'll get you integrated into
Microsoft to Microsoft: Ha ha ha! Fools! Don't they understand that we are kind of like a giant cable company now? We don't care that much about the software and hardware, we care about capturing data from stupid users so that we can extract big money. We know that the margins on software are great now, but they are probably going to decline. However, the margins in services are on the rise. World domination... Ha ha ha!
How to Download YouTube Videos
> Even a source archive that requires the 'make install' to be run as root has the same problem.
//cs right now running my own operating system that I wrote for it in Integer BASIC (can't trust that Applesoft BASIC, it doesn't come built in). As soon as I'm done reading the DIX Ethernet standard I might even let them do things like networking.
That's why I don't use 'make install'. I read the code before I compile it, do a pro tem security audit (especially if it's from those OpenBSD Canadian Communist freaks, you can't trust those sneaky bastards), wrap all library and syscalls so they leave audit trails when executed, and finally use 'gcc -save-temps' so I can read the output from the assembler to see that it doesn't insert any secret calls that are embedded in the C library or in the compiler.
I tell ya, it's getting harder and harder nowadays. Reading through the latest rev of the GNU LibC took me a couple of months. Couldn't compile anything new until I finished it.
I'm all in favor of Ximian partnering with someone like Microsoft. It just gives me more reason to tell my users that they can't use any code except that which I have personally reviewed. They're all using Apple
that's what your dad said about VISA/Mastercard
I doubt it. There are too many more plausible reasons for this move that make sense from a business perspective, which is the only one that matters here.
For one thing, Microsoft could effectively use the goodwill from helping the Mono implementation; it would help in MS's effort to market .NET to skeptical IT folks that have been embraced and extended into some fairly expensive agreements in the past and who have noted that low end Unix servers cost considerably less than their MS solutions.
Not only that, but this gesture helps to assuage the concerns of the legal army that is quite ready to assume that .NET is merely another chapter in the same long book that included the Netscape Air Supply Cutoff.
You'll see some apparent grudging admissions that MS seems to be playing fair from some quarters. That concept will get just enough air time to put off a harsher remedy for a while. Any delay, even for a matter of days, is good for MS' bottom line.
For another thing, I think Miguel, bless his heart, has a lot more technical ability and great innovative ideas than he has common sense or legal ability. He could very easily end up implementing what turns out to be a subset of .NET, being embraced and extended to the point where Mono is merely an academic exercise and a toy. The analogy of Mono and .NET would be like this: because Linux, *BSD and Windows all run on the common platform of the x86 instruction set has not meant that they enjoy equal footing in the desktop PC OS marketplace. Alternatively, Mono might just replicate that part of .NET that MS is willing to be commoditized, like TCP/IP. MS is really only interested in charging for applications that run on it. An underlying Mono implementation will work with some MS applications, as long as it connects up to Passport and exchanges valid tokens. You'll be able to get valid tokens for Linux by paying for them.
Finally, Miguel cannot afford the kind of legal talent he will need if Mono is too good and represents a real threat to Microsoft's revenue stream.
Watch closely how the licensing for Mono is structured, whether strict GPL, LGPL, or BSD, Artistic. This will be the first point of contention that matters.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Try uninstalling your ORBIT RPM. If you're using GNOME then you're in for a small surprise ;-)
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Embrace and Extend
- Like a python, with a medieval torturer's rack.
This can't possibly be a good thing for Ximian. M$oft will squash them like a bug, simply because it's the only thing they know. Name a M$oft collaboration that has ended well for the partner ? Ashton-Tate ? OS/2 ? Anything related to J++ ?
M$oft DO NOT WANT O/S to succeed, or Ximian to succeed. If they're appearing to be helpful, it's only because they have some longer term plan to wipe out the competition. If Mono succeeds, then M$oft own it and can kill it (if you think they won;t be in control, then you're being naive). If it fails, then it was all the fault of "the cancer of Open Source" tm M$oft.
Very simple, .NET is a Java killer, not a Linux killer. .NET is only to kill Java when it is platform independant like Java. So it must play under Linux, otherwise they won't win from SUN. The .NET platform is invented to fiight the war in the middleware, MS does not care for Linux, don't worry.
--
Bizar technology?
Don't /. readers ALWAYS condemn Microsoft? Perhaps it's because they usually only post NEGATIVE Microsoft stories. I'm used to the anti-Microsoft theme, but it's still sad.
Proof that /. itself is anti-MS? EVERY other news section icon is the actual product / group logo... what does MS have? Bill Gates as a Borg. Sad that proponents of "Alternative OS's" are against people have a choice to use a NON ALTERNATIVE OS.
That would be like people founding a country on religious freedom and then saying you could pick anything you wanted as your religion... except Christianity. :) /. users hate Windows or think Microsoft is out to get them!
____________________
Remember, not all
Prevent linux based DDOS's!
http://linux.denialofservice.org/
>Microsoft's trying to get a foot in the Open Source Market to gain control as they always do.
.NET? .NET. We can play nice. .NET too. We'r so 7337!!!
Indeedly oh, neighbor.
Here's how it works:
MS: You need a revenue model? Want to do
Ximian: Sure! We are going out of business without some VC $$$.
MS: O.K., but here' the catch. Most of what you produce has to be BSD license. The rest is closed source.
Ximian: We are desperate, so ok.
MS: (To themseslves, with a Snicker) We just embraced and extended the Open Source movement on the cheap. They do free development and we can ultimately control their compatibility with us.
Ximian: (To themseslves, with a relief) We can stay in business for another xx months.
MS: (To DOJ) See, you don't need to regulate
Slashdot: Cool, we have
Our desire to have Linux see commercial sucess could be our undoing. Putting compatibility with MS products in the hands of a company, without it being licensed under the GPL, is suicide. MS can destroy a commercial venture at will. It's the GPL that they can never have. Without the protection of the GPL, GNU/Linux would be dead meat, yesterday's news.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
~Dennis Miller
~Religion is O.K., as long as it gets you laid.
By now they know they can never get the 97% they where aiming for, apache with extensions is to hard even for them so they need a fresh start. .NET that is. By making sure it can also run on Unixes they can later win over those admins if it turns out that MS .NET implementation actully is better than ximians.
My 2 bits.
Ximian is focusing on the core of the GNOME desktop. This is only one of the projects we have, and will not detract from our focus.
Aaron Weber
Ximian, Inc.
Sure, MS would like to keep everything secret, but it recognises there's some real competition now (Linux etc.) and now has to try to bring those of us who defected back onto their side again.
Or am I just being paranoid?
Looks more like Microsoft is "considering" assisting Ximian's Mono. They will probably not allow/enable applications written in Mono to run under the Windows CLI.
Which makes me wonder - is this a method of further distancing the two platforms? Will Microsoft, in a show of Good Faith, offer this assistance with the end goal of reducing interoperability to a one-way street?
It's not that I don't trust Microsoft to be Good Guys once in a while. Thing is, they don't trust us to be Good Guys either.
And that's Microsoft's strategy.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Also, is it known whether Microsoft will/could enforce copyright restrictions on it if the Linux community tries to improve on the MS design?
People think I'm trolling because I signed my message "a KDE fan". I only signed my message "a KDE fan" because I have written pro-KDE messages in the past and I wanted full disclosure.
However, I was not trolling. My article was genuine.
Part of having a nick like "Karma Sucks" means that I don't care about my Karma. If people don't want to read what I write, that is their problem.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Focus on fixing GNOME so that it can compete with KDE and Windows. You *cannot* win with Microsoft, you are in a position of weakness and disadvantage by default. Microsoft will screw you over at the first chance, and along the way you will have helped bolster the mindshare of its questionable strategy.
You are creating a conflict with your ally Sun by neglecting JAVA. Do not divest your efforts from GNOME. GNOME needs you. Do NOT neglect the ailing GNOME desktop like this.
This is my fair attempt at talking some sense into you. I sincerely hope you prove me wrong so that I won't have to say "I told you so" in a few months.
-- A KDE Fan.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
This just seems like a trick to get us using Windows software on our scared open source platforms.
I think you have hit on it. When one of us buys a machine with Windows pre-installed and install Linux, sure Microsoft has sold a license (good for MS), it will never have to support (also good for MS). However the down side, for MS is no future revenue, because we will not be in the MS upgrade cycle. If MS can get the Linux community to start using .NET, then we can be put on the upgrade cycle, which means continued revenue for MS. How many of us would start using the .NET version of Office XP or Internet Explorer, my guess is a great many.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
...ok now, let's see how long it takes someone to shout conspiracy.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
>I am not a GNOME developer, and there is a great
/usr/bin and do something like:
>deal that I do not understand about what is going
>on. However, I still haven't seen any
>applications that use ORBIT, and I don't see
>CORBA or Java having a substantial impact on
>Linux or GNOME applications.
If you've used Gnome at all in the past couple years, you've seen programs that utilize ORBit running on your desktop (e.g. the control center or panel applets).
For a quick listing, you can just cd to
$ for I in *; do if (ldd $I 2>/dev/null | grep -i orbit >/dev/null); then echo $I; fi; done
address-conduit-capplet
another_clock_applet
asclock_applet
background-properties-capplet
backup-conduit-control-applet
battery_applet
bonobo-application-ps
bonobo-application-x-mines
bonobo-audio-ulaw
bonobo-echo
bonobo-moniker-gunzip
bonobo-moniker-http
bonobo-sample-canvas-item
bonobo-sample-controls
bonobo-sample-hello
bonobo-sample-paintbonobo-selector
bonobo-text-plain
bug-buddy
calendar-conduit-control-applet
calendar-pilot-sync
cdplayer_applet
charpick_applet
clockmail_applet
cpumemusage_applet
default-application-properties-capplet
deskguide_applet
diskusage_applet
drivemount_applet
eazel-proxy
eazel-proxy-util
ebrowser
echo-client
email-conduit-control-applet
eog
eog-image-viewer
evolution
evolution-addressbook
evolution-alarm-notify
evolution-calendar
evolution-elm-importer
evolution-executive-summary
evolution-gnomecard-importer
evolution-mail
evolution-netscape-importer
evolution-pine-importer
evolution-vcard-importer
expense-conduit-control-applet
fifteen_applet
file-conduit-control-applet
file-types-capplet
gaim
gaim_applet
galeon-bin
gconfd-1
gconftool
gconftool-1
gda-default-srv
gda-mysql-srv
gda-postgres-srv
gda-run
gda-test
gdict
gedit
geyes_applet
gkb_applet
gmc
gmc-client
gnapster
gnomecal
gnomecard
gnomecc
gnome-gtkhtml-editor
gnome-help-browser
gnome-help-caller
gnome-hint-properties-capplet
gnome-iconedit
gnomeicu
gnomeicu-client
gnome-name-service
gnome-panel-add-launcher
gnome-panel-properties-capplet
gnome-terminal
gnome-vfs-slave
gnomexmms
gnotes_applet
goad-browser
gpilotdgpilotd-client
gpilotdcm-client
gpilotd-control-applet
gpilot-install-file
grdb-capplet
gshell
gtcd
gtik2_applet
gtkhtml-properties-capplet
gweather
hyperbola
ior-decode
jbc_applet
keyboard-properties
life_applet
load-gnomecard-addressbook
load-pine-addressbook
loadshlib
medusa-idled
medusa-indexd
medusa-searchd
memo_file_capplet
metatheme_selector_capplet
mini_commander_applet
mixer_applet
modemlights_applet
moniker-test
mouse-properties-capplet
msearch
multiload_applet
name-client
nautilus
nautilus-adapter
nautilus-content-loser
nautilus-hardware-view
nautilus-history-view
nautilus-image-view
nautilus-launcher-applet
nautilus-mime-type-capplet
nautilus-music-view
nautilus-news
nautilus-notes
nautilus-preferences-applet
nautilus-sample-content-view
nautilus-sidebar-loser
nautilus-text-view
nautilus-throbber
new-object
oaf-client
oafd
odometer_applet
old-name-server
orbit-event-server
orbit-name-server
panel
pilot-applet
quicklaunch_applet
rdf-summary
rp3
sample-container
sample-control-container
sawfish-capplet
screensaver-properties-capplet
screenshooter_applet
session-properties-capplet
slash_applet
sound-monitor_applet
sound-properties
stripchart-applet
tasklist_applet
test-conduit-control-applet
test-servicetheme-selector-capplet
tickastat_applet
ui-properties
Authentication, identification...well we already have SSL, and browsers which can store personal information locally.
Fortunately there's an alternative provided by IBM and put under a non-profit organisation. I'm hoping this will get big.
Monkey sense
ok, dememted joke... but, maybe they think Mono is short for Monopoly... what do you think?
I'd never thought I would see the day when microsoft would help an open sorce project. I am always wary of anything microsoft does, including this. I don't mean to be the pesimist here, but Microsoft could be using this is an opportunity to a)spy on the capabilties of Mono, b) sabatage mono, I don't see why they would want to do "a" because once mono comes out, though could just d/l a copy, it IS open sorce, but microsoft would never stand for including anything opensource in their code, would they....
But if the GPL is a cancer on modern business, would you want to have your name sullied by a cancerous business? Or, worse yet, do you want to risk joining them?
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
scared open source platforms :-)
Is that a typo or a Freudian slip? This should probably read "sacred" open source platform
and will determine with Ximian whether technical assistance would be appropriate...So first of all, nothing has been decided yet, hence the "will determine". Secondly, if a company directs it whole to a certain tecnology, as is the case with Microsofts .NET, is it so strange that they will try to get their hooks in other platforms as well? As far as I'm concerned the bigger the exposure, the bigger the chance that it will actually succeed. Just see it as a promotion or advertising campaign!
Agreed. From what I've read, simple exposure to closed source code (M$ code), even seeing it during the course of work, opens up the developer to charges of IP theft if any code remotely resembling the M$ code shows up in the open source product. Sounds to me like M$ trying to open that possibility in order to shut the whole product down (or tie it up in litigation, effectively the same thing). WARNING... WARNING... DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!!!
____
Skivvy Niner? Email me!
HEY! Look left just ONE MORE TIME!
__
I can't speak to the portability of C#, but yes, I am saying that Java is not WORA.
Why would you do that? Just to spite Microsoft? Well, you'll be spiting Sun and IBM too, because they are jumping on the SOAP bandwagon as fast as MS.
As it stands, creating such a firewall wouldn't make any sense in any case, if you have no software capable of servicing SOAP requests, they fall into the ether.
Sun is winning A) the application server market place B) the developer mind share.
VB is still the most popular programming language out there, for better or for worse. Java-based environments do hold the app server marketplace, but this market is still young, watch for Microsoft to make a move on it.
I have nothing against SOAP, UDDI, or WSDL. But they're hardly impressive.
Duh!! How are they "not impressive"? If you knew even remotely anything about them you would know that SOAP in particular is only as smart as its payload - its a fricking RPC packet wrapper.
go read some of the white papers and come back with an opinion.
1. The standards are open, and you can program with them right now.
2. "RPC over HTTP" is already being hacked out and used all over the web, so it makes sense to standardize it. Maybe a world full of JVMs communicating over ORBs using IIOP would have been preferrable, but it isn't ever going to happen, even Sun conceeds this.
3. It makes sense to work with Microsoft at this point instead of against it. They control practically all of the desktop computers in the world, and an increasing number of servers. How they came to this position is irrelevant. Strategically, it doesn't make any sense to fight this presence for any group, corporate or volunteer.
4. Java has failed to live up to its promises. No one believes Java is write-once read-anywhere, regardless of if it is even true at this point, so there is no point in flogging that messasge anymore - it has failed in the marketplace.
...can be found in this morning's Boston Globe (story link here)
In space, no one can hear you moo.
Remember when Microsoft infused a ton of cash into a dying Apple? (1998 maybe)
I'm sure that microsoft would love to have a non-microsoft version of .NET out there as token competition (even though, as the it's PASSPORT guy said, it doesn't really matter). Even better that the "competition" be from a visibly sworn enemy who happens to be a weak company that they could crush at any moment.
This looks like a very glossy anti-anti-trust move.
Clearly, Microsoft would not help Ximian if Microsoft didn't think they would earn money on helping them.
As long as the Open Source community just ports & replies whatever the Closed Source Companies do, Open Source never gains an advantage. Why use Ximian MONO, when Microsoft .NET is the original? When Microsoft always will be first with updates, because they set the standard? I am afraid that the OS community will grow into a broiler farm for future MS .NET Closed Source developers.
--
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
It is a specification, like COM. Once MS published the spec, they couldn't and didn't want to prevent people from making a Un*x version. With all of the other .NET server apps, they don't really care if you bought your copy of an MS server, if you can run their other server components (ASP.NET, ADO.NET).
Throwing 2 or 100 developers (which they won't use that many) is chump change for them. It's a LOT cheaper than the advertising dollars they'd need to spend to convince the Linux community that "they care".
All the big corporations are the same. They've all realized that they don't have to spend millions on advertising, they just have to hire a couple of very vocal developers, and let them work on open source whatever. It makes them look good in the trade rags, and the whole open source community has a love fest with them. And once again the developers are the pawns.
.NET is a whole load of technologies, the CLR is only one of them. I don't know if a CLR port will necessarily be able to run:
.NET
.NET lies, not just the technical interest.
Visual Studio
ASP.NET
Any of the enterprise servers (Commerce, ISA, Exchange, BizTalk, SQL Server)
These technologies are where the real use of
If a CLR port can run these products, then even better for Microsoft, since it can run its server products on every operating system. But I think they'll make calls down to System32 which won't be portable.
Henry
i don't do sigs. oops.
MS agrees that .NET is a "bet the company" magnitude of a move. It has to succeed, and not having an implementation for linux would create doubt about the platform - and improve the chances of Java. They are going to force it through - shows that .NET is not all about arrogance, it's a bit about being desperate too.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
I think you screwed up your formatting. Instead of:
<b>
blah blah blather blah...
</b>,
You wanted to say:
<b>I'm an idiot who uses too much bold in a futile attempt to hide the lack of content in my comments.
blah blah blather blah...
</b>
The extra disclaimer is needed for your situation.
I must concur. Do not neglect Sun. Java is already a multi-platform application language that needs help to fight against M$. Most of us in the Linux community have not warmed up to Java as we should. Why make it easier for M$ to gain market share in programming languages? M$ may inadvertently pay most of our salaries, but that does not mean we need to give them a hedgerow into the Linux community so that they may siphon out some of our newest members with a 'simple' (read 'I am too lazy to learn a language that I have to think to use') multi-platform language.
More of my thoughts
They already own .gov.
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
I agree. This just seems like a trick to get us using Windows software on our scared open source platforms. Full market coverage! This also may sound a little paranoid, but what if Microsoft changes it's mind or Ximian forgets to read the small print. Ximian could end up getting sued for copyright infringement later on because of one little thing they do in Mono. I'm not surprised that all of this is happening. When I first heard about the development of Mono, I thought that Microsoft might use this as an entry into the Linux market. I mean what next: Microsoft Gnome?
-dr. layyze f. tooth PhD
Here's how it works and we'll lend you some experienced design people to work through it, because we really want an alternative to hold down that 5% of the market that keeps the "Monopoly" people off our back.
Or being a big "Help" (as my mum used to say) and doing this:
Here's a crew of programmers we're loaning you, (though we'll not tell you that their all prima donnas, used GOTOs freely, write entire applications as one block of code, have no concept of documentation or following specifications) we'll be happy to "help" run it through Q&A in 2005, when you finally have something which doesn't have too many bugs in it.
Either way, it wouldn't be hard for Microsoft to bend it to their will. After all, if a variant were developed in Windows, Linux or any other platform which had major advantages, why go with their solution? Keep your friends at arms length but hold your enemies closer.
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Bill: Embrace and extend, baby! We will crush you
Linus: But Bill, this is an embrace and extend of your own stuff.
Bill: shit
I'm not sure that this is Microsoft coming around. Think about it. Microsoft has been giving Open-Source a hard time and even wanted it banned.
.NET for linux. I was hoping for MONO to eventually be ported to other OS's to rival .NET.
Something doesn't smell right about this. I'm REALLY not sure that I would use MONO if it's backed by Microsoft. I was kinda hoping for a 'complete alternative' rather than MONO be the version of
Just remember the old saying, don't trust a wolf in sheeps clothing. Something just isn't right about this...
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
If Mono becomes better than the Windows version Microsoft will do everything it can to make sure the Windows version is the best system to use .... now how will they do that I wonder?
They will add extra undocumented features like in Kerberos, but this time since it's their own technology noone will be able to do anything about it. It's so extremely obvious that I pitty the blind webmonkeys at Ximian: "Hi, we are the webmonkeys, we heard you had borowed a gun to our dog friend Kerberos. Now that he's recovering from shootuing himself in the foot, can we borrow the gun? We wanna play!"
but in principle this looks like a 'good thing.'
Is anyone suprised by this. M$ is going to help Ximian make there project forward compatible with .NET. But what are the chances that .NET users will be able to use MONO through there M$ software.
..."It's a trick... get an ax."
I only want to know one thing. What's in it for them? Because you know damn well they aren't doing it out of the kindness of their hearts, or for the love of open source.
I love how someone makes fun of microsoft, and they get a 5. Someone makes fun of linux and they get a -1. Just goes to show how bias runs on both sides.
If there was a "-1 Not Funny", that'd be my most used mod.
First of all, no one is obligated to share their source code. The Win32 Platform SDK is more than appropriate for programming Windows. MS has a ton more SDKs for programming it as well. Furthermore, the MSDN is the best programming reference site I've ever seen. Not everything in life is just handed to you. I don't blame MS for not giving its source away anymore than I don't blame idsoft for not giving the Quake III engine away. Second, MS does license the source to educational institutions for free. Search the bugtraq archives for the link.
If there was a "-1 Not Funny", that'd be my most used mod.
This is due to Microsoft saturating the market, they cant make any more money off windows once they've put it on every machine on earth, so what now (besides the 2 year product upgrade treadmill)? Figure out how to control and tie customer data and applications directly to the operating system. Tie those applications and methods directly to partner company websites (MSN, Expedia, etc) to create a services which are essentially tied to operating system. It makes integrated explorer seem like no big deal when you see how deep this rabbit hole goes.
They're promoting .NET as cross platform and open source.. the one key element, however, that is NOT free and open is the identification service (Passport).. that will have a massive stranglehold, and that will be required by any .NET service to identify who is who.
.NET service.
You can use Passport to indentify users, Vendor2's
services, Vendor3's services, or all three if you wish. I recommend, you actually TRY the echnology.
.NET services are mearly like Web applications, replacing the browser and HTML
with SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) and XML.
You can write them on your Linux box today with Perl, Python, or anything else that can do basic string manipulation. SOAP and XML are defined by the W3C, so it's an open specification.
.NET, I doubt they'll be able to offer anything like Visual Studio .NET for Linux anytime soon, which will be the prefered development tool of choice for a .NET developer, and will still sell at about $1000 for the Enterprise license. MSDN subscriptions for the latest toys are extra. (MSDN Universal subscriptions is $3000 a year now adays)
.NET brocuure, let alone dominate an industry.
1. Passport is just a service. It is not required for the development, use, and indentification by any other
2.
If there is any place to make money in this scheme (or control the monopoly), it is this identification service.
I doubt passport is going to do a lot for thier revenue stream.
While Ximian may port the basic chunk of
Secondly, Don't forget that Visual Studio for the longest time has a lateral effect for the purchasing of MS SQL Servers, Exchange Servers. This will continue with BizTalk, Commerce Server, SNA server, as long as these tools continue to integrate much like it has in the past.
Personally, I can't imagine how MS can use Passport for anything more than a bullet for thier
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Microsoft doesn't care as much about software as they do controlling network services and collecting payments from various transactions. The idea in this case is to get Ximian to play along so that, ultimately, Microsoft will be able to extract fees from users. Ximian will merely be a small part of the infrastructure that Microsoft controls. That infrastruture will be used to extract new "taxes" from people.
.NET does allow developers to create web services, so does any other development tool that allows you to create web applications. Instead of sending back HTML, you're sending back XML.
How does Microsoft exactly control an infrastructure specified by the W3C that is OS/Language agnostic to begin with?
While
Back to the question, how does Microsoft levy taxes on a W3C standard?
Don't they understand that we are kind of like a giant cable company now? We don't care that much about the software and hardware, we care about capturing data from stupid users so that we can extract big money. We know that the margins on software are great now, but they are probably going to decline. However, the margins in services are on the rise.
How did we get to Microsoft being like a giant cable company here? Since when did user data become such a huge market that it would dwarf the market capitalization of the largest software company?
I can agree web services are on the rise insofar as it adds value to a lot of bricks and mortar companies, but what web services can/will Microsoft provide that will capture a huge market share?
Are you under the assumption Microsoft is going to capture revue from Passport and Instant Messaging, or are you misguided assuming MS Office is going to become a web service? (Note: MS Office may not become subscription software, but this doesn't make it a web service)
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Let me reassert this again. Microsoft isn't in a position to tax Webservices when there are so many viable alternatives.
You think Sun, IBM, Borland, and countless others don't support SOAP based webservices?
If you haven't been following the IT industry lately, you'll find that Java has become increasingly popular as a server-side language that has gained the loyal support of millions of developers.
With as much of an uphill battle MS is already having with it's current developers from jumping ship, they are despirately trying to prove that they have a Java like technology that's better. Hence supporting Ximian.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
With the competition from Sun and every other vendor providing web services, Microsoft isn't in a position to force content/service providers to use Passport for authenitation, let alone attempt to levy taxes like another nutjob suggested.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
MS has been quietly devising a scheme where they can legally control all of the key services to "valid" communication between all dotNET implementations.
This is pure crap...
All "valid" communications between all dotNET implementaions are W3C standards. They don't require Passport or any other authentication scheme.
You would probably know that if you've written a webservice. You would understand that it's much like writing a web application, but instead of sending HTML to a browser, you're replying to a XML post with XML data via HTTP. Because webservices are as simple as that, you can start writing them in Perl on your Apache server right now.
By being at the centre of the authentication scheme, they control who can use all the nifty new services, and who will be excluded. They will also charge a subscription service for every end user, so you can go ahead and use *nix, but you will still have to pay your Pissport fee in order to access any new features offered by any value added internet content provider.
More BS... Passport is a service that is offered to service/content providers. As a provider, I can choose whether to use Passport, Vendor X, Vendor Y, my own authenication scheme, or all four implementaions if I choose to do so.
Because content providers have this choice, there will probably be competition in the authenication service market, making your assertion that MS will be able to charge end users for Passport baseless, let alone control all authentication for web services.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Crushing Java may be partly their aim, but I don't think they see Java as a threat since it's been around for 5+ years and hasn't already become a huge pay-for-sevices platform. After all, the end goal of .net is for MS to have a steady stream of income from rented software and storage of personal information (hailstorm). It doesn't really matter what platforms .net runs on - to them the more the merrier - but that it takes off and allows them to charge for renting software over the internet, as well as charge people to access their personal info from any kind of net-aware device. MS could be satisfied running .net just on Windows, but having it run on Linux potentially means having it work on virtually all embedded systems (cell phone, PDAs, etc.). That just helps opens up the market their creating.
---
Developers: We can use your help.
"[Microsoft] will determine with Ximian whether technical assistance would be appropriate" = we'll have a look and see if we need to screw you.
.NET platform." = we have a thousand lawyers and ten thousand programmers poised for attack. Resistance is futile.
"testament to the openness and viability of the
"Microsoft will do everything that it can to ensure that Windows remains the best place to run Windows applications" = Microsoft will ensure Windows is the only platform you can run anything. Period.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
Microsoft helping to develop open-source software? What is happening to the world?
.net would be ported to other operating systems? Microsoft certainly want linux users to use microsoft software, espesially as the numbers of linux and *BSD users are increasing. .net implementation to match the windows version, though.
Well, anyway: was there ever any doubt that
I would not expect the linux
'Linus is an imperfect being, created by an imperfect being. Finding his weakness is only a matter of time.'
*dun-dun-duuuuuhhh*
Part of the anouncement of mono...
.NET strategy may look like something that could create even MORE monopolistic look for M$, and its something they REALLY want to avoid.
"We're not about cloning systems for the sake of cloning; we're about making sure that the future of computing doesn't implode around a monopoly,"
Well do you think what COULD happen to M$, if they fail. Any one? M$ want to keep it self intact and
Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
Bwahahahaha!!! Oh, thanks, I needed that after having to do a ton register editting this weekend. "Ease of use", hee-heeee! [INCLUDE SOUND OF THIGH-SLAPPING HERE.]
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
"Microsoft's CLI is not expected to execute Linux and Unix applications" -- Wrong, if Mono applications compile to CIL (Common Intermemidate Language) and makes no Linux spesific calls, they should be able to MS CLI. Mono wouldn't be able to run Win32 applications either.
"Microsoft will do everything that it can to ensure that Windows remains the best place to run Windows applications. That said, if someone wants to write Windows-based applications for other platforms, we're not opposed to the idea," -- That is hardly surpising, but isn't the *defination* of Windows applications is that they run best on Windows?
--
Two witches watched two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Office & IE on the Mac, anyone?
--
Two witches watched two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
That said, let me make a a NEW checklist of all the things I need on my servers.
"From of old, there are not lacking things that have attained Oneness." - Lao Tzu
IBM and Sun must feel fucked by the Linux / OSS community right about now.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Microsoft to provide technical assistance on Open Source project
VP Mundie's head 'just exploded', say witnesses
Slashdot readers condemn Microsoft
Open Source move seen as 'sinister plot'
World ends, film at 11
Televangelists express surprise
Weather forecast for Hell: Scattered flurries, high -2
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
He's complaining about something or other freezing over.
Let's ponder about this a minute.
Why did Hitler make a pact with the church?
It's very simple. Nobody questions a noble task. When that noble task turned to the holocaust everyone refused to believe it. The church itself could not resist Nazis because they depended too much on them.
OK. Maybe that was a bit harsh comparison, but I hope you go the point.
You don't have to go that far to find similarities between Microsoft and Nazis.
:)
We all know the famous clauses
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler (Translation: One people, one country, one leader)
"One People, One Web, One Program" - MicroSoft Ad.
But that's not the only similarity.. The new Hailstorm has its advantages too. "Hail" was the word used by Nazis to praise their leaders and Storm troopers were Hitlers personal troops. You can imagine what "Hail Storm" means..
You also probably know that if you count "Bill Gates 3" ASCII value, it equals "Adolf Hitler" ASCII value (which equals 666).
And so on, this is just a joke, but you already knew that, didn't you
Sometimes they're true! .NET applications would run poorly on Windows .NET.
I remember one year ago some people said Linux
That's what's just happening!
Read the article, read it thoroughly!
First: I think not really.
Microsoft's trying to get a foot in the Open Source Market to gain control as they always do.
There's no reason to sit back and relax.
Pay attention folx, as the murderer's often within the family !
Not at all. Back in the Windows 3.x days, Windows applications ran better under OS/2 than under Windows :-)
Hence, "a better Windows than Windows," as the IBM advertisement campaign claimed.
"Microsoft will do everything that it can to ensure that Windows remains the best place to run Windows applications. That said, if someone wants to write Windows-based applications for other platforms, we're not opposed to the idea," Stutz said.
I do not think that a company trying to prove that it is not a monopolist would ever have allowed a representitive to say this.
Wrong , wrong and wrong.
Computer languages are here to help us with implementing working programs and NOT to fight economic/ideological wars.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
OK, I've seen a lot of surprised comments here. Microsoft is NOT "bad". They make buggy software and charge high prices for it, but on the other hand they have set a great standard in the ease of use. Sure Linux is open source, but it takes a lot of work to set it up right. Personally, I prefer linux because it's more secure but I don't go around screaming "MS Sucks!!!"
On another note, I think that there might be some profit for MS here.
---
------
Sig
It is accepted that extra effort is needed to make something cross-platform. Microsoft could then easily make extensions that are difficult to implement on other platforms simply by providing low-level functions that don't have an equivalent in other OSes (could result in lower speeds or inability to run on Linux).
Not that I'm pro-MS or anything, but would precompiled code be much of a problem? Couldn't the objects be stored in memory the same way? This would allow objects to be passed among different platform since it's only the class's code that is natively compiled...or are there situations where you have to pass the class code around too? Maybe when sending an implementation for an interface...?
So you think that in other discussion groups (ones without karma), people don't defend their messages?
Microsoft is the champion of all things marketing. Of course, it won't hurt Microsoft to set up such a faux relationship to please it's customers that currently have a little Unix in their blood.
.NET will not work with Unix.
.NET technology."
But believe me you, this is not a strategic direction for Microsoft. There has been no evidence that Microsoft will ever have high-quality support for a product that isn't based on it's Windows OS. This is just a marketing statement built to shoot down the argument that
Microsoft is the organization that tells us that Unix sucks. You know what they'll say once their Unix product never gets delivered? "Oh, well, we couldn't, because it turns out that old Unix sucks for our super-advanced
.NET is got nothing to do with Windows. Before you reply like this, you should at least research the technology. .NET is a technology for enabling distributed objects of functioanlity to operate and communicate on the web, in a platform independent manner. It has nothing to do with Windows. Period. Its all about connecting pieces and stringing together web services. not about writing windows apps.
No its about writing software I can sell.
We don't use Passport at all and won't. You don't have to use Passport to use .NET. Go study somemore.
I'm sorry but you are just not correct. We have worked with .NET for over a year and I think we know it better than you. There is absolutely no requirement ever to use Pasport to use .NET. There are many kinds of applications that you can build that do not require Single Signon (SRO) authentication, which is ALL Passport does. Period. You have read too many sentionalized crap articles in the trade press from people who do NOT understand what .NET is and who are used to trying to stir people up. The articles all fail to mention that there are FOUR other kinds of authentication in ASP.NET besides Passport and you never have to use Passport. You can stick with simple Challenge and Response. And you can build and deply plenty of .NET apps that don't even go over the Internet. There is no Passport anywhere in .NET except in a very limited case and if you choose it.
large user base that does use passport >>> No they don't. Most of the Microsoft community, including us, has totally rejected Passport. It doesn't stop us from developing and deploying .NET applications.