Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Gives Up on Hailstorm
Dephex Twin writes "According to a NYTimes article: due to lack of 3rd-party support for Microsoft's "Persona" (originally codenamed "Hailstorm"), the company has been forced to dump the project. It seems the companies didn't like having a middleman between them and the consumers. As a person worried about the future with .NET, this is a bit of a relief."
When people trot out that .Net is an evil system to make everyone turn into Microsoft slaves by turning over our personal records to them, it is a disgusting display of ignorance of what .Net really is.
.Net does not mean that Hailstorm == .Net.
It is a set of services, including web services, that is designed to compete with Java.
Just because Hailstorm was to be implemented as a service of
Please get a clue.
Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt [*cough*] it seems like they jumped the gun just a bit.
After all they are just now wrapping up the one month security review they started back at the beginning of february. yep, that is still going on.
So this is a case where vaporware was not being bought at all, working against them instead of working for them.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
"As a person worried about the future with .NET..."
.Net actually is.
.NET for those who have'nt taken the trouble to learn what .NET truly is.
.NET as a whole.
It's kinda sad to see how uninformed some people are about what
It's been a long day in front of the PC so I'm not gonna bother explaining
But, needless to say, it would be a huge mistake to think that this is somehow related to the success or failure of
Back when the Hailstorm idea was first announced ... No business or government agency that I dealt with was even slightly interested.
... Why would anyone want Microsoft to be even more powerful?
:)
When Microsoft announced its requirement as part of future "e-business" and [forced] integration into their Office Suite and Windows workstation licenses the consumers and IT departments went crazy. Nobody liked the idea of giving Microsoft MORE control. After all, running IIS already gives "Hackers" (actually crackers) more than enough control
I can say though... EVERYONE that I know with an MCSE and/or works at a MCSP (MS Cert Solutions Provider) was in support of the Hailstorm idea.
I can't express it enough that I am happy for this failure
As a person worried about the future with .NET, this is a bit of a relief.
Yes, modular software design with interopable components and standard data storage techniques is an absolute nightmare! Somebody stop them!
The half-assed attempt at a console, also known as the X-Box, is surely just an investment for the future home entertainment systems created by Microsoft, but at the rate they're going there will not be enough cash on hand to take the losses normally associated with selling console systems.
It will be interesting to see how successful Microsoft will be with their current networking desires that follow their .NET and passport ideas, and whether or not these too will fail or just become immensely unpopular. Regardless, the deathly grip they hold on the OS market has yet to see a legitimate adversary, so it will be a long time before we see the complete downfall of Microsoft.
If MS truly sees the market as being essential to their revenues, they'll just keep going until they borg out the other players. In fact, this is in line with their history of rejected/crappy first releases/attempts.
Yeah I've had the same feeling for a while
.NET (or at least the plan for Hailstorm-integrated .NET apps) are just a couple of things that will mark the end of MS as we know it.
IMHO, subscription licensing and
There just seems to be a groundswell of (shock-horror!) FUD against MS. Mom & Pop Win98 user are happy running MS's desktop OS, but let them run banking security? No way!
Don't get me wrong - Bill will find a way (e.g. X-box/consumer eletronics) to still make piles of cash and dominate a market - but I know of more than a couple of hardened MS-heads that are seriously considering alternatives. These are the same guys that swear by Win2k, Active Directory etc..
At risk of being modded down, you've gotta give the guy (Bill) credit. He's always got alternatives - and if not the sheer size of his cashpile will enable him to buy into the Next Big Thing (remember their late internet entry?)
gadgetophile.com
Sheesh, I wish people like you would stop working for news media. I am a great supporter of the art of the pun, and the lame ones reporters always come up with really give the art a bad name. Please, oh please, can I read an article in InfoWorld about Java services that doesn't refer to some vendor "brewing" new solutions?
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
Their lack of credibility has finally caught up with them.
IMHO, Microsoft is incapable of leading any kind of initiative that requires third party support. That would require finding third parties that trust Microsoft -- a dubious proposition indeed.
Who do you think had the whole HailStorm idea? Marketing.
You can almost hear the conversation in the meeting
Marketing: "This will be great! People can log in from anywhere!"
Developers: "Yeah, that's technically possible."
Marketing: "Then Go! Go! Go!"
I imagine starting HailStorm and canceling HailStorm were topics of fiery debates inside the Fortress of Microsoft.
Finally a techno Exec probably said "This is stupid. Who is really going to sign up with us? Pay Microsoft to authenticate their users?"
One more thing....Figure out what
Microsoft understands that it needs to sell something that users are willing to pay $10 or $20 a month for. If an online calendar/address book/data storage/wallet (which is all that .Net My Services ever was) doesn't convince people to hand over the money, they'll find something that will.
.Net My Services may be scaled back, but Passport is becoming more and more visible: Monster and EBay both have it as an option, for example.
Revenue for desktop operating systems is leveling out, so they are looking for the next cash cow. Right now, they appear a little disorganized because they're trying several things at once: Web Services, MSN TV, Pocket PC, and X-Box, to name a few. In particular, they're moving aggressively to expand the MSN brand (by partnering with / buying up ISPs.)
At any rate, Hailstorm is far from gone:
That's gonna be sweet, too - imagine the day when you can compile an executable (not java bytecode) on a {Windows, Linux} box and then run that executable on a {Linux, Windows} box.
Of course, if it weren't for MS's crap, we would be saying of C/C++ "write once, compile everywhere" and none of this would be an issue. The fact that cross-platform programming is even as much of an issue as it is is a testament to MS's nonsense.
And no, I still don't trust
Sorry to blast on you, or respond at all if you're trolling. But your saying that .net is compile once run anywhere....I have not seen anything that did not exist under a different name before. Infact all i've seen is a renamed msn mesanger, and a pop up thing above the time in XP that tells me I have mail in a hotmail account. Of course that popup thing does say .net. BUT what of these, or any other things couldn't or didn't exist before the name .NET??? Sorry if i'm ignorant, but hey provide some links, pictures of applications, names of applications. If that is not possible then MS has not beaten sun anywhere, as you say.
LinuxWorx
Spelling errors are intentional as are gramatical error
Sure, for very small definitions of anywhere. Anywhere will probably not even include all versions of windows (e.g. win98), and it certainly won't include much of the unix world for the forseeable future.
At least Java is somewhate widely supported on varying platforms. How does .NET even come close?
Don't be fooled, this is more vendor lock-in dressed up in sheep clothing.
XML causes global warming.
In the time it took you to post this bizarre idea, you could have signed up for an account yourself and never worried about it again. If you don't want them to have personal information (gasp! they know what story you read!), just lie.
Not sure what hassle having every NYT submitter sign up for an account with a cryptic u/pw saves the world from.
Consider: Hailstorm required the cooperation of other companies, who were reluctant for many good reasons to pay for the privilege of placing Microsoft between themselves and their customers. (Customers were also none too thrilled about the idea, either.) There are companies that might find Microsoft's desktop OS monopoly a sufficiently compelling reason to justify such a move, though - companies selling bits (media and software). Only Microsoft has the leverage over desktop users to foist user-hateful "digital rights management" technologies upon them. (I don't just mean technology to prevent copying of "protected" media, but also watermark detection/embedding, etc.)
Given a DRM system integrated sufficiently into the OS, some control over unauthorized data manipulation may be possible - at least, enough to deter most users. The legal billy-club of the DMCA (combined with Microsoft's practically infinite legal budget) is already in place to deter companies or individuals enabling circumvention, and patents are likewise in place to thwart competitors and open-source alternatives. When Microsoft's ubiquitous rollout of DRM is complete, they may be able to play to the paranoia of media companies desperately grasping for something, anything, to tame the very nature of the bit - to make it uncopyable. This again places Microsoft in the revenue stream (and customer data stream), but by offering something more compelling than mere data aggregation.
Their quiet backing of the SSSCA/CBDTPA is only the beginning, I think of this new push. Hailstorm was unappealing to companies and a magnet for criticism, but DRM leverages Microsoft's existing monopoly so I think they'll translate their goal of skimming off every transaction to this arena.
Just MHO,
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Since nobody has any crystal balls, there no way to say for sure that MS has passed its apex. Consider this, though.
Current versions of Microsoft software compete with previous versions.
For example, most of the differences that distinguish Office 97, Office 2000, and Office XP are just small features, none of which are compelling reasons to spend several hundred dollars a copy to upgrade. Probably most upgrading is done out of fear of being incompatible with other Office users, and even this fear is questionable, since despite the moanings about MS playing file format games, Office maintains pretty good backwards compatibility and can save files in Office97 formats.
Windows XP competes with Win95/98/ME. While WinXP is leaps and bounds more stable than the DOS-based Windows OSs, its hardware requirements are much higher as well, which discourages those with lower-end machines from upgrading. Most people are either just used to the instability of the DOS-based junk or don't stress the OS to the point that it's really a problem, so WinXP isn't so compelling.
Microsoft knows that its Office upgrades are offering less and less, so it's trying to switch to a subscription model, which many CEOs and CIOs are balking at.
Microsoft also is trying to diversify by getting into game consoles, but this path has been tough going, and most of MS's dirty tricks don't work so well in the console world.
Further, since MS pays its employees less than the industry average and compensate with employee stock options, MS has to keep its stock value rising at a high rate. Slow expansion or a mostly constant stock value won't do well. The Motley Fool had something on this.
Also, distrust of MS extends beyond just geeks. At the very least, hardly anyone takes the Microsoft name as a sign of quality.
There's no saying that MS won't overcome these problems, but it's not invulnerable, and the next few years, or even the next few months, depending on the outcome of Kotter-Kotelly's verdict, may determine whether MS continues to be the juggernaut that it is.
People have been pointing out that Hailstorm/Persona was NOT the bulk of what .NET My Services is, that this isn't as bad a blow to Microsoft as some people are making it out to be. And they're right. Kind of. But I've seen this coming for years. I've known for so long that Microsoft only has so much steam left in it, and this is one of the first signs that it's slowing down.
.NET My Services is the same thing. It's another Microsoft attempt to become the middleman, so to speak; they want to be the one in charge of how everyone works together. Doesn't it seem obvious at this point that technology companies will, sooner or later, go the same path with .NET as online businesses did with Hailstorm?
.NET My Services, so they probably aren't going away in the immediate future. But the technology industry is unpredictable, and it can change incredibly fast sometimes. We may be seeing the first steps towards an era of Microsoft-free computing.
Hailstorm was Microsoft's attempt to become the middleman in a wide range of web transactions. It didn't work, and for a good reason--companies don't like middlemen, especially those as powerful as Microsoft.
When you think about it,
Granted, Microsoft has put a lot more marketing clout behind
I can run
No?
Thank you, move along.
"And like that
with SQL 2000 at $20,000 per processor that won't change anytime soon
Nice of you to quote the highest possible price per processor. We have SQL Server 7 licensed for two processors, it was expensive, but NOWHERE NEAR $20,000 per proc! I just checked the SQL 2000 licensing. Yeah, $20K per proc for the ENTERPRISE EDITION. This is like on Spaceballs where the guy orders the ship to go at "LUDICROUS SPEED!"
SQL Server 2000 is $5K per processor for unlimited client access. If you've only got 5-25 people accessing, it's less than that ($1K-$2K).
It's also not really fair to compare it to Linux/Apache/MySQL, as SQL Server 2000 beats MySQL on MANY fronts, including speed and options.
I'm no fan of MS in general, but SQL Server 7 is the best piece of software I've ever used, and I'm sick of the FUD.
I sitll support the paranoid people, because there is always the chance that M$ will extend and extinguish what it has embraced, but with them having submitted everything to ECMA, that's really an outside worry.
Ahh yes... an outside worry. More like even-odds!
Good luck, though.
"And like that
.NET offers "compile once, run anywhere.
.NET bytecode an executable and Java bytecode not? Six of one and half dozen of the other. Anything you can do with one you can do with the other.
Really. And you know this before there was an implementation for more than one operating system how? At least Sun has some motivation to support more than one operating system; there's no particular reason for Microsoft to support more than Windows. I suspect that Microsoft will make sure Unix/Mac implementations exist for PR, and then go ahead with complete disregard for compatibility with them.
imagine the day when you can compile an executable (not java bytecode) on a {Windows, Linux} box and then run that executable on a {Linux, Windows} box.
Why is
with them having submitted everything to ECMA, that's really an outside worry.
Because Microsoft couldn't twist a standard, or omit important material from a standard or leave a standard vague in certain spots.
No, it's not just you. The problem seems to be that MS has tried to expand too quickly at quite an inopportune time. Their attempts at horizontal integration of the entire consumer electronics industry has backfired with the current antitrust issues going on.
.NET and passport ideas, and whether or not these too will fail or just become immensely unpopular. Regardless, the deathly grip they hold on the OS market has yet to see a legitimate adversary, so it will be a long time before we see the complete downfall of Microsoft.
.NET is their priority. They know they have an uphill battle ahead of them, and I know they'll fight it, because losing it will make life extremely difficult for Java.
And this certainly isn't the first time. We all remember when the Interent wasn't something MS was interested in. It wasn't big enough, if I remember Gates's sentiments. Instead, they were going to replace it with MSN, in one of MSN's many reincarnations. How many times did they reinvent MSN, each time diving into a new idea head on, only to find nothing there to grab on to? (Of course, this time, they're just buying out Qwest DSL, so it'll probably work just fine)
The half-assed attempt at a console, also known as the X-Box, is surely just an investment for the future home entertainment systems created by Microsoft, but at the rate they're going there will not be enough cash on hand to take the losses normally associated with selling console systems.
I'm not so sure about this. If there's one thing that we can be sure about, it's that MS is persistant to levels no other business can finance. They've launched programs and fallen on their face more times than most companies could ever hope to afford. Many would say that they've finally gotten Windows right, and it only took them 15 years.
I'm sure MS will get the X-Box right, even if it takes another 15 years, because when they do get it right, they'll have it all. Why bother with Windows on PC's when they can put everything; game console, DVD player, PC, all in one box that they get the revenues from?
It will be interesting to see how successful Microsoft will be with their current networking desires that follow their
.NET will happen, and it will succeed famously, at least in the Windows world. It's simply the next logical step for Windows development, even if we ignore the cross-platform and passport elements. The number of developers and businesses out there that declare anything made by MS to be divine gospel will see to that. Whether or not it's accepted by those that aren't followers of Redmond remains to be seen, I think, and I'm sure it won't come without a fight.
Sun knows fighting
Mono is just a gleam in Miguels eye right now. Comparing .NET to mono is like comparing toy roller skates to a BMW.
Try again in about 5 years. But by then MS will have moved on to the next big thing.
War is necrophilia.
Except for their mice, oddly enough.
I hate to break it to you, but you're a pretty piss poor example of MS's targeted consumers. For that matter, your a pretty poor example for about 99.5% of the population. Assuming $12/DVD, you've got over $6000 invested in movies alone. Assuming $500/PC, $50/DVD drive, and $150/DVD player, you're around $10,000 in electronics. Not many people drop $15,000 for anything short of a car or house.
Well, you obviously hang out in different circles than most of the rest of the world. Samba and Linux are still not easy enough to install for a beginner, and even basic networking knowledge is difficult to find. I don't think anyone is worried about Samba file servers taking over the home market anytime soon.
Microsoft knows how to do one thing, but they do that thing pretty well. They create the demand for their products, whether in the minds of PHBs or in the minds of consumers. Developers are an afterthought, because they will follow the market...they haven't much choice. I don't think Hailstorm being dropped is the omen of MS's downfall, simply another failed attempt...they have many. But, in the end, their successes far outweigh their failures.
What, you mean suddenly I don't have to compile my java code in order to run my programs?!? AWESOME!
Get your head out of your behind for a second and think about what you are saying. See that part above that says "run anywhere"? "Anywhere" does not equal just the Intel x86 processor. Also, not all OSes use the same object and linking formats for runnable binaries even if the OSes both run on the same hardware architecture. What is the end result to you, the .Net user? A virtual machine or just-in-time compiler for intermediate bytecode! Funny, that's exactly what many Java implementations do, isn't it?
There is, in fact, a whole separate specification for just the Java Machine itself. That means that, in theory, it would be possible to write a compiler that could take other programming languages as input and output Java Machine bytecode. Wow! Just like .Net! How about that?! Amazing.
Sure, .Net binaries might be able to store pre-compiled versions of those programs for certain targets but that is just a caching problem, and .Net isn't the first system to do something like this. It's not really even a very difficult problem to solve.
I submit that Microsoft is merely re-inventing the wheel with their .Net stuff because Sun wouldn't play ball and let them extend Java any which way they wanted to. Big fat hairy deal. It's just one more standard people will get to choose from. And, as Andrew Tannenbaum said, standards are great because there are so many to choose from!
Because Microsoft knows that they have no products they can sell anymore. That's the trouble with consumer productivity software; it gets finished. Windows was finished around NT/Win 98. Office was finished around Office 97. Etc. These products have all the features that the average consumer will ever need in a lifetime, and what Microsoft can improve, and has improved in them since that time, is worth about a dollar or two to the consumer. They are their own absolute nightmare competitor, because the last product did the job. And the one before that. So, why pay again?
The same holds true about free software. It takes its time, but eventually it gets there with this type of program. They get finished, good enough, and eventually there is just a few features added now and then.
MS needs to switch to a subscription base or they die. The only buisnesses that can survive in the post-software-got-finished world are the ones on a subscription model, alternatively those in markets like games, buisness systems integration, services, etc, where the products dont ever get finished.
Microsoft has a rock solid grip on a dead market, partly killed by them, partly killed by the product structure, and they know it. That's why they need to change and make money in other markets.
Of course, nobody wants them in any other market so they're met with a blank wall of resistance from all sides. Maybe the other industries will manage to keep them in their glass box until their 'air supply' runs out.
This is absurd beyond description. MS offers NONE of these and they've "beaten" Java? I think not.
I hate to be the little boy who cries "TROLLLLL!", but there's a slew of either trolls or very stupid people posting on this immediate thread...
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
The sad thing is that NOBODY, across several subthreads, has picked up on one simple thing: This assertion is blatantly untrue. .NET executables *are* bytecode, they're just bytecode packaged in a .exe wrapper that Windows operating systems know how to pass to the proper JIT compiler.
.NET, you ought to do it on the basis of actual facts.
.NET executables don't need a JIT or a JVM, take a look at http://www.go-mono.com/runtime.html . Specifically the first sentence which talks about a "byte code interpreter", and the bit that says "We currently have two runtimes: mono: the Just In Time compiler [... and] mint: the Mono interpreter."
.NET compiler has an optimization that will allow certain bytecode sequences to be JITed into SSE2 instructions on x86 processors, that's great! But don't try to imply that a Java VM couldn't implement exactly those same optimizations, because it could.
If you're going to advocate
If you still want to claim that
Your comments about taking advantage of the X86 SSE2 instructions are also bogus. If Microsoft's
.NET (at least the CLR part of it, and if you don't know what CLR refers to you *really* shouldn't be advocating it) *is* a good idea. But it's a good idea for the *same* reasons that Java is - with almost exactly the same tradeoffs except that CLR gives slightly better multi-language capability (only slightly!) and Java gives slightly better cross-platform capability (again, only slightly! - at least if mono keeps up the momentum it has now).
It's always sad to see good ideas advocated by people who clearly don't have a clue what they're talking about. It gives *all* advocates of the idea a bad name.