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."

Comments

MS is running outta juice!

[bpd1069]

Is it just me or can you just feel that MS's trajectory has passed its apex and is on its way back to earth??

Re:MS is running outta juice!

[CmdrTaco (editor)]

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.

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.

Re:MS is running outta juice!

[nzgeek]

Yeah I've had the same feeling for a while

IMHO, subscription licensing and .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.

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?)

Re:MS is running outta juice!

[tenman]

You can hardly cast the X-Box as half-assed. While the investment hasn't rendered the return expected yet, even Hemos says " X-Box isn't dead yet - not by a long shot. ". I know that many readers concider Hemos a beta test of human cloning, but he speaks the truth this time.

While microsoft can't turn out the growth that the company has stolen from it's costomers in the past, doesn't mean that they don't have plenty of cash on hand. In this case in paticular, they are listening to the public enough to realize that not only do we not like what they are doing, they can't force us to use it, and we will not if they don't.

I too look forward to the day when Microsoft is tamed into a shrew of a company that can't afford to die, but cant afford to do anything real in the market place. That being said, it's hard to put your hand on the pulse of Microsoft's marketing engine unless your the direct recipent of it's ploys. Trust me friend. For-Hire closed source developers like MS's spoon feeding them a soft diet of Visual-This and .NET-that. I expect these developers will adopt the new versions of Microsoft because the company they work for doesn't want to deal with retraining thier development staff.

You may think you see them tossing in the towel, but what you actually see are the threads of the towel falling into the ring as they are whipping the cornors back and forth across the backs of millions of developers

</soapbox>

Re:MS is running outta juice!

[FaithAndReason]

This is not an "inopportune" time; this is exactly the time when MS needs to expand into other businesses. (See my other post to this article.) Desktop OS revenues are flat; nobody seems in any hurry to upgrade Office versions; and MSN TV hasn't done very well. They need to find something to satisfy their legal responsibility to their shareholders (note that this primarily still means Bill & Steve & Jim.)

As for the XBox: you're absolutely right that it's an "investment for the future", but perhaps not in the way you meant. The XBox's real purpose is clearly visible if you dig a bit deeper into their discussions with ISVs (i.e. game developers). It's called XBox.NET, in other words, a $10 or $20/month online gaming subscription service. The XBox is clearly targeted to the 18-35 crowd, plus it's the only console that currently ships with an ethernet port built-in.

That's where MS plans to make its money: if it sells you one game (e.g. Halo) plus 6 months of XBOX.NET at say $20/month, they make back that $125 subsidy for the hardware, then even if they never sell you another game!

And don't expect them to run out of money any time soon. Right now, they anticipate losing about $2,000,000,000 before they start breaking even on the XBox, but they have about $37,000,000,000 in the bank. According to SteveB, even with 40,000 employees (up from 30,000 just 2 years ago), they have enough money in the bank to run the company another 5 YEARS without another dime of revenue...

Re:MS is running outta juice!

[Anonymous Coward]

They need to find something to satisfy their legal responsibility to their shareholders (note that this primarily still means Bill & Steve & Jim.

If they cannot find an opportunity that generates a satisfactory rate of return, then it is their fiduciary responsibility to issue a dividend to their investors. (That is, if they can find no better use for cash, they must return it to their investors.)

I won't hold my breath.

Re:MS is running outta juice!

[sinan]

I disagree. First despite all the positive spin MS is trying to put on X-Box sales, they appear to be dismal. Retailers just don't seem to be willing to push it. Which indicates a lack of margin. So another $100 drop and it may pickup. Unfortunately that will also add to another $2,000,000,000 before it may become profitable. But then there is the problem of DVD region protection. Take me as an example. I live in Seattle, and own about 500 to 600 DVDs. a good portion of which are region 2 DVDs ( purchased in Europe.) . I have 14 computers in the house and 23 DVD players and 9 DVD drives. When I wish to watch European DVDs , I simply either change the hard disk drive ( they are removable) to another installation of Windows 2000 ( which thinks I am in Europe) or , anymore these days , to Linux.

Will I or anyone I know ever buy an X-Box. Not in this lifetime. Will I ever install Windows XP? not in next life either.

A lot of people I know are switching to network file servers in their homes, and having heard about secure music path, are installing Linux with samba. They don't trust Microsoft. This is the point of the news item. People don't trust their data , and to some extent, their hardware to Microsoft anymore. I am writing this on a dual boot laptop , whic is booted to Win 2k right now. I also am a member of MSDN. So I get Visual Studio and Visual Net. I somehow trust ( but don't like the non-standard compliance of Visual Studio), but I don't trust Visual Net as far as I can throw it. I'd rather develope in Linux and port to Microsoft when the API becomes available on MS, then trust Microsoft and develop on Visual Net, hoping it will be ported to Linux someday. That is a career limiting move.

Sure they have money. They can try to buy a lot of things. They can pay some registrars parking server to create the illusion of gaining against apache, but eventually, they will have to buy out about 40 million or so at a price of about 10,000 to 20,000 a piece, and that adds up to $400,000,000,000 to $800,000,000,000.

The dumbest things they have done in the last 7 years:

1) Accept Java ( make it credible)
2) Reject Java (Make it not only credible, but acceptable as well)
3) Secure Music path ( people are not dumb)
4) UltimateTV ( "Selling beyond our expectations!", sold 6,000?)
5) X-Box (combined with 4)
6) Windows XP embedded.
7) Invent XML only to have the competition embrace and extend it.
8) Invent Soap only to have competition embrace and extend it.
9) IIS ( Oh ! Boy!!!)
10) Charge developers for Back Office stuff, while trying to buy out web sites.

Too many others not worth mentioning.

Thing about Open Source Microsoft does not get is that, when you Open Source something, you still hold all the aces. You have the time element on your side. You can develop while others are learning and you are always ahead.

However there seems to be a problem with with Microsoft corporate thinking is that , they don't seem to be able to hang on to the people that develope the ideas.
I used tNt ( the NeWS toolkit) in early 90's. Those people are still largely at Sun. And look at Sun. Quietly but surely they are moving Solaris in the direction of Linux. I have 5 SparcStations in the house also,but do I develope in them anymore ? No, since the compiler costs eat me alive. Frankly Linux and dev tools are much superior to anything Microsoft could ever supply me with ( even though they are free now under MSDN) I use Eclipse and NetBeans. Why? Because they are Open Source. I will never ever ( except under contract) will use closed source developement tools again.

People have limited funds. So you want me to pay for Cable Modem ( which I have) and/or DSL ( which I have also) and DSS , and or Cable TV , and $18 per CD, and $25 per DVD and the phone bill and the movies and the computer and the OS and the office tools, and the websurfing, and games and games net and ... the list goes on. Do you really think people have the money, let alone the time to do all this stuff? Everybody basicall robs Peter to pay Paul. Until last year Microsoft was Paul. It just has become Peter.

Sinan

Re:MS is running outta juice!

[shyster]

But then there is the problem of DVD region protection. Take me as an example. I live in Seattle, and own about 500 to 600 DVDs. a good portion of which are region 2 DVDs ( purchased in Europe.) . I have 14 computers in the house and 23 DVD players and 9 DVD drives.

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.

A lot of people I know are switching to network file servers in their homes, and having heard about secure music path, are installing Linux with samba.

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.

Re:MS is running outta juice!

[dwarfking]

Sorry, but they did not invent XML or SOAP. Typical embrace and extend scenario.

XML comes from SGML which existed before MicroSoft.

SOAP is a bloated enhancement of XML-RPC.

Amazing how many things MS is credited with 'inventing'.

Re:MS is running outta juice!

[Reziac]

Altho from the article, this statement:

"We're sort of in the Hegelian synthesis of figuring out where the products go once they've encountered the reality of the marketplace," said Charles Fitzgerald, Microsoft's general manager for platform strategy.

shows you what marketing model M$ is presently pursuing: Create a product, THEN create the need for it. IOW, create an artificial market.

Normally the market works by "Here's a need, so someone makes a product for it".

Re:MS is running outta juice!

[cyber-vandal]

These are the same guys that swear by Win2k, Active Directory etc..

Swear by or at. Sorry couldn't resist :)

Re:MS is running outta juice!

[shyster]

shows you what marketing model M$ is presently pursuing: Create a product, THEN create the need for it. IOW, create an artificial market.

Which is what most companies do. That's what advertisting and marketing are mostly about.

Normally the market works by "Here's a need, so someone makes a product for it".

Step back and really think about that for a moment. That's what they may spout in Economics 101, but it's nowhere near the truth. Most of our wants are artificial. If no one had created the WWW, would we be pining for it now? I don't think so, we'd be happy enough with our BBSes, and the rest of the public would never even think of it. How about SUV's? SUV's are little more than a glorified station wagon, but check out station wagon sales compared to SUV's. Now think about which has more marketing behind it.

Marketing and advertising are designed to create a want for the product. In this case, the logistics of creating the product failed...not necessarily creating the market. MS even says that users weren't complaining, it was their partners that brought an end to Hailstorm.

Re:MS is running outta juice!

[Reziac]

Wow, you mean if no one had ever created toilet paper, I would never have felt a need to take a shit? :)

Re:MS is running outta juice!

[shyster]

Wow, you mean if no one had ever created toilet paper, I would never have felt a need to take a shit? :)

No, but if no one had created toilet paper, you would have never felt a need to cut down a tree, shred and bleach it's pulp, make a soft and thin roll of paper, then 2-ply it and put pretty designs on it; just to wipe your nasty shit and flush it down a large porcelain shithole to an even larger shit container sitting under your yard.

Now, if God hadn't come up with assholes like you, then you wouldn't have felt a need to take a shit. :)

Worried about .Net?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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 .Net does not mean that Hailstorm == .Net.

Please get a clue.

Re:Worried about .Net?

[ttyRazor]

Considering that Microsoft doesn't even know exacty what .Net is supposed to be besides the realization of glossy near-scifi software you see in crappy hollywood movies and will practically write itself, its no wonder everyone else is ignorant.

Re:Worried about .Net?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll respond to this one because it's at the top of the list in nested view. Hate me for it ;)

.NET isn't a set of services, some of which are web services. It's an umbrella term for all new Microsoft applications - and it's marketing. You have Office XP.NET -- you have Visual Studio.NET -- you have Windows .NET.

Sometimes, .NET means applications that compile (or whatever) to CLR. Othertimes not.

Sometimes it's about the framework, and the clean Win32 api as seen in .NET Windows Forms. Sometimes it's the next version of ASP that they've called .NET Web Forms. Sometimes it's nothing to do with the framework. Sometimes it's just SOAP.

More to the point however I don't particularly blame the people ignorant of .Net. Microsoft did an exceptionally poor job of explaining themselves (which I believe was marketing, and intentional).

The thing that I realised a few months ago is that the giddy hatred of Microsoft we all felt back in '99 is only now trickling down to the general populus. That Microsoft didn't explain .Net clearly allowed these people to fill it in with paranoia, and hate, and conspiracies.

There's no particular reason why a database of personal details is a bad thing. It's only because the world is starting to laugh at the latest security hole that it's bad.

I read a Microsoft interview once that software goes in trends, like fashion, like shoes. Nike are in for five years, and then they're unwanted for five. Good companies learn to go with the wave, and Microsoft understood this. They predicted that they would be unpopular until at least 2005, and they'd plan their products around that date. This is the date to watch.

Microsoft are on their way out. They'll still be important. With that ammount of the desktop they are assured that. But they're not going to be the first choice any more - at least not for a few years.

Re:Worried about .Net?

[CAIMLAS]

Agreed re: marketing and advertisement. While what you say sounds good, and possibly true, several interjections:

1) where is MS going to go? They certainly won't just disappear, what with all their money.
2) who is going to rise to take their place? OS X hasn't been anounced for x86, there aren't any compatable office suites, linux isn't fit for the masses to use on desktops, all the games are developed for Windows, and MS has OEMs locked in.
3) sure, people hate MS, but it's mostly become a token hatred, and more times than not, it's an uninformed blind hatred towards computers, and not MS. MS doens't suffer in most cases, computer system OEMs suffer, like Gateway and Compaq.

Sorry, given jsut that, your arguement doesn't float.

d00d...

[Mr.Ned]

Dude, Michael, you're 10 days late :)

Questions the article doesn't answer

[Anonymous Coward]

• What happens to passport?

  Microsoft was going to open up passport authentication to third-party ID servers via passport, right? Or am i just confused about that? Is that not happening anymore?

  Is microsoft abandoning their drive to make Passport the authentication mechanism for *everything*, Starbucks and such, or are they just going to drop the pretense of making it an open system?

• The way i understood it, Hailstorm was a relatively decentralized technology as designed and didn't really DEPEND on microsoft being there to hold it all together. Right? Is it possible for people to take the hailstorm protocol, if they so desire, and set up an independent, decentralized hailstorm network that just happens to not be affiliated at all with microsoft?
• Was GNOME MONO planning on implementing hailstorm as part of their .net workalike? Are they still going to?

Re:Questions the article doesn't answer

[J. J. Ramsey]

"Was GNOME MONO planning on implementing hailstorm as part of their .net workalike? Are they still going to?"

I think Mono was mostly focused on implementing C#.

Re:Questions the article doesn't answer

[leandrod]

> Mono was mostly focused on implementing C#.

Not really, their focus is on C# plus the .Net virtual machine and classes that go with it.

Re:Questions the article doesn't answer

[daviddennis]

eBay is using it, but only alongside their existing authentication mechanism. I'm not sure (since I haven't tried it) whether there's a way to tie an existing eBay account (with feedback and such) to the Passport ID. In any event, it doesn't look like they're pushing it too strongly; it's just presented as something else you can do. With the enormous pre-existing base of eBay users, I doubt that it's going to have much effect.

Passport isn't going away, since it's the authentication mechanism for Microsoft's sites. The single sign-on still seems like a good idea. At the same time, it's pretty obvious that most companies don't want to give Microsoft access to their data, and that's where it ends.

I think they are wise, so I think it's going to be really tough (if it's even possible) to turn it around.

D

For once, perhaps marketing was a good thing?

[ShaunC]

>It seems the companies didn't like having a middleman between them and the consumers

Gee, who'd have guessed. Microsoft, the company who's trying to incorporate every possible end-user application into their OS (thus killing the middleware, shareware, and even some commercial software industries) didn't see this coming? They couldn't imagine that other companies might have the same interests in mind? Aside from the obvious consumer objections, it should have been obvious to Microsoft from the get-go that other companies aren't going to trust them to keep track of userdata.

CBDTPA universally rejected and Hailstorm bites the dust. I have to say, today was a good day.

-s

Re:For once, perhaps marketing was a good thing?

[dimator]

CBDTPA universally rejected and Hailstorm bites the dust. I have to say, today was a good day.

Not to mention no barkin' from the dog, no smog, and mama cooked the breakfast with no hog.

Re:For once, perhaps marketing was a good thing?

[DohDamit]

Oh lordy, I'm feeding a troll.

Look into Passport before you talk. The security of the environment is based on someone not fooling any participating website into thinking they're you. A little bit of social engineering, and you're toast. Not just on one web site, but all of them.

Re:For once, perhaps marketing was a good thing?

[Tony-A]

I think there's some practical experience running spy rings that demonstrates that all your data in one place is a very bad idea. Among other things, I have no need or interest in maintaining data in places I will never go back to. Sure it's easier for the opposition to get something, sometime, but it's much harder for them to get much or current or to be able to connect stuff.
Putting my personal information anywhere that seems a bit too interested in having it seems somehow rather risky.

Re:For once, perhaps marketing was a good thing?

[Shuh]

I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Bill's pretty crafty. This'll probably be revived in a more sinister form next year.

And how! Now that M$ has sent up the trial balloon: "Please help us take over this aspect of business for free!" and failed, they will simply come back with the tried-and-true: "O.K. We'll find a way to make it impossible for you to be able to use Windows without doing what we want." Leveraging the OS monopoly may not be the easiest route (that's why it wasn't option #1), but it's my guess that this "standard m.o." will be the #2 tactic.

Re:For once, perhaps marketing was a good thing?

[the_rev_matt]

I didn't even have to use my AK...

Re:For once, perhaps marketing was a good thing?

[laserjet]

...today was a good day.

My apolgies to Ice Cube. Does this thread remind any one else of Micahel in the begininng of the movie Office Space when he is playing rap music in his car?

i love that shit.

Re:For once, perhaps marketing was a good thing?

[Jason Earl]

The harder Microsoft pushes, the sooner people are going to find an alternative. Microsoft may be rich and powerful, but when push comes to shove they are just one company.

For example, let's imagine what would happen if Microsoft forced the entire financial sector to prefer free software (they are already headed in that direction anyway). Not only would Microsoft lose an important part of their clientelle, but Free Software would gain some well-funded allies. When Free Software gets used, it gets improved, and that improvement would make it easier for those of us that aren't in the financial sector to sell Linux solutions in whatever sector we work in.

More than ever Microsoft has got to sell their version of the future. If they pull out the thumbscrews their customers are very likely to jump ship. Even worse, their customers might actually find that they like being off the Windows wagon.

Microsoft could afford to play hardball when their competitors offered solutions that were an order of magnitude more expensive than their offering, but that is no longer the case.

Yay - now get Messenger outta my face

[ryanvm]

Maybe now they'll stop trying to cram Windows Messenger down everyone's throat (signing up gets you a Passport account). If you've used Windows XP you know what I'm talking about.

Re:Yay - now get Messenger outta my face

[MrPoopyPants]

RunDll32 advpack.dll,LaunchINFSection %windir%\INF\msmsgs.inf,BLC.Remove

Shit... and people say Unix is cryptic!

Re:Yay - now get Messenger outta my face

[sconeu]

Oh come on. That's much clearer than

% rpm --erase mediaplayer-8

damn bad timing

[Alien54]

"They ran into the reality that many companies don't want any company between them and their customers," said David Smith, vice president for Internet services at the Gartner Group (news/quote), a computer industry consulting and research firm. [...] "There was incredible customer resistance," said a Microsoft .Net consultant, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified. Microsoft was unable to persuade either consumer companies or software developers that it had solved all of the privacy and security issues raised by the prospect of keeping personal information in a centralized repository, he said.

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.

Cheers! They realized it was doomed from start...

[Anonymous Coward]

Back when the Hailstorm idea was first announced ... No business or government agency that I dealt with was even slightly interested.

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 ... Why would anyone want Microsoft to be even more powerful?

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 :)

Perfect Headline

[Ilan Volow]

Hailstorm fails to put dent in market.

Re:Perfect Headline

[psamuels]

Hailstorm fails to put dent in market.

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?

Re:Perfect Headline

[Paradise Pete]

puns are what people without a sense of humor do when they want to be funny

So this duck goes into a drugstore and asks the clerk for some ChapStik. The clerk asks "Will that be cash or charge?" and the duck says... "Just put it on my bill."

Re:Perfect Headline

[zook]

The assumption that puns are per se contemptible, betrayed by the habit of describing every pun not as a pun, but as a bad pun or a feeble pun, is a sign at once of sheepish docility and desire to seem superior. Puns are good, bad, and indifferent and only those who lack the wit to make them are unaware of the fact.
H. W. Fowler, A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, 1965

Ask for me to-morrow, and you shall find me a grave man.
Mercutio, dying
Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act III, Scene 1

Well, Whaddya Know!

[istartedi]

An "evil, aggressive, monopoly" can't sell stuff to people who don't want it. Will wonders never cease? Nevertheless, I think we need a few more years of litigation followed by government regulation to stop Hailstorm anyway. You know... just in case.

(close captioning for the sarcasm impaired: THAT WAS SARCASM. Thank-you.)

Re:Well, Whaddya Know!

[MartinB]

No, you can't sell stuff where there is a resistance to the entire need and concept.

However, where there is a demand for the concept (say 'a consumer-friendly operating system' or 'an internet browser'), and you're an aggressive monopoly, you can force your OEMs to bundle your product and remove competitors.

Re:.Net != "Hailstorm"

[alyandon]

http://arstechnica.com/paedia/n/net/net-1.html

For those that are interested in learning what .NET actual is and is not. The article gives a nice broad technical overview.

Hmm

[NiftyNews]

Don't worry guys, I heard from a good inside source that Operation: CodeBloatHurricane is still in steady development...

Re:The

[flynt]

MS:0 The rest of us:1


When did you start keeping score?

The real reason it failed...

[Guido69]

Couldn't get it to run on Apache over BSD.

They'll just keep trying

[Ars-Fartsica]

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.

Now that's interesting

[bigmouth_strikes]

This isn't exactly the first time Microsoft has chosen to scrap a project that has been so heavily advertised, but it's definitely one of the most prestigious ones they have cancelled.

Hailstorm/Persona was supposed to be a .NET service that "authenticates users, provides the ability to send alerts, and stores personal information, including contacts, e-mail, calendar, profile, lists, electronic wallet, physical location, document stores, application settings, favorite Web sites, devices owned, and preferences for receiving alerts." (from Microsoft)

I think the key problem for Microsoft is the following (from the article:) "They ran into the reality that many companies don't want any company between them and their customers,"

Bill and Steve are probably a bit surprised, not used to having people say No to them, especially not the big companies that they have started to court now that they have a consumer market monopoly. .NET is crucial to get penetration on the Big Market, i.e. mission critical business application software.

Hailstorm/Persona was seen by many as a reference implementation of .NET's, showing off its capabilities. Now it's going to be interesting to see how the industry acceptance for .NET evolves.

Re:Now that's interesting

[AME]

and you could be on the beach, write back saying 'leave it on the porch.'

Great! Now my work won't keep me from my vacation because I can take my work with me.

Oh. Wait...

Re:Now that's interesting

[JMZero]

You're right, Bill isn't used to failure. But at the same time, I'm impressed that they seem to be handling this without too much hubris getting in the way.

Over the years, MS has had a lot of dumb ideas - but they never let an error become fatal.

Of course a lot of that has to do with their "big cushion made out of our money". But I think it also reflects that there's still some good business judgement there.

.

Re:.Net != "Hailstorm"

[The Raven]

Microsoft has pretty consistently touted the networked XML web services part of the .NET framework as the 'best part'. Which I think is complete bullshit. The 'best part' about .NET is the fact that it is compiled, managed, sandboxed code with a truly awesome set of tools to play with. Improved data management, almost every object in it is serializable (you can save it to the HD in text or binary format, and reload it later, built in, no extra coding).

There are a lot of reasons to like .NET... in fact, the only reason I know of NOT to like .NET is the usual 'Windows Only' bullshit. But it's a MS product... that's a given.

Re:.Net != "Hailstorm"

[BigNachos]

Oh really? According to the article, if you had bothered to read it:

The service, originally code-named Hailstorm and later renamed My Services, was to be the clearest example of the company's ambitious .Net strategy.

Re:.Net != "Hailstorm"

[Dephex Twin]

There are a lot of reasons to like .NET... in fact, the only reason I know of NOT to like .NET is the usual 'Windows Only' bullshit. But it's a MS product... that's a given.

Well, as a Mac user for over 10 years, I'd rather not have .NET overtaking the market., and having to deal with another Windows-only situation.

(I submitted the article, BTW.)

Maybe that clarifies a bit...

mark

Re:.Net != "Hailstorm"

[ttyRazor]

He was worried about it in the same way someone would be worried about being stuck with IE when they get windows.

I disagree

[AdamBa]

If .Net just winds up being another version of Java, that is a wasted opportunity. The goal should be to not have to worry about sandboxing the unknown code you bring down from a website to run on your machine -- because you don't do that. Instead, you make RPC calls to that machine. That is what the XML part is about.

What dumping Hailstorm shows is that Microsoft's plan to use Hailstorm to establish the .Net platform was bogus. They need to first get .Net established. Then they can worry about .Net "applications" like Hailstorm.

- adam

One degree of seperation?

[Peyna]

Wasn't .NET supposed to give you 'one degree of seperation' according to all the commercials I saw on TV? Wouldn't that mean no middle man?

Re:One degree of seperation?

[Monkelectric]

You misunderstood the commercial ... the one degree they refer to is the one degree of seperation between MS and your wallet.

Persona?

[Tachys]

When did they rename it Persona?

This time, M$ discovers that FUD is a 2edged sword

[dcavanaugh]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Dumb question for the /. editors....

[wrinkledshirt]

As a person worried about the future with .NET, this is a bit of a relief.

I assume that since this story wasn't rejected, that somehow the editors of Slashdot agree with this sentiment as expressed in the submission.

My question is this: if Slashdot editors really feel this way, then why is Slashdot advertizing Visual Studio .NET in its banner ads?

Just curious.

Re:Dumb question for the /. editors....

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

My question is this: if Slashdot editors really feel this way, then why is Slashdot advertizing Visual Studio .NET in its banner ads?

Um, because -- as with most news sources -- advertising is kept separate from editorial content?

Re:Dumb question for the /. editors....

[poemofatic]

money is the only thing that pays for itself. Funny how that works.

Microsoft Marketing

[jjonte]

I see Microsoft as 2 distinct groups.

• Microsoft marketing
• Microsoft Developers

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 .NET before you talk about it. FUD.

nope

[telstar]

It's not that Microsoft's trajectory has necessarily passed its apex, it's that websites like slashdot focus more attention on pointing out Microsoft's missteps. Take ANY large company and put it under the microscope ... and you'll find the exact same thing.

Re:nope

[J. J. Ramsey]

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.

Re:nope

[markbark]

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.

and.... after the Enron/Anderson debacle, there is talk of changing accounting rules vis a vis options. Companies would have to book options as expenses (strike price vs actual cost IIRC)
I think Microsoft's (and a lot of OTHER companies for that matter) 'profits' would evaporate rather quickly under this scenario. Potentially VERY ugly.

MAB

Re:nope

[FaithAndReason]

drfrank is correct - the base pay was increased to 65% of the (local prevailing) industry wage, partly to compensate for the huge loss in value of the options. There was also a 25% additional bonus paid to their employees in Silicon Valley, but that has since been scaled back (now that they're not losing their Bay Area employees to dot-coms.)

Re:nope

[FaithAndReason]

Sorry, I guess I was unclear. That's the 65th percentile, i.e. you get paid better than 65% of the other people in your area doing the same job. Before it was at the 50th percentile, i.e. your pay was exactly average.

Re:nope

[six809]

... hardly anyone takes the Microsoft name as a sign of quality.

Except for their mice, oddly enough.

Re:nope

[sallen]

So again, I ask: Why stay? 65% of prevailing wages, with worthless options, sounds like total crap to me

We don't know that the options ARE worthless. Granted the stock has been pretty stagnant and certainly isn't the 120 or so it was a few years ago. On the other hand, we don't know the pricing of the options. (Some correct me if I'm wrong as IANAWSA - I am not a Wall Street Analyst) I believe if the price of the options were changed, we'd know about it as it'd have to be reported in the financials. However, I believe they can exchange options with a lower price without reporting that. In that case, the people would still be doing fairly well. Also, MS, as with other companies, knows that this is a down market, recession and all. Even if they're not getting the full gain they'd have gotten some time ago with a continually appreciating stock price, they certainly know (and MS is aware) this is also probably not the best time to try and jump ship. I'm sure they all know enough .com types are still jobless. If they've got a stable job, they are probably going to stay there unless the economy increases even more than the few percent predicted for a slow recovery.

Re:nope

[sallen]

First, although I've no idea where to look for numbers, but it seems to me you're leaving OEM sales completely out of the equation. So long as new hardware is purchased, Microsoft will continue earning a pretty substantial piece of the pie, even if upgrades drop off to some extent.

I agree and disagree. They will get the fees from about every PC sold. However, unless the economy comes back gangbusters, it won't be like before. MS, in terms of other long established companies, it still a young company. It's not been through a very slow economy or recession on the current terms. The only prior recession in it's history was the early 90's. At that point, the PC was still not the commodity business and it wasn't as saturated in the market as now. At this point, the retailers for consumers get the high end leading edge type and those, as they lower price points, who still don't have the PC or the second PC in the house. As they sell the lower end PC's they don't sell the additional packages. Companies have also stepped back from replacements as much. Win95 got many to replace as well as the fact that at that point PC's were still coming down in price rapidly. Companies sould still reduce budgets while at the same time replace large amounts of hardware/software. Prices leveled off in the 90's so now replacements in large numbers, with all the additional business software like Office, require increased budgets. They don't want to do that now. That's particularly clear as business dealt a blow to the MS subscription plan for businesses.

Lastly, the supposed consumer distrust.

I think the consumer mistrust has expanded a bit from just the geek mistrust of them. But it's businesses that come to play here, not the general consumer. The mistrust before and concerns on software was generally just the IT arena. When security problems and virus' started costing a LOT of $$ and/or downtime, it went to the front of the office and was much more visible, no longer just being a minor glitch. Secondly, with Hailstorm, MS ran against a new situation for them. With OEM hardware, they control by licensing agreements and the OEM knowing if they don't play ball, they'll pay more or not have Windows to sell. With product, MS has the edge and perception of saying, IMHO, 'agree with us, sell out to us, or we'll develop our own and you're probably toast'. They maintained control. But for Hailstorm, they needed the big business partners. The American Express and Citibank types. They are HUGE. They have their own interests. MS can't buy them out, and even MS doesn't have the $$ to start a new business to displace them. They also have competition, their own databases, brand recognition, brand loyalty, and have always had THEIR total control over their assets. To ask them to have everyone they interact with in a MS database, the same database what would be used to store data from their own competitors is asking a LOT. The companies no longer have control; if there's a security failure or glitch, they are probably blamed vs. MS; and they probably don't like the potential of their customer database demographics potentially being sold for advertising to a competitor. Why should a Citibank ask their customers to be in a database, even if totally trusted, that's also partnered with a BankAmerica or Wells Fargo. It doesn't and never did make sense to me.

Re:nope

[leandrod]

> MS pays its employees less than the industry average and compensate with employee stock options

The best report on this I’ve seen up to this day is by Bill Parish.

Re:nope

[delong]

And MS profits aren't what they are touted. The first half of 2000 was a disaster for them - the only reason they made a profit was the selling of investments. I haven't bothered to keep up on the story. But there have been others that have noted that MS has become more an investment banker than a company making its profits from working production.

Re:nope

[Shiny Metal S.]

It's not that Microsoft's trajectory has necessarily passed its apex, it's that websites like slashdot focus more attention on pointing out Microsoft's missteps.

Hey, thanks a lot! Couldn't you say it before I told all people I know to sell MSFT stock and watch the evening news tonight to see how the Great Microsoft Pyramid is finally collapsing?

Re:nope

[connorbd]

Please tell me English is not your first language, because you've got a whopper of a dictionary flame coming if it is. As it is you're either a troll or a moron.

I would like to comment on "the consumers will lose", though. The thing is, if MS goes down Windows will still be out there, and someone will support it. You've got the whole concept of supply and demand inside-out; do you really think a copy of WinXP Home is worth $200, especially when the vast majority of copies that MS is shipping are sold for probably about $40 (or, assuming the troll theory is correct, do you really expect someone else to believe it)?

Removing the fish hook from my lip,
/Brian

Re:nope

[throx]

Accounting for stock options would be far more of a worry for OSS based companies than Microsoft at the present time. Sure, it would knock a few hundred million off Microsoft's reported profits but for a company like RH whose stock option outputs exceed their profits by large margins it would be a disaster.

Re:nope

[connorbd]

You're assuming pure Adam Smith economics in a vacuum. When you have a de facto monopoly on the market and a company bent on world domination (essentially a market with little or no viable competition), the rules go out the window.

The fact is that to the bulk of people out there Microsoft is the only game in town (/.ers know better, but unfortunately we're a minority) and they have the power (whether they have the right is another argument entirely) to set prices as they please. When predatory tactics are on the table, you're getting out of the realm of Economics 101.

I personally maintain, btw, that Microsoft is a perfect example of why laissez-faire economics don't work. If a company develops a monopoly in our society and abuses it as Microsoft has, there is (in theory) a buffering effect in governmental regulation. In a libertarian economy, there are no checks and balances but the market itself. If a monopoly goes out of control there is no legal recourse to bring it down, and the possibility of another competitor getting into the market to restabilize it is reduced because the monopoly conditions provide a barrier to entry entirely unrelated to the startup costs for the product in question.

/Brian

Registration

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Registration for NY Times articles drives me crazy. Call me a Karma Whore, but here's a RFC: NY Times reg.

• username shall be firstword of 'submitter name'
• password shall be firstword of 'headline.'

For example, registration in this case is username 'dephex' and pass 'microsoft'. Story submitters will please register according to these guidelines when they sumbit stories to /., and save us all a lot of hassle.

Does this violate the DMCA?

Re:Registration

[clontzman]

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.

Re:Registration

[Johnny Mnemonic]

In the time it took for you to post a response, you could have checked to see that I did, in fact, register as dephex/microsoft with bogus info. I suggested that as an example in my original post.

As for your second question, if this were adopted as a standard, it would save me from having to register every time I wanted to read a nytimes article on a system that they hadn't already implanted a cookie, which happens often enough that it's a pain in my ass, but not often enough for me to remember my arbitrary username/pass that I have set up legitimately. Since I use more than one computer, I do have to worry about it beyond the initial trouble.

And finally, if you don't like the system, don't adopt it.

Re:Registration

[ermineshay]

if it really bothers you that much, just log in using uname:anonymous, pass:anonymous. hell, there are a ton of these that work...IIRC, slashdot/slashdot works, so should mefi/mefi (for metafilter). pick one, set a cookie, be done with it. NYT has has this login shit since '96 at least, but I'm not aware of they're having used it for anything.

or, bitch about it each time.

sorry, that was way offtopic

Re:Registration

[Spy Hunter]

you could have checked to see that I did, in fact, register as dephex/microsoft with bogus info

And the NYT has already deleted it. They're not as dim as you might think...

I much prefer the method of finding alternate links, such as this one. It's easy: Simply go to http://www.asahi.com/english/nyt/index.html and search away!

Re:Registration

[Proteus]

Or, you can just use 'cypherpunks444'/'cypherpunks' as your login name/password.

Re:Registration

[brunes69]

Three step process:

1. Go to yahoo's NY Times section
2. Type in relavant terms into the search box. (in this case I typed "Microsoft")
3. Read the exact same story from yahoo

   Now, here's an even beter idea, how about the posters ofthe stories follow this process to save us all time.

Re:Registration

[big.ears]

Probably, some joker went and logged in and changed the password. How elite--getting the slashdot username on NYT!

Re:Registration

[Reziac]

I've had NYTimes reg'n since 1996, and far from whining about it, I complained to them when one day I came to read something, and my cookie didn't work! (I actually got a rapid human response, telling me how to fix it. Seems the system had lost my password so that needed to be reset.) And AFAICT, it's yet to be used for anything other than login at NYTimes.com.

.NET is actually pretty sweet

[VFVTHUNTER]

I had used Linux and FreeBSD excusively for about two years - I even once posted a (rejected) Ask Slashdot question entitled "Why Windows," arguing that with the multimedia (mplayer) and browser (pick konq/galeon) support available in Linux, that no one needed Windows.

My viewpoint has changed radically. I have an XP box now - it's actually a pretty stable OS. And .NET delivers on all the promises that Sun had made of Java. (M$ has beaten them - intsead of "write once, run anywhere," .NET offers "compile once, run anywhere.")

I still use Linux/Apache/MySQL for all of my servers - and with SQL 2000 at $20,000 per processor that won't change anytime soon - but Windows has gotten more stable. Linus once said that he started Linux because he wanted software that didn't stink...win3.1, win95, and win98 all stink, but 2K and XP are actually pretty nice.

I will probably switch back over to an all OSS setup when Miguel et al finish Mono. 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.

That's the nice thing about .NET - M$ has actually embraced industry standards. ASP.NET can be accessed from any client provided you have an HTTP connection. That's the only requirement. 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.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[scotch]

NET offers "compile once, run anywhere.")

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.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[wortelslaai3434]

That's the nice thing about .NET - M$ has actually embraced industry standards.

...waiting to be extended.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[tswinzig]

.NET offers "compile once, run anywhere."

I can run .NET compiled programs on Solaris, Linux, Windows, MacOS?

No?

Thank you, move along.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[tswinzig]

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.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[dachshund]

And .NET delivers on all the promises that Sun had made of Java. (M$ has beaten them - intsead of "write once, run anywhere," .NET offers "compile once, run anywhere.")

And .NET has much wider support for quantum computers than Java. Just as soon as Microsoft gets around to implementing it, of course.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[dvdeug]

.NET offers "compile once, run anywhere.

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 .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.

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.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[JanusFury]

It runs on all windows platforms except Win95 (which sucks ass anyway), and once Mono is done it'll run on Linux. It'll probably be ported to Mac pretty soon, considering the big business MS gets out of IE:Mac and Office:Mac.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[Malcontent]

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.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[Darren Winsper]

Mono is more than a gleam in Miguel's eye thank you. They have a working C# compiler, JIT and interpreter. Oh, and it's self hosting too now.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[sql*kitten]

I can run .NET compiled programs on Solaris, Linux, Windows, MacOS?

Not yet, so far it's only Win32 and FreeBSD. But since it's an ECMA standard, an ISV can implement the CLR on any platform. I expect Microsoft themselves to be very supportive of CLR on MacOS X, since that will simplify their own development for that platform, for example Office.

Or perhaps I misinterpret you and you are bitter that FreeBSD and not Linux is the "free Unix of choice". Microsoft worked with Software AG to get DCOM onto Linux - so there is a good chance CLR will be there as well.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[SteveX]

The current .NET framework works fine on 98 and even works on 95 (though it's not officially supported).

They've released full source for a BSD and Win32 reference implementation of the base stuff including compilers, JIT, even the build tools (though not the GUI or web services stuff) which should make building a compatible Unix version much easier.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[hendridm]

> intsead of "write once, run anywhere," .NET offers "compile once, run anywhere.")

Actually, I think you mean "code in any language you like to compile the same program". They want to give you freedom of language, not of platform, which makes perfect sense for them since they are also an OS company. Microsoft views "write once, run anywhere" as inferior, since you sacrifice performance. They are not pushing direct cross-platform compatibility, although I think they realize web-services is an indirect implementation of that.

Does anyone have a link that provides evidence of them claiming cross-platform compatibility (from the perspective that it is being argued here)?

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[gorilla]

OS/390, AS/400, AIX, OS/2, OpenVMS, EPOC, LynxOS, QNX etc etc etc. Microsoft would have to do a LOT of catching up to get to where Java is today in terms of available platforms.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[Fweeky]

> 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.

That's not hard. MySQL's not exactly the most complete SQL implimentation around.

What about comparing it to PgSQL?

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[llamalicious]

I guess that really makes it "compile once, run everywhere and nowhere at the same time"

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[rutledjw]

. And .NET delivers on all the promises that Sun had made of Java.

Oh BULLSH!T. How about enterprise services like J2EE / EJB? How about JDBC? How about JNDI? How about XML specs (JAXM and JAX-RPC)? How about Micro Edition? JMS? MS doesn't even have a decent messaging service in .NET!

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...

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[VFVTHUNTER]

Here's the link to M$'s Shared Source CLI Beta. Yeah, it's beta...bitch about that only after youve examined your linux box and counted the percentage of apps that are 1.0 or greater.

Why is .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.

".NET executables" (AFAIK ECMA 335 compliant executables) are not bytecode - they're machine code (If you don't understand why bytecode is not an executable...should you really be bitching about it?). They do not need a JIT or JVM - they directly call the OS. If I build a Java app on Linux, I have to go and install a JVM on Windows before I can execute it (because M$ went and removed Java...bastards...). Once Mono has ECMA compilers, I can compile an ECMA335 on Linux and then go run it on Windows by simply double clicking it...provided that both of the boxes are, of course, little-endian X86's.

The executables are also very small and very fast - this is important. Most of the computing I do is (floating-point) signal processing, so Java has always been a bad idea anyways. But writing an app that takes advantage of the X86 SSE2 instructions? And running it on any P4 regardless of OS? Schweeeeeet.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[pmz]

.NET has a very different focus than Java, and it is simply not possible for .NET to deliver on Sun's promises. .NET is a truly closed environment. Microsoft's marketing team is trying to hide that from everyone, but it is too obvious.

Microsoft has not embraced industry standards, even if they claim to. Historically, they have very consistently bastardized widely used standards to prevent interoperability. .NET will be no different. Here's a thought: HTML 2.0 is an IETF standard...how long did that last?

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[VFVTHUNTER]

IIRC (and assuming youve got the module compiled - most distro kernels do), running Java stuff from the kernel is just a "su -c 'insmod binfmt_misc' " away :)

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[dvdeug]

".NET executables" (AFAIK ECMA 335 compliant executables) are not bytecode - they're machine code [...] They do not need a JIT or JVM - they directly call the OS.

So in other words, they created a new executable format (instead of Windows emulating Linux or visa versa, an much more useful goal), which will work on Linux/x86 if and when Linus ever adds support. Of course, it will only work on x86s, so the .NET executables aren't portable at all.

But writing an app that takes advantage of the X86 SSE2 instructions? And running it on any P4 regardless of OS?

It's been doable in GNU C or GNU Ada for a long time now. It just needs a recompile. And there's all of what, 5, x86 OS's out there. Compile for x86 Linux and you will be able to run on most x86 BSD's anyway, so you only really need to compile it twice.

Frankly, I hope not to be running x86 in a few years. Either Itanium, or Sledgehammer or maybe some nice PowerPC hardware. Nothing you've suggested is in the least portable to non-x86 hardware, unless you're willing to emulate the x86, which puts us back to where we started with bytecode.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[VFVTHUNTER]

So in other words, they created a new executable format (instead of Windows emulating Linux or visa versa, an much more useful goal), which will work on Linux/x86 if and when Linus ever adds support.

Yes. And Linux didn't support ELF until Linus added support. But being that ECMA335 is public, we won't have to reverse-engineer support, we'll simply have to read the standard.

Actually we won't. Miguel will do it for us with Mono. And you're right about Windows/Linux emulating Linux/Windows - because Wine and VMWare are *so* fast.

It's been doable in GNU C or GNU Ada for a long time now. It just needs a recompile. And there's all of what, 5, x86 OS's out there. Compile for x86 Linux and you will be able to run on most x86 BSD's anyway, so you only really need to compile it twice.

I guess you missed that article where Intel and MS VS.NET beat the crap out of gcc.

I am not 100% sure of this, but endianness is the only portability issue I've seen with the executables...and given that it's just a simply matter of inserting a bunch of bswap instructions in the assembly stage of compilation, it most likely won't be an issue by the time .NET and the ECMA standards are complete, so it really isn't an issue.

Frankly, I hope not to be running x86 in a few years. Either Itanium, or Sledgehammer or maybe some nice PowerPC hardware. Nothing you've suggested is in the least portable to non-x86 hardware, unless you're willing to emulate the x86, which puts us back to where we started with bytecode.

You can buy an Itanium now...it will run 64 bit XP or Linux...oh wait, is that Linux ia64 port done yet???

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[VFVTHUNTER]

Yeah, that makes sense. Let's spend 5 years developing a ulta-portable platform to include the OSes that other people use, and then let's lock them out. We won't have gained any users because we pretty much control the market anyway, but let's just spend the billions of research dollars to do it anyways.

.NET would catch on with or without Linux. In fact, it's already caught on. It addresses pretty much every bitching point about Windows, eg DLL hell is gone. Seriously - don't knock it till you've tried it. (how often do we tell that to non-linux, linux bashing folk?)

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[ph0rk]

what? evidence? we don't need no stinking evidence!

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[dvdeug]

And you're right about Windows/Linux emulating Linux/Windows - because Wine and VMWare are *so* fast.

What does VMWare have to do with this? It runs at a totally different level from any built-in executable support. A better comparison would be the Linux emulation in the BSD's, which runs at the same speed as running natively on Linux. At any rate, during CPU-bound tasks, even Wine and VMWare should run at the same speed as native code.

Furthermore, why would .NET run any faster? .NET has to use all the kludge ups that any system running foreign OS/native hardware code has to do.

endianness is the only portability issue I've seen with the executables

What uses big-endian x86? In case, portability to anything that runs .NET on x86 isn't exactly very portable.

You can buy an Itanium now...it will run 64 bit XP or Linux...oh wait, is that Linux ia64 port done yet???

I think that makes it apparent you're just a Microsoft shill.

HP's Itanium page supports Redhat 7.2 running on their Itanium systems. Debian woody will also include Itanium support. All of this Linux/Itanium support has been out for while.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[VFVTHUNTER]

Furthermore, why would .NET run any faster? .NET has to use all the kludge ups that any system running foreign OS/native hardware code has to do.

Can you understand that if Windows supported ELF, Linux executables would run really fast on Windows? Thats the analogy here - any OS that supports the ECMA executable format will be able to execute (quickly and natively) an ECMA executable. There's no JIT, no interpreter, no call conversion layer - it loads the executable into memory, writes a new value into EIP, and starts executing the executable's machine code. There are no kludge ups.

What uses big-endian x86? In case, portability to anything that runs .NET on x86 isn't exactly very portable

I am not aware of a big-endian X86. But you mentioned (er, tried to whine about) ECMA executables not being able to run on non-X86 CPU's which is false - they will run on non-X86. And endianness is an issue.

I can see how you saw it as sarcasm, but I was actually asking if the Linux IA64 port was done yet. Thats actually pretty schweeeet.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[dvdeug]

But you mentioned (er, tried to whine about) ECMA executables not being able to run on non-X86 CPU's which is false - they will run on non-X86

But it can't run natively on all systems. If it's a sweet as you say on Pentium 4's, there's going to have to be an interpreter to run on Pentium (1) and PowerPC, and there's no reason to assume it will be any faster than a JVM.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[sab39]

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.

If you're going to advocate .NET, you ought to do it on the basis of actual facts.

If you still want to claim that .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."

Your comments about taking advantage of the X86 SSE2 instructions are also bogus. If Microsoft's .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.

.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.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[VFVTHUNTER]

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.

NO, they are NOT. They are MSIL code, native code, and metadata packaged in a PE/COFF file with an exe extension.

They are however JITed. I admit I did not know this - I knew a sort of JITing was taking place, but I thought the JITing was done by the CLR. In fact, the CLR does call a JITer.

There is still no need for a JVM. This isn't entirely true - there probably is a JVM, but it is implemented as a JIT that the CLR calls when in runs into JScript MSIL/metadata.

Miguel can call it whatever the hell he wants. NOWHERE in the MS .NET Documentation is the word "bytecode" or the phrase "byte code" to be found. In all fairness M$ has probably avoided this word out of fear that people will realize that their ideas from .NET originated in Java.

The runtime also has another method of compilation which is NOT JIT - install-time code generation. ITC-gen converts entire assemblies at once, as well as storing them, so that the resulting files load and execute more quickly.

Your comments about taking advantage of the X86 SSE2 instructions are also bogus. If Microsoft's .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.

In theory, yes, but in practicality, no. I should have elaborated on this, but myself and the developers I work with have held for quite some time that both parts of the Wintel monopoly have undocumented (er, hidden) instructions in their CPU's/OSes. This is why, for instance, Intel's compiler beats the shit out of both VS and gcc, but gcc and VS are in a dead heat (according to some tests). It's also possible that the performance enhancements come simply from poorly documented optomizations, which (for instance) only the M$ developers can learn because only the M$ developers have access to the M$ source. I never said M$ was better - I just said .NET was a big improvement for them.

.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).

Where exactly did I slam Java? I never said Java sucks - I said .NET is an improvement. It's an improvement on the ideas of Java - not only write once, but write in whatever the hell language you want. I think the mistake I made in my first post was the compile once line. In my view, .NET is pretty much part of the OS. I may be wrong about that. But considering that M$ thinks IE is part of its OS, I'm probably not :)
By the same distinction, what is the current viewpoint of running Java code under Linux with the binfmt_misc module enabled? Do we view the Java as machine code, because the kernel is running it (even though its just calling the interpreter), or do we view the kernel as having a JVM "built in"?

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[sab39]

NO, they are NOT. They are MSIL code, native code, and metadata packaged in a PE/COFF file with an exe extension.

That's true. But your previous comments implied that they were directly x86 machine code, not MSIL code (note that the "I" in MSIL stands for "intermediate" - that is, not machine code).

Let's define some parallels so that we're working from the same set of definitions:

MSIL (Microsoft Intermediate Language) <=> Java Bytecode
CLR (Common Language Runtime) <=> JVM (Java Virtual Machine)
ITC (Install-Time Codegen) <=> Native compilation

With these definitions, of course .NET executables don't run on a J(ava)VM, but they run on the CLR which is the .NET equivalent of a JVM. Both the JVM and the CLR can be implemented in a couple of ways: one is JIT (compile each class to native x86/whatever code as it's loaded), another is as an interpreter (JDK1.0 and Mono's "mint" do this) and another is ITC (gcj and TowerJ do this for java, although Sun don't like it much).

Likewise, arguing about the word "bytecode" is semantics. MSIL parallels java bytecode almost opcode for opcode (although obviously with different syntax for the opcodes, and a few enhancements to address real or perceived problems with java bytecode).

With regard to secret Intel optimizations - Mono won't take advantage of those anyway, even if MS's CLR does. So your original point about having cross-platform access to SSE2 instructions still fails, despite your elaboration.

Having said all that, this post did make a lot more sense than the previous one. So I'm sorry if I treated you as, well, "maliciously ignorant" as opposed to simply unaware of a few pertinent facts.

I still say you shouldn't argue things until you're sure you know them, though.

By the same distinction, what is the current viewpoint of running Java code under Linux with the binfmt_misc module enabled? Do we view the Java as machine code, because the kernel is running it (even though its just calling the interpreter), or do we view the kernel as having a JVM "built in"?

Well, do you view shell scripts as machine code just because putting #!/bin/bash as the first line lets the kernel execute them natively? binfmt_misc is just the same as #! except for file formats that don't have the freedom to start with a #! line.

My point is that what you call it is up to you, but that what you call it should not be the basis of your argument for or against it. What MS does with the CLR is almost exactly analagous to executing JAR files with binfmt_misc. So on that aspect of .NET versus Java, neither clearly wins.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[DA_MAN_DA_MYTH]

.NET offers "compile once, run anywhere.")

Actually you bring up a good point and a lot of people seem to have already posted. I agree with you, it does some seem sweet, Web Services, XML Platform. However the compile once, run anywhere is limited to machines that are able to run the .NET CRI or CRL(Common Runtime Interface / Language) I can't remember which one it was. Instead of a Java VM interpreting the compiled Java Bytecode, .NET actually compiles your already compiled .NET code and optimizes it for that machine whether it's 2000, XP, or 9x. It's very interesting, however I don't forsee it being run anywhere unless M$ actually takes over the direction of the MONO project to keep it even with the development of the Win platform. Miguel Icaza and company will probably fail, for they are 6-12 months behind, and the gap will keep expanding until M$ helps out.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[Malcontent]

Like I said roller skates. What you describe is about 1% of .NET.

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[VFVTHUNTER]

I still say you shouldn't argue things until you're sure you know them, though.

Agreed. As I've said, I had to go digging through the .NET dox to find out that JITing takes place, and I'm still not sure what their definition of "native" code is (is it machine code (I doubt that), or is it something else?

Either way, the intent of my original post was to clarify that yes I do have some hang ups because this is M$, but .NET (here goes the title) is actually pretty sweet. It's got multiple language support, it's based (for now) on industry standards, it eliminates DLL Hell, it eliminates the need for component-related registry settings, etc.

Having scoured the dox more carefully now, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that .NET is in many ways a multilingual Java (with a few other improvements).

Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet

[sab39]

I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that .NET is in many ways a multilingual Java (with a few other improvements).

That's approximately my opinion too. There are slight advantages to both (Java is more cross-platform and more mature, .NET has more languages and was able to learn from a few of Java's mistakes) but none that are terribly compelling.

In my opinion the "winner" out of .NET and Java (for my own needs, not necessarily the market's - but maybe that too) will be whichever gets more Open faster. Sun still have an iron grip on the Java implementation, and MS on the .NET one. Open Source Java implementations languished a bit, but ORP and Classpath and the newly-revived Kaffe are looking promising. And Mono is making amazing strides on .NET. Either one could win the battle for *my* heart in an instant by Open Sourcing their implementation.

Technically speaking though, there's really not a whole lot of difference. And yes, they're *both* pretty sweet :)

Stuart.

Wither the Liberty Alliance?

[MagikSlinger]

So now that their competition has gone away, what happens to the Liberty Alliance? Will they stick together, or each go their separate ways creating their own separate identity database schemes?

Re:Wither the Liberty Alliance?

[tunah]

Maybe it will whither.

Re:The

[DavidJA]

MS:0 The rest of us:1

According to StatlineBusiness.com:

MS: 31.6 BILLION The rest of us: not much

Re:Give up?

[Svartalf]

"Directory services - this can be repackaged in a vendor neutral way."

Not likely. There is very little that is "vendor neutral" from MS' offerings.

Re:.Net != "Hailstorm"

[Dephex Twin]

I wouldn't be shocked to hear about a .NET implementation for OSX in the future.

I would not be shocked either... but the 5 year contract that MS and Apple had just recently ran out, and although Apple assures us that MS will keep supporting, some Mac users are a little nervous.

So, I think it's actually in MS's best interest to do it, but they haven't committed, and as a Mac user, you can't always trust them.

mark

If not this market, then another

[FaithAndReason]

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.

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: .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.

Re:If not this market, then another

[maxpublic]

What they'll offer is Office2004, only available via a monthly subscription over the internet. Along with Messenger2004 (only $5/month!) and Media Player 2004 (exclusive mp3s from your favorite bands!) and....

Max

Re:If not this market, then another

[Rogerborg]

• Microsoft understands that it needs to sell something that users are willing to pay $10 or $20 a month for

You know, I'm not entirely sure that they haven't already done it. I'm running XP as a games OS just now, but I reckon it's only a matter of time before I get the Popup of Death, the one that says (translated into Weasel Speak) "Give us $10 or the kernel gets it".

You think that's insane? Why? We know Microsoft are going to ship software-as-a-service, and eventually they'll push the boat out and ship an OS-as-a-service. When that happens, when they finally commit to that, it'll do two things. First, it'll generate them a revenue stream for life from the tech clueless (aka 95% of the population) and businesses with poor arithmetic skills and pattern recognition. Second, it will drive everyone else away, for life. People like me (and probably you, dear reader) will just give up on MS altogether.

Think that through. There will then be two kinds of people in the world (from MS's point of view): those who feel that they have to use MS, and those who won't use MS.

At that point, what does it matter how much they piss off the second group? They're already lost the revenue from them. They've nothing to lose by saying "Hey! Remember this OS you 'bought'? Didja actually read the license? It's our OS, buddy. You want to keep playing, you have to start paying."

I'm sure that when it happens, it'll be worded in a much more slippery fashion, and it'll probably follow a series of XP downloads and service packs, one of which contains a clickthrough EULA that says "You are now running the XP+ OS. This is a new OS that supercedes the XP OS that you bought a license for. You explicitely agree that at some point we can charge you money to continue using XP+".

Dumb idea? People will just roll back to virgin XP or an older Microsoft OS? They'll move to another OS? OK, but why would MS care? When they start shipping OS-as-a-service, anybody who doesn't sign up to that model is already lost business.

They get sued? The Dubyament will step in? Gee, how much effect has that had so far? It'll be five years before a final decision is made, by which point MS will be able (I fear) to point out that they run the Dubyament mandated DRM system, and it would topple the Free World if their business model was screwed with.

Sure, this is all paranoid speculation, but try and think like MS. At some point, everyone is either going to be their bitches, or they're going to be the enemy. It loses them nothing to bitchslap the enemy; if even a few of them find they like the comforting feel of it, then MS makes a few more converts for life. They've really got nothing to lose. And XP already has the potential to turn itself into OS-as-a-service. It's only a matter of time.

Cool

[slickwillie]

Now where can I exchange my Bill Dollars for dollar bills?

So you've used .net alot then???

[systemaster]

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.

Re:So you've used .net alot then???

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what you are talking about at all. Totally ignorant. .NET is not the stupid Hotmail and MSN Messenger thing at all, and it's MS fault for making people think it is. The REAL .NET is the .NET Framework - a set of compilers, class libraries, and runtime. Go to http://msdn.microsoft.com/net and read.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Canceled Persona

[Ether Trogg]

So, if Microsoft has canceled Persona, does that mean we can refer to it as Persona Non Grata ?

Ack! Stop with the rotten fruit already!

Hailstorm would be a great idea...if it was open

[km790816]

Many of the ideas in Hailstorm were awesome:

• I'd love to have a single sign-in for web sites.
• I'd love to have my own wish-list for books that I can use at a variety of on-line stores.
• I'd love to be able to have a standard way to share schedules and calendars and set up meetings, parties, etc.

Many of the goals of Hailstorm were good. The problem: ownership. Microsoft may do well selling this to others. I wish they would open the standard and let anyone play. The possibilities of interop are amazing. Keep it all XML. How awesome would that be? Sadly, I'm afraid most companies will lock you in to their system. I'm afraid the only way you'll be able to use Hailstorm is to buy the service from a company or pay Microsoft licensing. I hope I'm wrong.

Re:This time, M$ discovers that FUD is a 2edged sw

[dcavanaugh]

Precisely who were these third parties whose support was necessary (or even existed) on these projects? What evidence can you show of any standards compliance or collaberation? As far as I'm concerned, Windows, IE, and WMP were all solo projects based more on ignoring standards than setting them.

I will offer a brief review of notable Microsoft partnerships:

• IBM -- Let's get M$ to help us with OS/2!
• Sun -- Java; enough said
• Apple -- A love/hate relationship if ever there was one
• Digital -- How did they manage to mess up the 64-bit version of NT?

There must be lots of Microsoft-led initiatives that were a smashing success for all parties involved, where standards were adopted and open to all, where everyone lived happily ever after -- I just can't think of any at the moment.

For those with the tin foil hats on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the article text:

April 11, 2002

Microsoft Has Shelved Its Internet 'Persona' Service

By JOHN MARKOFF

SAN FRANCISCO, April 10 -- Microsoft (news/quote ) has quietly shelved a consumer information service that was once planned as the centerpiece of the company's foray into the market for tightly linked Web services.

The service, originally code-named Hailstorm and later renamed My Services, was to be the clearest example of the company's ambitious .Net strategy. It was intended to permit an individual to keep an online persona independent of his or her desktop computer, supposedly safely stored as part of a vast data repository where there could be easy access to it from any point on the Internet.

At the time of the introduction of My Services, Microsoft also proclaimed that it would have a set of prominent partners in areas like finance and travel for the My Services system. However, according to both industry consultants and Microsoft partners, after nine months of intense effort the company was unable to find any partner willing to commit itself to the program.

Industry executives said the caution displayed by consumer giants like American Express (news/quote) and Citigroup (news/quote ) illuminated a bitter tug of war being fought over consumer information by some of the largest financial and information companies.

"They ran into the reality that many companies don't want any company between them and their customers," said David Smith, vice president for Internet services at the Gartner Group (news/quote), a computer industry consulting and research firm.

The lack of interest also indicates that in a variety of industries outside the desktop computer business there remain significant concerns about Microsoft's potential to use its personal computer monopoly and its .Net software to leverage its brand into a broad range of service businesses.

Topics
Alerts
Microsoft Corporation
Computers and the Internet
Create Your Own | Manage Alerts
Take a Tour
Sign Up for Newsletters
Other Resources
Get Stock Quotes
Look Up Symbols

Portfolio | Company Research
U.S. Markets | Int. Markets
Mutual Funds | Bank Rates
Commodities & Currencies

Circuits: How Electronic Things Work

Buy this Book for $29.95.

An early signal that the My Services idea was in trouble came last fall at Microsoft's annual developer's conference, attended by more than 6,000 programmers. The sessions on My Services were poorly attended, an attendee said.

"There was incredible customer resistance," said a Microsoft .Net consultant, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified. Microsoft was unable to persuade either consumer companies or software developers that it had solved all of the privacy and security issues raised by the prospect of keeping personal information in a centralized repository, he said.

Microsoft executives acknowledged the shift in strategy and said the company was still contemplating how it would bring out a revised version of the My Services technology. The decision resulted in a relocation of several dozen programmers in December from a consumer products development group run by Robert Muglia to the company's operating systems division.

"We're sort of in the Hegelian synthesis of figuring out where the products go once they've encountered the reality of the marketplace," said Charles Fitzgerald, Microsoft's general manager for platform strategy.

He said part of the decision to back away from a consumer version of My Services was based on industry concerns about who was going to manage customer data. The issue, he asserted, was more of a sticking point within the industry, rather than among consumers.

"We heard a lot of concern about that point from competitors in the industry but very little from our users," he said.

Microsoft is now considering selling My Services to corporations in a traditional package form, rather than as a service. The companies would maintain the data for their own users.

"Frankly selling this stuff to people who build large data centers with our software is not a bad model," Mr. Fitzgerald said.

Microsoft first introduced the Hailstorm services idea at a news conference at its headquarters in Redmond, Wash., in March 2001. At the time, the technology received endorsements from a handful of corporations including American Express, Expedia (news/quote), eBay (news/quote), Click Commerce (news/quote) and Groove Networks.

At the time of the announcement, Microsoft described Hailstorm as a way for a consumer to have a consistent set of services, like e-mail, contacts, a calendar and an electronic "wallet" -- whether sitting at a desk or traveling and using a wireless personal digital assistant.

"Microsoft's `Hailstorm' technologies open exciting new opportunities for us to use the Web in ways never thought of before, helping us to continue to deliver service that is truly unmatched in the industry," Glen Salow, the chief information officer of American Express, said at the time in a statement.

More recently, however, American Express officials have told computer industry executives that they remain concerned about being displaced by Microsoft's brand in such a partnership.

A company spokesman said in a telephone interview today that American Express had intended to endorse the broader notion of integrated Internet services last March, not My Services specifically. He said he did not know if the company had discussions with Microsoft about becoming a My Services repository.

Several industry consultants who work with Microsoft said that the company was now planning to deploy My Services as a software product for corporate computer users some time next year, after the company introduces its .Net operating system.

"Enterprise customers were telling Microsoft, `We like this idea but we don't want to be part of this huge public database,' " said Matt Rosoff, an analyst who follows the company at Directions on Microsoft, a market research firm in Kirkland, Wash.

When it was introduced, the Hailstorm plan quickly became a lightning rod for privacy advocates who saw dangers in concentrating vast amounts of personal information in a single repository.

Last fall a coalition of privacy groups complained in a letter to the Federal Trade Commission about the potential risks inherent in Microsoft's collecting personal information from and about several hundred million personal computer users.

My Services also created thorny privacy issues for Microsoft in Europe, because of restrictions on transborder data transfers there. Microsoft has not resolved how personal information stored in one country can be easily transmitted internationally.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Question(s) from a Java developer

[jwambach]

DISCLAIMER: I'm a Java developer.

Ok, I've read a few comments both for and against the .NET platform. I've read (briefly) the article on ars describing the .NET platform as language and platform agnostic.

My questions are these:

Where is the Java support? If this is truly language agnostic, why is Java not listed in the languages supported by .NET? If it's a question of licensing from SUN , fine, where's the bridge? If I have have 1000 EJBs out there, how do I justify adopting a platform with no integration strategy, J# has been brought up before, but without support for J2SE (or J2EE) what's the point?

What exactly is standardized? The CLR or the APIs? How tied am I to the Win32 API for real development. How is mono addressing these issues?

Exactly how many languages have been integrated into the .NET platform? under what conditions? (platform, usage, etc)

Obviosly I am biased towards the Java platform. This post is not intended to incite a flame war, I'm just looking for honest answers from developers who have experience in this area.

Re:Question(s) from a Java developer

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the Java support? If this is truly language agnostic, why is Java not listed in the languages supported by .NET? If it's a question of licensing from SUN , fine, where's the bridge?

I think the Sun vs Microsoft lawsuit pretty much settled the future of Microsoft supporting any newer versions of Java in .NET (other than the J# which is to migrate VJ++ apps to .NET). It really wouldn't matter anyway, even if you ported the a Java compiler to produce .NET MSIL byte code you would be dealing with a completely alien set of class libraries. C#'s syntax is close enough to Java that most Java developers should be able to pick it up easily if they need/want to.

If I have have 1000 EJBs out there, how do I justify adopting a platform with no integration strategy, J# has been brought up before, but without support for J2SE (or J2EE) what's the point?

There would be no point obviously. I like .NET and I wouldn't suggest replacing a huge J2EE implementation with it.

What exactly is standardized? The CLR or the APIs?

The CLR has been standardized. You are not tied to the Win32 API in any real sense assuming that the base library classes provide all the support you need. You might be tied to the windows platform if you need to interoperate with legacy COM/COM+ applications... but that has always been a given.

How is mono addressing these issues?

Obviously mono is going to face the same issues anyone faces when trying to get Microsoft technology running on a *nix platform. Some of the implementation issues will be easy... some will be next to impossible to include in their CLR.

Exactly how many languages have been integrated into the .NET platform? under what conditions? (platform, usage, etc)

All a company has to do is produce a .NET-ified version of their compiler that produces MSIL (think byte code for Java VM) and adheres to the CLR class libraries. I'm sure there will be no shortage of bizarre implementations of Cobol.Net, Delphi.Net, Lisp.Net, et al.

Obviosly I am biased towards the Java platform.

Not really. These are good questions that someone more knowledgeable than I should be answering.

Re:Question(s) from a Java developer

[jwambach]

First off, thanks for the genuine incite.

I think the Sun vs Microsoft lawsuit pretty much settled the future of Microsoft supporting any newer versions of Java in .NET

I can see this point, however does this preclude someone (say the mono initiative for instance) from including said support? At the latest JavaOne conference, Sun and Apache came to an agreement in principal that all SUN let JCPs could be developed in an OpenSource environment. Could this lead to a possible opensource initiative for .NET Java integration?

Exactly how many languages have been integrated into the .NET platform? under what conditions? (platform, usage, etc) All a company has to do is produce a .NET-ified version of their compiler that produces MSIL (think byte code for Java VM) and adheres to the CLR class libraries. I'm sure there will be no shortage of bizarre implementations of Cobol.Net, Delphi.Net, Lisp.Net, et al.

This is what causes me to have some concern. If we are to have many 'bizarre implementations' of various languages, where is the common ground for the developer? How do we know that any given legacy application will interoperate with this new platform?

I guess my fundamental scepticism is this:
Why would microsoft develop a platform that guarantees them no competitive advantage in the marketplace? If this new platform is to be truly agnostic towards language and platform, where does this leave them? I mean, there are various platforms (linux, BSD, etc) that can provide the server side horsepower to drive these 'web services'. The client platform (If I'm not mistaken) becomes pretty much irrelevant in this scenario since we're all communicating via the .NET protocol. What's the angle?

Microsoft won't give up - DRM is coming...

[isaac]

Though I don't doubt that Microsoft had trouble interesting others in Hailstorm, I don't think Microsoft's push to get a piece of every transaction has been abandoned. My gut instinct is that they think that they can have better success with using DRM for this purpose.

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

Re:Microsoft won't give up - DRM is coming...

[Jason Earl]

Yes, but Microsoft has to be careful about becoming the OS of Digital Rights Management. After all, Microsoft's customers don't actually want DRM, and Apple is busy promoting their iMacs with commercials that show cool people making copies of their CDs, and rippy MP3s to carry around in their iPod.

This is how it starts.

[mesozoic]

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.

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, .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?

Granted, Microsoft has put a lot more marketing clout behind .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.

Hey, you guys said they were a Monopoly!

[nobodyman]

WebTV is Dead. Ultimate TV is dying (yes it is), Hailstorm and XBox are stillborn.

Aren't these all initiatives from this unstoppable bohemoth that is going to take over the world if we don't have the government step in? At this point I'm not convinced that the free market economy wont end up smacking Microsoft like we want the feds to do.

Re:Hey, you guys said they were a Monopoly!

[Chris Johnson]

What's wrong with them both smacking Microsoft? You'd prefer if they took turns? :D

Re:Hey, you guys said they were a Monopoly!

[cheekymonkey_68]

WebTV is Dead. Ultimate TV is dying (yes it is), Hailstorm and XBox are stillborn.

Thas just for starters, Microsoft has a history of failed projects:

Xenix died a quick and painfull death

MSX died like the proverbial parrot

MSX2 was pretty much stillborn

MSX3 sorry 'XBOX', is not dead yet, its merely resting.

and not forgeting Microsoft Bob

This alternative may be worse

[yardbird]

Microsoft is now considering selling My Services to corporations in a traditional package form, rather than as a service. The companies would maintain the data for their own users.

"Frankly selling this stuff to people who build large data centers with our software is not a bad model," Mr. Fitzgerald said.

IOW, a common code base with the typical MS attention to security, but maintained by thousands of clueless sysadmins rather than by a single company who at least might see fit to install updates. So instead of a single point of failure, you suddenly have hundreds. Fun!

Re:Cheers! They realized it was doomed from start.

[MsGeek]

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.

Uh...not every MCSE out there.

I was, to be frank, worried about its implications for security. Having Microsoft guard the keys to my bank account is like having the fox guard the hen house.

Nice to see it go. Now .NET can stand or fall on its own merits, not on privacy concerns.

Re:This time, M$ discovers that FUD is a 2edged sw

[sconeu]

? As far as I'm concerned, Windows, IE, and WMP were all solo projects based more on ignoring standards than setting them.

Don't know 'bout Windows or WMP, but remember, MS bought IE. They bought Spyglass Mosaic and relabelled it.

Of course, since MS gives away IE for free, I suspect that Spyglass' royalties aren't very much... On the other hand, maybe Spyglass is entitled to a cut of every "integrated" copy of Windows?

Microsoft and the future

[Cardinal]

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.

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 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 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 .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.

Re:Microsoft and the future

[JabberWokky]

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's interesting because it's that sort of slow persistance that makes open source work. Amid dozens of half assed and abortive projects rises one or a few really good solutions. The surprising thing is not that it works, but that it works so fast. Microsoft has a phenominally large but bounded budget. Open source has a budget bounded only by the time and people willing to give a hand. And since there's always a new class of college students thinking they can revolutionise the world, that's a very renewable resource. Now that companies like IBM are contributing, aware that this is about the only way to see MS dethroned, it's starting to polarize the IT world.

Who has a larger budget - Microsoft, or the rest of the industry, including volunteers working for the experience?

--
Evan

Re:Microsoft and the future

[JabberWokky]

It's of no use to have 100 engineers if you can't reliably get them to work on the stuff that matters - which normally coincides with stuff that is dull to work on ;-)

Y'know, I keep hearing this about open source based products, but what exactly is this "stuff that is boring to work on"? It can't be UI, as KDE has teams working on that. It can't be internals like memory management, as there is fierce competition on that front. It can't be translation or documentation - flip through KDE's help center or translation list. It can't be enterprise software - it may not match existing solutions that have had decades to mature, but open source projects are making headway.

So what is this "dull stuff" that doesn't get worked on?

--
Evan

Re:Microsoft and the future

[Rob Kaper]

Well, there are some open jobs within the KDE project. Another dull piece of work would be an installer/upgrader for KDE or a system configuration tool.

Although the largest problem here is to come up with something that works transparently on all those different platforms: several Linux distributions, *BSD, Solaris, HPUX, AIX, Windows (well, there's a Cygwin port of KDE 2) and so on.

I am sure others can mention dull problems within other projects as well.

Re:Microsoft and the future

[JabberWokky]

Hi, Rob. My point is not that there is a single project with people covering all aspects, but that within the whole of Open Source, you can find somebody who is interested in everything. For instance, although KDE has no installer (the KDE team officially considers it outside of the scope of the project for other readers), there are phemonal install tools out there like apt-get or rpm. There are plenty of system configuration tools, from Webmin to Yast2 (IIRC, it's open source, although not GPL).

My point is that people keep talking about "dull problems that aren't addressed by open source", but I haven't seen any. Every facet of software seems to be addressed by someone, somewhere in some project, so there's someone out there who considers it an interesting challenge.

And, BTW - I do urge people to go to the open jobs list for the KDE project - maybe you're one of the people that I'm talking about who finds one of those projects interesting enough to pick up and run with. Or maybe you've already got code done that you'd like to contribute.

--
Evan

Re:Microsoft and the future

[JabberWokky]

People do work on things like UI (which is what you're complaining about). Go into the KDE bug database, and you'll find tons of completeed UI items, and you can pick out names of people who systematically go through and locate problems and others who systematically go through and fix them.

Incidently, a quick point by point. The number of virtual desktops can be set by either right clicking on the desktop, and choosing "Configure Desktop", and the "Number of Desktops" tab. Or in the Control Center. The Control Center in SuSE has all the system configuration tools (from kernel module management to user management to network and video and sound configuration). Linux distros can compete. Mandrake has, no no apparant reason, slipt user and system configuration into two programs. Use SuSE - it's easier and more powerful (IMO). I don't have the paste problem (I'm using 3.0, so it may have been fixed, again, people *do* work on this stuff). As for the "Create New...", it makes sense to me - you create new HTML documents, KSpread spreadsheets, text files, etc.

My point is not that things are perfect, but that people are working on them. If you're using an older version of KDE, and I'm using a newer version with your problems fixed, then there you go - these things *do* get worked on.

--
Evan

Re:Microsoft and the future

[JabberWokky]

I'll acknowledge that things get fixed

That's what my point was. The original post I was replying to was citing a common "truth" - that certain things never get worked on, and never *will* get worked on because they are "boring". I never said that all open source projects are as mature as their commercial counterparts (only a very few are), but rather that there are people working on all sorts of projects, with no apparant "boring" projects that are neglected. No matter how obscure a topic is, somebody out there finds it fascinating or profitable, and has at least started (and is working) on an open source project to cover that topic.

--
Evan

Some answers

[Carnage4Life]

Is microsoft abandoning their drive to make Passport the authentication mechanism for *everything*, Starbucks and such, or are they just going to drop the pretense of making it an open system?

Passport was a seperate initiative from .NET MyServices (aka Hailstorm). Passport is an authentication mechanism while .NET MyServices was supposed to be a centralized repository of user information (calendar, preferences, inbox, contacts, bookmarks, etc) which could be queried by various vendors who would receive restricted access to the data based on the user's settings.

Is it possible for people to take the hailstorm protocol, if they so desire, and set up an independent, decentralized hailstorm network that just happens to not be affiliated at all with microsoft?

There are a couple of things to consider here. The first being whether there are any intellectual property(IP) issues, I have no idea about this but wouldn't advice anyone to start something like that without at first ensuring there aren't any patents or anything like that being violated. The second thing is exactly how one would use the technology. Personally when I first saw a Hailstorm presentation last summer I kept on thinking that it may face difficulty in gaining widespread acceptance for exactly the same reasons listed in the article; there was no justification for vendors to give up so much control to user information to a third party. One example touted was the ability to move music preferences from website to website but the question never asked is why Amazon.com [for example] would make it easier for users to grab all their painstakingly entered personal preferences and music ratings to CDNow.com or some other online site. I remember emailing the presenter about my thoughts but couldn't follow up since it happened close to the end of my internship. However, it may work within a closed environment like a corporate intranet but then again MSFT already has Exchange which has a lot of the important functionality that would be provided by .NET MyServices like an inbox, contacts, calendar etc.

Was GNOME MONO planning on implementing hailstorm as part of their .net workalike? Are they still going to?

Gnome is not related to Mono. Miguel De Icaza may have founded both but he no longer maintains any packages for Gnome nor does he do much (if any) active development but instead spends most of his energy on Mono.

As for your question, Mono is not interested in Passport or Hailstorm and went as far as creating a page about it because people kept on getting misconceptions about it.

Disclaimer:This post is my opinion and does not reflect the views, opinions, intentions or strategies of my employer.

Re:"Oh Really?

[Pope Slackman]

It's like when a dead guy is dumped in the river... he'll float to the surface eventually.

With the help of my trusty wood chipper, that's rarely a problem for me.

C-X C-S

Re:"Oh Really?

[Melantha_Bacchae]

An AC wrote:

> Someone mod this idiot down. Bob was a desktop shell

Bob was the software that introduced the whole concept of having a little animated assistant to hold your hand (er, drive you nuts) and guide you through the difficult and dangerous process of writing letters, etc.

When Bob went belly up, the assistants were evacutated and relocated to their new home: Office.

> and Clippy was an office assistant.

Clippy *is* an office assistant. It is still in Office XP, just not enabled by default. Probably a case of their not being able to ship a version of Office without Clippy & co. bundled.

What happens when you embrace and extend Godzilla? Nuclear heartburn!
See "Godzilla 2000" (released in Japan as "Godzilla 2000 Millenium") for details.

Remember MSN?

[Benjim]

Remember when Microsoft wanted MSN to be used instead of the Internet? But open solutions and a free market won, albeit with some dominant forces.

I feel somewhat confident that the hackers, developers, vendors, service providers and customers will pick a model that doesn't favor one particular technology or architecture.

I dont think anyone really wants to be locked into "Microsoft World"TM.

Re:does...that...mean...

[dbrutus]

You should put a smiley, the humor isn't working well. There are McDonalds franchises who take credit cards and nationally, they're supporting speedpass (which bills to a credit card).

Re:.Net != "Hailstorm"

[Alsee]

having to deal with another Windows-only situation.

The solution is simple. Dump Mac and get yourself a Windows box.

Sorry, couldn't resist. chuckle

-

XP and 2000

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

I don't get it. I just don't get it. They spend all this money on getting people to buy 2000, then they turn around and essentially offer what amounts to the Windows 2000 Plus Pack as a new operating system.

There's the prime example of self competition.

First CBDTPA universally rejected..

[cygnusx]

... and now Hailstorm a complete failure! Today's either feel-good day or /. has decided to transform itself into a old-style communist^[dw open source propaganda newspaper! :-)

Re:.Net != "Hailstorm"

[kzharv]

So if I write a program in C++ and call it Blarg247 that means, by your reasoning,C++ == Blarg247.
Just cause Hailstorm was written as an example of .NET's uses does not mean .NET is Hailstorm.

.Net is nothing special

[Anonymous Coward]

(M$ has beaten them - intsead of "write once, run anywhere," .NET offers "compile once, run anywhere.")

What, you mean suddenly I don't have to compile my java code in order to run my programs?!? AWESOME!

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.

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!

So here are some answers

[IamTheRealMike]

What happens to passport? Microsoft was going to open up passport authentication to third-party ID servers via passport, right? Or am i just confused about that? Is that not happening anymore? Is microsoft abandoning their drive to make Passport the authentication mechanism for *everything*, Starbucks and such, or are they just going to drop the pretense of making it an open system?

Short answer, Passport isn't going away any time soon. All their online services rely on it. However, they may be dropping their half-arsed attempts to merge it with Kerberos, a technology that was designed for closed environment LANs, not the internet.

The way i understood it, Hailstorm was a relatively decentralized technology as designed and didn't really DEPEND on microsoft being there to hold it all together. Right? Is it possible for people to take the hailstorm protocol, if they so desire, and set up an independent, decentralized hailstorm network that just happens to not be affiliated at all with microsoft?

No - Hailstorm is largely centralised. MS have always had plans to sell the software that makes it tick to other ID vendors later, but not any time soon, because they were betting on making a lot of money off of hosting the worlds identies. As it stands, Hailstorm is utterly centralised.

To be honest I can't decide whether I'm surprised or not at this. I'd always assumed that Hailstorm was their master plan, the only thing large enough to replace their previously enormous software profits. On the other hand, Hailstorm as it stood was always virtually unworkable.

Was GNOME MONO planning on implementing hailstorm as part of their .net workalike? Are they still going to?

No, they never had any plans to do make anything other than certain parts of the development platform.

thanks -mike

Re:Hailstorm would be a great idea...if it was ope

[maxpublic]

I'd love to have a single sign-in for web sites.

And an easy way to track every web site I visit that requires a sign-in. No thanks. But wait! I could just use the same login and password at every site, right now, and accomplish the same thing! Without a single company knowing everywhere I go!

I'd love to have my own wish-list for books that I can use at a variety of on-line stores.

And once again have a single company know my reading preferences, available to be sold to third parties or given away to a government looking for 'troublemakers'. But wait! I could keep such a list in a...text file! And simply open it whenever I wish to see it while doing some online shopping!

I'd love to be able to have a standard way to share schedules and calendars and set up meetings, parties, etc.

And once again have a single company knowing everywhere I go, who I'm going to meet, who my associates are, how I spend my free time, and so forth. But lo! Check it out! I *already have* such a calendar on my computer, and I can use this thing called 'email' - or even the archaic device known as the 'phone' - to do this very same thing!

Zounds Batman! Looks like Hailstorm doesn't do anything I can't duplicate myself already! And far less intrusively!

Max

Re:This time, M$ discovers that FUD is a 2edged sw

[dcavanaugh]

You're right. I should have described IE as a failed partnership, not a solo project -- just more fuel for the fire.

Gaming Consoles - the next big thing?

[MartinB]

So if gaming consoles are the next big thing, what have Sony, Nintendo and Sega been doing all these years?

Passport in the wild

[MartinB]

Microsoft was going to open up passport authentication to third-party ID servers via passport, right? Or am i just confused about that? Is that not happening anymore?

• Expedia (not surprising as it used to be an MS co-own)
• Egg.com - announced but not implemented as yet. Egg are hard-core Microsoft lackeys^Wpartners

Um that's it AFAIK

So what?

[sethadam1]

Hailstorm, or whatever you want to call it, was just the intermediate step to get us to Blackcomb, the full implementation of .NET.

I'm sorry, but I read this headline as is: Microsoft is going to swallow the world into .NET in one less step.

Re:My Services

[Znork]

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.

Just one thing to say.

[DohDamit]

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Whew. I feel much better now. Yeah yeah, kick em while they're down.

Funny thing....in the passport documentation, they had laid out the possibility of the federated model, but it was quite clear from the verbage that that was NOT the way they wanted to go with this. Feeeeels goood.

classes (or "types" as MS likes to call them ...

[crovira]

I'm reminded of Big Brother. Control the language of discourse and you control the content of discourse.

When Smalltalk came out in the 80's nobody knew what a __Class__ was, but it was a mystery and had some prestige, Microsoft adopted it for prestige and marketing BS. Now that we know and understand a bit more, Microsoft is unable to get milage out of using it to spread the fog anymore.

They will now start to misuse another word, __type__, which has a very specific meaning, (an inextensible storage layout and set of internal operands,) and use it to make people forget about encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism and taxonomic organization of code.

In six months they will try to turn back the clock of CompSci discourse to levels not seen since the early seventies, when computers were big expensive, complicated machines ruled by a lab-coated priest hood.

They will be aided in this by the fact that the machine taking up the desktop is more powerful than the machines that took up entire rooms back them.

They may succeed except that the people who handle all the damn money and power don't trust anything but Unix to handle the incredible amount of transactions posted every day.

M$ is okay for the secretaries who just type letters and put together powerpoint obfuscations, but its not for real computing.

Nobody uses anything M$ does on anything important. Just ask Bill Gates "Would you want a pacemaker running on anything M$ has in its arsenal?"

Talk about the "Blue Screen of Death."

Re:Hegel my butt

[Tackhead]

> Look at what he's really saying here:
> Thesis: Microsoft products
>Antithesis: Marketplace
>
> Says it all, really :-)

Not quite all. Doesn't it strike you as odd that Microsoft is attacking the GPL as "communistic", while absorbed in some sort of dialectical materialist "Our eventual ownership of 4ll j00r b4se is the inevitable result of the Hegelian synthesis" doctrine?

Remember, kids, when you use Microsoft products, you're using Communism!

Re: SQL Server pricing

[tswinzig]

Yes, for old-fashioned client-server use. If you want to use your SQL Server for storage of data that's accessible through Internet, which is most of the usage you will see today (I don't know about intranet, though), you are in the 20k$ range, AFAIK

You are wrong. $5K per license for SQL Server 2000 standard edition (what most small to medium businesses would use... hell, even large businesses). Read this page:

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/production.a sp

Re:dont know about speed

[tswinzig]

it kicked sql servers ass on eweek

I quote from the eweek article:

"Due to its significant JDBC (Java Database Connectivity) driver problems, SQL Server was limited to about 200 pages per second for the entire test..."

Uhhh yeah, sounds like a fair benchmark... using JDBC drivers that are known to be buggy with SQL Server 2000? I, and most people using SQL Server, don't use JDBC drivers for most things.

But I guess if you only read the front pages of mysql.com for information on benchmarks, you might like to believe MySQL won...

Try the TPC page, where Microsoft SQL Server 2000 owns the top 3 spots for performance. This is comparing SQL Server 2000 vs. Oracle on all kinds of high end machines (presumably to remove the hardware as the bottleneck). I think most people would agree Oracle is considered to be the top-end RDBMS, and here MS SQL 2000 beats it.

This is really cool

[dcavanaugh]

My original post has drawn out the M$ supporters!

Moderation Totals: Flamebait=1, Insightful=3, Interesting=1, Overrated=2, Total=7.

They seem to be having a hell of a time explaining how M$ is trustworthy and able to "play well with others", but they have at least demonstrated their presence. Ideally, I would like to get original post to hit +5 despite all the Flamebait and Overrated mods that come from the Redmond fans. I expect even more downmods as soon as their systems reboot. In this case, I actually get a certain amount of enjoyment from all the downmods. Althought it wasn't my original intention, it would be nice to get a few "Trolls". Go ahead, make my day.

"When a stone is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that is hit will bark."

Re:Monopoly Power

[JamesOfTheDesert]

Yes. And that's why Compaq and Gateway were threatened with losing their Microsoft distribution licenses if they were to offer alternate operating systems.

Compaq and Gateway willingly signed a contract, with clear terms and restrictions, because they were looking to make as much money as posible, and exploiting Microsoft was a good way. To bitch later on that they can't eat their cake and have it, too, is disingenuous. Life is full of choices, and they can't all be easy and convenient.

Are you paid by Microsoft?

No. Why do you ask? Because I don't see the world the way you do? Should I ask if you're paid by Sun?

Re:Give up?

[finkployd]

Not likely. There is very little that is "vendor neutral" from MS' offerings.

Come on people, it is just a watered down x.500 directory service. Use LDAP, it is vendor neutral :)

Finkployd

Blunders of this magnitude would bury others

[Camel Pilot]

MS has the luxury of being able to dedicated significant resources in new market areas that would cost other companies dearly if they failed.

For example, they missed the emergence of the internet but where capable of recovering by buying their way in.

MS has a history of failed initatives but have been very successful at buying the best-of-breed in a specific market area and quickly dominating that area. They should be forced to compete with the best companies and not allowed to buy them and thereby reducing the competiveness of the market.

They'd like you and everyone else to believe that.

[Archfeld]

This "feature" is not dead, it will just be integrated into the .Net framework. M$ NEVER gives up an idea, just shelves it for rebranding/repackaging.

Re:.Net != "Hailstorm"

[bnenning]

in fact, the only reason I know of NOT to like .NET is the usual 'Windows Only' bullshit.

Which is a pretty good reason, considering Java has nearly identical capabilities and is much more cross-platform.

Re:Oracle and DB2

[tswinzig]

Have you ever looked at Oracle or DB2 both are far superior database solutions to Microsoft SQL.

Exactly how are you measuring superiority? SQL Server 7 has been stable, it has all the features we could possibly want, it integrates nicely with our windows environment (which was not my choice, btw), and it is inexpensive compared to Oracle. According to the TPC benchmarks, it is outperforming Oracle in certain situations, so the performance is definitely up there.

I am not familiar with DB2, but I was under the impression it was not as good as Oracle or SQL Server 7.

Re:dont know about speed

[tswinzig]

BS...why don't you sort the dam thing by cluster versus non-clustered.

OK I did that as well, and MySQL doesn't show up in the list at all... I'm not trying to say SQL Server is better than Oracle. Just that it is AT LEAST approaching Oracle, and both perform much better than MySQL.

MS is the only one doing cluster testing.

Actually IBM DB2 was listed on the clustered results page as well. Where is Oracle in clustering?

This announcement is response to antitrust trial

[Thagg]

I know that I'm adding this comment far to late to get noticed, but it must be said. I'm certain that the only reason that MS is making this announcment, and certainly the reason that they are making it now is to impress Colleen Kollar-Kotelly -- saying that they are not trying to take over the world, after all.

thad

You'd like to be restricted some more Sir? Sure...

[alext]

So let me get this straight - you want to tie yourself to a particular CPU type and model, but not to an OS? I think I'm glad I'm not one of your clients... well, be prepared for some, er, divergence of your distributed code base in future - Intel might possibly come out with a new CPU, or someone could be running an AMD box, you never know...

Windows 95 doesn't do .NET

[leonbrooks]

It runs on all windows platforms except Win95 (which sucks ass anyway)

You've not installed it on a top-of-the-line Athlon. It goes amazingly fast. If it wasn't Windows (ie: crashy, insecure, patronising, sends reports home) it would be wonderful.

Accountability

[leonbrooks]

AS/400

It's appropriate that you should list the system which Microsoft's accounting system is based. Favourite quote:

So in June of 1999, the company unplugged its [23] AS/400s and powered up 1200 NT servers it needed to replace them. But things didn't quite go as planned. "They found they couldn't make it work," [Dr Frank] Soltis told the crowd. "Today, one year after unplugging their AS/400s, they're back on the AS/400." That company is Microsoft.

Fifty NT boxes per AS/400! And they can all run Java. I'm impressed, how about you? (-:

Re:My Services

[jsse]

These products have all the features that the average consumer will ever need in a lifetime, and what Microsoft can improve,

It's not entirely true. Look back in history, people thought Visicalc has all the features that they will ever need, then there's Lotus 1-2-3, then Excel. Same things happened to Multimate and Dbase III, etc.

The key point is innovation, which Microsoft lacks. People are not bashing Microsoft for nothing, this company is exactly like what you said - they thought they couldn't make better products, that kills all the innovation. That kind of mentality killed Ashton Tale in the past, it will kill Microsoft in the future.

Open source development, on the other hand, has better chance to survive. The derived works are basically the extension of previous good work with innovation. I don't need to give example do I? :)

Ratings season

[leonbrooks]

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.

For USD$20k a CPU (or anything near that) I'd be wanting it to hammer the life out of a USD$200 service on every front!

Some of the fronts that MS-SQL doesn't win on are significant. For example, the amount of traffic that sloshes back and forth do do replication is nothing short of amazing. And if you do want to replicate, why, that's another twenty thousand spondoolies (AUD$40k) down the tube, plus hardware.

The next item on my agenda is MySQL. I'd choose PostgreSQL instead. There are no licencing complications which might come back and bite you on the behind later, it's far more feature-complete, and while MySQL often eats it for some of the dirt-simple stuff, MySQL most assuredly won't eat PostgreSQL [more detail] as things get more complicated, that is, for anything noticeably more complex than a weblog.

Finally, and still on the lies-damn-lies-and-statistics track, do you use the actual hardware that Microsoft used to get some TPC wins with? No? In that case, the TPC ratings aren't very useful to you with your `only USD$10k' dual-Xeon server, are they? (-:

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Monopoly Power

[JamesOfTheDesert]

A better way to put it would be: "Sign this contract or go out of business. Don't like the terms? Too bad.".

No, it's more like "Sign this contract or change your business. Don't like the terms? Too bad. The world is full of other opportunities."

It seems that, once people have decided to make money a certain way, the rest of the world is somehow obligated to play along. That's bullshit.