Slashdot Mirror
.NET for Apache
PerlGuy was so kind as to forward us the news about the joint Apache/Microsoft combined press conference scheduled from Wednesday at the OSCON Quote: "We will announce news related to the Apache web server and Microsoft's
development technology, .NET. This should be one of the biggest
announcements of the conference..."
The email he recieved: Covalent Technologies will be holding a press conference at the O'Reilly
Conference on Wednesday at 3:15 in suite 415 (during the afternoon break).
We will announce news related to the Apache web server and Microsoft's
development technology, .NET. This should be one of the biggest
announcements of the conference and an interesting follow up to Microsoft's
appearance last year at the show as well as to their general comments on
open source. Executives will be on hand to answer questions or to conduct
one-on-one interviews after the announcement.
Presumably, this will be an announcement for a "mod_mono," or something of the sort. I feel a cold, cold finger on my spine.
Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
Kinda offtopic, but the newest version of edonkey is .net based. Is it worth it to install all that .net shit (also for future programs). I'm just using the command line version now.
Microsoft and the Apache Foundation will be working together on a fuel cell?
Microsoft will be teaming up with Apache to port Apache's httpd to DirectX?
What? Something about "IIS out, Apache in?"
Rotor?
Eh? (tap tap) Is this thing on?
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
At last we'll have Code Red ported to Linux!
Je t'aime Stéphanie
OSCON has already been slashdoted! ;-)
Live web cams
Before people get in a huff, we should mention that Apache has a history of integrating well with other technologies, those considered to be "evil" by some people, and others as well. I mean, look at Apache and Java. What about XML? Not to mention perl, PHP, TCL, and others.
.NET, just in a different way. Apache is wise to be as flexible and accomodating as possible - it's a good thing that it supports .NET, since it will most likely do it in a free way and expose more people to free software. On the other hand, it could always *not* support .NET, lose more market share to IIS, and generally piss people off who are using .NET technologies by wider corporate edict.
Java is not a warm and fuzzy free technology. I daresay it's every bit as proprietary as
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Because according to this ZDNEt/EWeeks review, .NET scales A LOT better then Java on [DB2, MSSql, MySQL & Oracle].
Well, if this is what I'm imagining everyone thinks it is, microsoft is going to release a module for apache that allows ".NET" software to run with it. Of course--and this is if they do that--this would mean that they aren't going to release it open source, and it's going to be buggy and full of security holes. But hey, don't customers love monopolies and proprietary technologies?
Microsoft actually validating apache as a competitor big enough to not crush them (right away) by closing their .NET framework only to IIS?
.NET deployment... ...or is (history repeating) a "good thing" only in the short run:
.NET stuff, let's learn .NET. God! it's so simple and easy, and object-oriented to the bones, I'll stay on that for all of my applications"
.NET2 to IIS-only, and since a lot of developpers moved or learned from scratch on .NET, they will migrate on IIS to continue or update their work.
.NET framework because they NEED people to USE it and gain acceptance... once they get that, they apply.monopoly(.NET);
Question is, is it good to see Apache embrassing a Microsoft framework so that it remains in the race of the
"Hey! Apache runs
1-2 years later Microsoft closes the
Usually, this scenario is typical of MS... so what would be different here? They have everything to gain right now to broaden their
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
So anyone figured out what .NET does yet?
Microsoft needs maximum market penetration for .NET, otherwise the initiative fails. EVERYBODY has to play in this particular sandbox, or MS' dream of a services-based software market (with far better growth potential for a monopoly than a product-based market) is bust. IIS is *one product*, one that, in the grand scheme of things, it would be worth sacrificing if it meant .NET ubiquity. The majority of the web runs on Apache, therefore for Microsoft to not support .NET on Apache is to lose the majority of the web. QED.
.
What makes me curious is what platforms they'll support Apache on . .
Yawn...
In summary, it is difficult to believe that something this good could be produced in such an unusual way. If I had not seen it with my own eyes I would not have believed it.
The parent in this thread is actually Bill Gates part of the press release. Unfortunately the poster forgot to mention it...
What next?
;)
Vatican/Microsoft announce MonoTheism.net?
US Govt/Microsoft anounce MonoPoly.net?
Soundblaster/Microsoft announce MonTonous.net?
Did I miss some?
looks like 2 worlds are going to collide....
After running apache for over a year now I think it's great, and .NET support can't be bad, makes it easier to persuade companys to switch to linux with apache because afterall, 'it supports .NET and you know how good that is', well, that is what you would say to your windows-biased CEO. =)
Just IMHO.
perhaps MS realy is trying to be more open and inclusive.....
.NET will cause more folks to be locked into there platform that they do not care who the hell gets to be in the party since they will all be smushed into a tiny little corner with none of the hotties.
or perhaps MS is just so damn sure of them selfs that
True capitalism = lots of similar companies = jobs for everyone who wants one.
This should be one of the biggest announcements of the conference
.NET? Do consumers really want "Web Services"?
Who really cares about this? Is anyone really all gung-ho to deploy
I'd rather run my office apps on my local box, and keep my data private, thank you.
On a side note Covalent spammed the hell out of OSCON attendees. I'm really dissapointed that O'Reilly gave out my *work* email address to them. I wasn't all that hot on Covalent products before, and now that they spammed me, I'll think twice before looking at them again.
i guess this would be the "embrace" part of "embrace and extend."
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
Now I can use Apache and keep the MS oriented developer happy. This is a Win-Win for everyone.
But though the editors were lazy or Slashcode was buggy, I'll put in a couple of cents anyway.
.NET initiatives that are Free.
First of all, this is bad. Microsoft are not adopting the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" ideal. Apache dominates web servers. No doubt about it. To defeat this, Microsoft are going to do what they do best: embrace, extend, erradicate.
Based on Microsoft's history, any components they write for Apache will be closed source. If it is not entirely closed, the crutial parts will be. Microsoft are not interested in opening up their IP. Consider this as one of the many possible scenarios:
Following initial proof of concept, first stage deployments and so forth, Microsoft will begin the trouble. It will strangely cease to work. Apache will be to blame and sites will like have to apply patches from Microsoft or just deal with them. At the same time, IIS will lack these problems. They will work to create inroads into the *nix space with Win.NET and IIS.
Keep Microsoft out of open source. They have no business being here. Instead, Apache people should look at either of the two
Why bother.
As a web appliation developer, I really hope they get .net working for apache. I think asp.net is pretty neat stuff, except for that one minor problem you have to run IIS to use it. Otherwise, I'll stick to php, thanks.
Merlin
Funny, those links don't seem to have much to do with Java scalability, they just shows how SQL Server scales much worse than any of the DBMSs mentioned.
.NET that Microsofts own technology might do better?
Of course, this was at least partly due to the crappy Microsoft JDBC driver (which they couldn't even get to stay up for 8 hours).
Why am I not surprised that in a test of the Microsoft JDBC driver vs
These studies just point out that you're better off going with a non-Microsoft solution.
-- Alastair
We claim to have a bevy of eyes, why don't we engage the brains powering those eyes to come up with a better standard instead of just taking "advantage" of the future the 800lb. gorilla is predicting? Most consumers don't understand what .Net means in the first place. Steve Jobs took advantage of that with the iTools upgrade to .Mac announcement during the keynote. He likened the $100 a year service (a great deal for your mother or the girlfriend you have in Canada -- not you) to Microsoft's .Net. Do you think anyone outside of hardcore computer users understood the joke in Job's keynote? Yet, "journalists" dumped Job's B.S. in pages and pages of newsprint.
Like they say, 'The iron is hot'. If the "Open Source Community" really wants to make a name for itself, killing .Net with a better system now is key. You have a general public that only thinks .Net will screw them when an idiot at a winery accidently breaks racks and racks of the current vintage. Silly PDA users...
Alliances aren't always a good thing. When a stronger enemy is fighting many small opponents, if the strong guy can get a few of the small guys to take a break for a bit, that's really just a win for the bigger guy.
Its like KDE and GNOME all over again.
Microsoft using Apache instead of IIS. Now that's an interesting thought. Microsoft would have no issues with using Apache because it's license would allow them to lock up their changes without a problem. They write a module to let it use .net and *whamo* they look like open source advocates. As long as it's the right kind of open source.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
As a native american descendent I am shocked and horrified by the name you have chosen for your web server. The Apache were a strong and noble people forced from their homeland after being the target of genocide. Do you think this is funny? Do you think this is tasteful? Your lack of respect ( I mean all of you taking part in this discussion, so don't tell me to complain to the project ) is an insult. I suppose you thought that none of had net access so we would never know. What's next, the Gypsy web server? I think you should rename it the "Pale-skinned, dog-faced, land-stealing white devil" web server.
Bill Gave them the ring of .net and they put it on their finger...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It also plainly states, and you f'ing know it, that SQL Server was blown away by every other database tested. And not by a little, either:
[eweek]
just froze over...
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
Don't you feel like an ignorant fool.
Now it becomes evident why Microsoft hates the GPL. They hate it because it is not "embrace and extend"(TM) compatible. The BSD license however poses no "viral" problems for them.
Call me a heretic, but I think .net is a good thing. Not .net as made by Microsoft, but .net as an open standard - for example Mono. The concept of making Web services as easy to run and use as regular applications.
.net is simply recognizing the reality that the Internet is a dynamic medium, and it requires a new way of designing programs; a way that makes using the Web identical to using your computer locally. All of the examples I just gave can be done now with existing programming tools on any platform, but .net makes it much easier and more straightforward. It's nothing particularly difficult, and open source will be quick to replicate it.
.net for Apache support, Mono will be ready to take its place.
I don't want to have everything run on a server and use a dumb terminal. No sense making it even easier for Ashcroft to read my stuff than it already is. But Web services, by nature, are things that already use the Internet - things that might as well be hanging on a building in Times Square, for all Ashcroft cares.
To check stocks, I have to go to cnbc.com. It's an ugly interface. Why can't I double-click on a program that uses native widgets and displays that same information? To read and reply to Slashdot, I have to slashdot.org. It's uglier than a female dwarf (or KDE). Why can't I have Slashdot in a Win32-native interface? Think NNTP, but better-looking and more powerful.
To write a document, I open up AbiWord. If I'm writing a story about the stock market, why can't I just open up my stock market program, drag a box into my document, and have live numbers for the Dow? If I'm writing a story about AMD, why can't I just open up my Slashdot program, drag a box into my document, and have a link to the story inserted into my document; and why can't the person on the other end open the document, double-click my link, and have the Slashdot story opened in place - without needing a web browser?
As Miguel de Icaza said, you shouldn't just not use Mono because it's a copy of a MS product - after all, Linux itself is a copy of non-free UNIX from AT&T. If/when the time comes that Microsoft decides to cut off
There aren't enough -1 posts on this thread.
I like black frankenstein.
You way off here.
.NET that Microsofts own technology might do better?
.NET, it could perform better under a heavier load then any other database. It does show that some solutions are better then others, in this case a all-MS solution is better in then anything else they tested. To be fair tough, lets see the performace of this app under .NET w/ a MySQL, Oracle, or Sybase DB backend.
Funny, those links don't seem to have much to do with Java scalability, they just shows how SQL Server scales much worse than any of the DBMSs mentioned.
Of course, this was at least partly do to the crappy Microsoft JDBC driver (which they couldn't even get to stay up for 8 hours).
This was due entirly to a BETA driver. SQL Server could Scale just fine with a proper driver. BTW the uptime was for the web server, not SQL Server.
Why am I not surprised that in a test of the Microsoft JDBC driver vs
Maybe this has something to due with the BETA JDBC driver? Of course using all MS tech would perform better, but drivers due mature and I would assume the JDBC driver available now is better then the one used in this study (done 6 months ago).
These studies just point out that you're better off going with a non-Microsoft solution.
How so? When the same App was ported to
(of course this opens you up to the vulnerabilities of going with a all-MS Solution).
I'll knock MS when there is a reason, but I won knock them around for knocking them arounds sake.
Ever since I've started playing with the .NET CLR and development tools, I've realized how easy it would be to integrate Microsoft's .NET technology into Apache 2.x for Windows.
.NET and Java server-side technologies.
In my opinion, Microsoft has stolen so much from Java, that it seemed obvious to me that the CLR was the equivalent of Java's JVM, and could be tied into Apache just the same way Java has on the server side. I would like to throw out an interesting idea, and maybe I'll get shot down for it, but it seems to me that it should be very easy to install an Apache web server that could support both
To take that idea even further, wouldn't it be interesting if we could share state information and session variables via a standard interface so that both environments could work together in a single web application! Of course, we could roll our own session variable mechanisms using a common database or something, but wouldn't it be pretty if the handling of session data were abstracted and standardized across platforms?
BTW, I'm just serious geek who's always looking for a cool way to tie stuff together, even if it is from Microsoft. I code all kinds of things using both Java and Microsoft technologies.
Whatever fits....
Just brainstorming here... What do you guys think???
The "web service" model that Microsoft and IBM has pushed has nothing to do with .NET (though, from a technical perspective, it may very well be implemented in .NET on the server side, it could equally be implemented in PHP, Java, etc), but rather standards such as SOAP and friends.
.NET is the old "lure 'em in" technique: Lots of otherwise anti-MS open sourcers will run out and install .NET on their Apache servers (thereby legitimizing Microsoft while cutting the foundations out of their own arguments) and may very well develop projects based on it for clients and employers. Soon enough they'll have deployed ".NET" solutions that would run even better if you use SQL Server rather than Oracle (because of course with SQL Server you can use the super high performance, SQL Server only ADO.NET objects), and of course it'll run best on its native platform: Windows .NET Server.
The only real advantage I can see to Microsoft supporting
Jeez, man. Anybody who's posting to this already knows all this. In detail. Better than you do. Get a grip.
Microsoft agrees to this, and in exchange Slashdot has to post a "Linux is dead" article every week along with the visual studio ads? Suddenly it all makes sense!
Everything will be taken away from you.
Apple's Watson (snigger) is the greatest piece of software since Napster. It's that impressive, and it's all about queries and xml feeds. Do some searching on it - it's bloody great, and consumers love it.
Web services is a buzzword, but it's a more formalised version of any interactive website.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
Microsoft released frontpage for Apache.
The PR machine might pretend that there is no other software in the world but there is some pragmatism in there.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
And not to mention the post has been posted before by the same author on NetBSD
i d= 3934099
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=36541&c
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Covalent developers have contributed tremendously to apache, but let's make one thing clear. Covalent working with apache != apache.org working with microsoft. There's nothing wrong with apache.org working with micrsoft as long as MS agrees to apache's license agreements.
When the same App was ported to .NET, it could perform better under a heavier load then any other database.
Well, I would say that porting applications to a different code base for benchmarking is an exercise in futility. The fact of the matter is that both architectures are amenable to considerable optimization that would not be done in this sort of study, and the 700 - 900 range in page load performance does not represent a difference that any experienced person would consider meaningful.
Who besides M$ actually wants .net? Has anyone ever said "hey, I really want what .net is going to provide me?". Hell, how many people ubnderstand what .net is going to provide - somedays I'm not sure I understand.
.net will have on non-windows users...
I'm just getting tired of this 8 gazillion pound gorilla making all the decisions - most of which are not in my best interest (or rather, their customers - since I'm not a customer of theirs).
It does make me wonder what impact
Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
Many of the apache foundation's projects use Java:
1) Tomcat
2) Ant
3) Xindice
4) Xalan
5) Xerces
6) Cactus
Microsoft is trying to destroy Java.
What are they thinking? You don't do a business deal with a company that's trying to destroy your supplier.
This space left intentionally blank.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Often on slashdot it is said that we should stop bashing Micro$oft for everthing they do.
The parent post has a point . . . that although a new module for apache is a very small step into the open source arena at least M$ is heading in the right direction.
And hopefully this litte Open Source project succeeds for both MS and the OSS community so that we see more stuff like this in the future
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Userfriendly link, especially what Miranda says at the end :)
/me waits for the idiots that will say: 'I'll never use apache again'.
Hell, with geek imagination, this could go for a week.
Can't we just wait until whatever is announced and then have a constructive discussion and 'On Topic' flame wars?
Real Networks today.....MS tommorrow......this can only mean that "end times" are upon us......
How is that a joint press conference? My guess is the Covalent folks have an Apache application server targeted to the .NET runtime, that integrates well with .NET and web services. Just like Apache Tomcat, etc., does for Java. Probably open-source.
Should I be scared, or concerned? I don't see why. It'll be another interesting technology to play with.
Does this seem a little hypocritical to anyone else?
.NET came out, the Slashdot crowd was up in arms, fighting it, taking every chance they could to accost it and its upshots. "Another example of Microsoft's monopoly" and "bloated buggy software" and so on and so forth.
.NET article (when it first came out) and tell me what you see.
When
But now that its being ported to Apache, the Slashdot crowd is roaring with a loud cheer. Look at the responses on this article, then go back and look at an old
I see a very hypocritical crowd. Nothing is good until it is ported to a non-Microsoft (or non-mainstream OS) and then it should be welcomed with open arms.
Anyone else see this or am I just crazy?
Darn, I can't believe Apache sold out.
... and MS knows it. Why would any company want to tie its flag initiative to a ship that has a history of being torpedoed by security holes and flaws? Apache has none of this bad history, and many companies are turning to it as a better webserver solution. Well so is MS.
Where have you been? Everything is shifting towards webservices. No longer do you have to worry about which of the forty versions of libc your Linux distro is using, no more worrying about having proper vb runtimes installed. If you've got a valid browser, it works for you.
.NET is going to quickly change a lot of the way things are done. Anyone who's read even the basics can see that .NET is definately going to be a powerhouse.
I think
scott
But yes, in fact, many people are gung ho about developing for
Ah, yess, Win32 programmers. I'm sure lots of them are hanging around OSCON.
It's only been one day, and I've spent all my time in perl tutorials, but I've yet to talk to a Win32 developer at OSCON. Lot's of Linux/Unix and even one Mac developer, but not yet a Win32 developer.
I'm just really skeptical that
I'm really skeptical that the majority of Win32-only developers care anything about Open Source beyond the "Stay away! It will infect your code! The GPL is a virus!"
As much as I detest all things Microsoft, .Net is going to be big. Not that it is a particularly novel idea but Microsoft is investing enough money in the project that they will do whatever it takes to make it succeed.
.Net could be good for Linux just as Java is good for Linux. Anytime you have code that can be easily ported from Windows to Linux it's good.
If Apache doesn't want to be left behind they have got to develop the technology. The truth is that if Microsoft wasn't involved,
It will be interesting to watch the whole thing unfold. Not just with Apache but also with Mono and Linux in general. Will Microsoft once again prove itself to be THE evil Corporation?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
what _part_ of IE is "free", when I must pay the Empire for the only OS that it will run on, and that OS is permanantly bolted to IE?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Actually, the way I look at it, the Empire charges money for IE (because people now need it to view lots of websites), then gives you the "OS" on which to run it, mostly to make sure that no one ever runs any other OS.
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
Do consumers really want "Web Services"?
Any technology whose utility can't be readily digested by the masses will fail. If you have to explain to a significant non-zero portion of tech-savvy slashdot users the value of a technology, what are the odds Aunt Bea will adopt it?
Or are you suggesting that the consumer will reap the benefits without even realizing it? Just like they reap the benefits of all those Word features they never use?
It's Ginger.NET!!
...when you realize that Microsoft doesn't care so much anymore about being a big software company, and instead wants to be one of the biggest information and financial vortals on the planet...
.NET on everything, and, w00t!, they've got no reason for people to not develop .NET software for every OS. Sure, they'll leverage their desktop monopoly, but it doesn't hurt to gain momentum on every platform you can, especially since 70% of the world's websites are on Apache servers.
Think this way... they get
So, in a few years, Microsoft have the infrastructure and the clientele (every Microsoft OS user, maybe other platforms, depending on application availability) to millions, perhaps billions of financial transactions every day.
All thanks, in part, to Open Source!
Right. .NOT will be as "free" as IE is.
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
If it's just an add on, who really cares?
With Microsoft apparently cooperating with apache for .NET support, I wonder how long it will be before the ''killer'' application for the xBox will become microsoft approved.
xBox doesn't need linux, it needs apache, and great strides have been made in this area.
Get 20 (microsoft subsidied, below cost) xBoxes, a load balancer and a couple replicated MySQL servers, and you have an instant server farm. Put all the webpage content on a disc you stick in the drive of each of the xBoxes, and store all dynamic/changeable content on the MySQL servers.
Volla! You've just created a server farm that can take significantly more load than any of the other solutions you could put together for 4 times the price. It has the added bonus of being fully redundant (just replace the xBox in event of hardware failure), and scaleable (add more DB servers and xBoxen).
(Of course, don't bother ranting about MySQL being unsuitable/only really a spreadsheet with SQL/crappy/non-standard/slow - we're takling about low write load web applications)
Stephen
A little overkill never hurt anybody.
The general concensus, along with your statement, is that IIS is expendable to achieve .NET saturation. The question is, is .NET Server equally sacrificial?
.NET2 killer? Not much, however, Microsoft will have to be careful about the structural arrangement into Apache, or GPL claims could reach into .NET and hamper a .NET2 shutout.
/. for it, but no, gotta go to Pittsburgh. Pah!
MacOS is one OS I doubt a bit, but considering Microsoft's Mac-friendly stance, I'm not completely discounting it.
Solaris and other UNIXes are also a good choice, since they have little market share and thus have little impact.
Now, it's down to Windows and Linux.
The Windows port would be a direct sacrifice of IIS. Why bother supporting it under Windows when Windows already has IIS, which has close OS ties? Sure, this port would be quickest and easiest, but still, the sacrifice is more than IIS, which is already free; it's also credibility.
Linux isn't as much of a stretch as one might think. It's Apache's primary platform, and even though MS has never really acknowledged it by WORKING with it, this is a decent way to slide in.
What is stopping a
One thing is certain: This is going to be a very interesting announcement. Now, if only I could actually watch
I'm sorry, but you seem to have lost touch with reality for a minute.
"ownership-stripping" implies that GPL takes code away from someone that it belongs to. No, quite the contrary, it is a voluntary choice....if you use the GPL to develop a product, then you don't want the traditional ownership rights and are freely giving them up. It would be ludicrous to say something freely given has been "stripped" away from you.
Similarly, if you use a product developed under the GPL and want to extend it, the author of the original product demands that you give him/her the same courtesy they gave you...the right to see the code and make modifications.
PHP and Perl are far more widespread than JSP or J2EE for dynamically created content. Languages like Java or C# are simply too cumbersome and general-purpose for most site developers. So, altogether, I don't believe this is a tremendously important event for most people.
Stock market. This and weather doohickies seem to be the recipe programs of .net - that's about
all anyone can really think of to do with the
technology. Why would I want to have content
included from another site, that could argue
against my points? With dynamic content like
this, my discussion of the grim outlook of the stock market becomes confusing when the market turns bull.
Inclusion of content from other sites. Failure mode when site in question has been hacked? Is unreachable? My machine is experiencing networking problems? Remote server throwing internal server errors? Admin moves the page? Changes the content?
Read/Reply to Slashdot. I'm seriously trying to figure out why this is such a killer feature. Homogenize the web? Is that it? There should be one set of interfaces for using the web? If so, we had that in Mosaic .9, and the market voted for chrome over content.
On one level, I can understand the point you're making - but none of the arguments you present seem a particularly compelling reason to use the technology. Perhaps it's just the examples here. Unfortunately, I think you presented the most lucid examples I've seen of why one might want to use .net - and it still sounds boring as hell.
Way before .NET there were websites offering up data in some documented format, intended for it to be parsed and used by custom clients. .NET did not invent web services, nor is it really a revolution in web services (I implemented projects using "web services" as a control and monitoring infrastructure for power generation projects years ago). At best you could say that .NET makes it a little bit easier to put together the starting blocks for a web service (though, like always, the zero-to-demo time has very little to do with the timelines of an actual project, hence why most VB projects fail miserably regardless of the quick initial wizard "productivity").
.NET Yahoo could serve up stock quotes in CSV format from their website via a particular get string).
This is a very important point because it seems like a lot of people are willing to hand Microsoft some sort of invention credits for web services, when the reality is that where appropriate web services are a no brainer extension of the basic paradigm of the net (hell, POP3 could be considered a "web service": I don't have to use Outlook Web Access! Again, long before
Web services aren't just about sharing data over the internet. They are about getting your ancient proprietary ERP system to talk to your companies newly purchased financial system BEHIND THE FIREWALL. They are about creating a Time keeping system that your sales people and on-site consultants can use offline and sychronize back online.
Basically, they are about integrating systems.
"For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman
The story said nothing about Microsoft being involved. It said "Microsoft's Technology, .NET". I seriously (and I realize several posts here weren't) doubt M$ is anywhere near this thing.
Lump lingered last in line for brains, and the ones she got were sorta rotten and insane.
Besides, I think a lot of people has mixed the concept of Web Services(WS) with .NET. WS is a interoperability framework, while .NET aims to cover all aspect of computing, while remains to use a single protocol for communication.
.NET is attempting to 'dominate the world'. However, this is pretty much the only way of doing things if MS wanted to do what they planned.
.NET, you must have .NET on both end.
.NET's stability doesn't count), .NET wins. For the openness, WS win, as it doesn't need to be bounded on a single vendor solution(again, theorotically).
People jokingly said, in this regard,
It might be too complicated and confusing to explain without an example: suppose we'd like to implement Remote Procedure Call over the Web, with WS both ends must have SOAP-rpc defined and implemented so as to call each other, but they don't need to implement WS from the same vendor(theorotically). With
To be honest, in term of robustness of both models(if
(I know rpc is a bad example as CORBRA seems to beat them hand down and it's a proven technology...well, the other story)
might be more popular OUTSIDE THE FIREWALL but a lot of ERP systems and databases (Oracle comes to mind) are based on JSP and EJB.
"For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman
How much do you want to bet Microsoft keeps .NET for apache around for a while, until people start relying on it. Then, when everyone is nice and settled using .NET, they stop supporting it. Guess what? If you want to have .NET now you'll need to switch to IIS. Muhahahaha.
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
Hello Fellow Geeks
I am running Apache on a 486SX with math co processor and the performance has degraded with recent releases. I am concerned that the programmers are starting to forget proper coding to make it work well with the old machines. This is a disturbing trend considering most Linux hackers run stuff that is in the garage. If Apache gets any worse, I'll have to multi boot on my Athlon and that will mess up my Win XP. I'm posting this from Mozilla on the 486, and that's even worthy of more praise than the Apache. In adding innovation they didn't forget about the 486.
REGARDLESS, GO LINUX!!!!! WORLD DOMINATION!!!!!!! MICROSOFT == EVIL!!!~! UNIX IS FOR GEARHEADS, LINUX IS FOR DRIVER!!!!!
Web Services aren't about Aunt Bea, you yambag. Web Services are about infrastructure. Aunt Bea doesn't give a rats ass about what it's running on or how it's implemented. She just wants to see her cookie recipes show up on her networked microwave. THAT'S Web Services...someday.
If you happen to want a full-fledged high-quality IDE and an amazing documentation browser along with it, you'll need to dish out a few dollars for Visual Studio.NET
Pfft. Personally I hate Microsoft's doc browser. Sure it has a LOT of information spanning googles of CDs and MSDN web content. Plus they have a bucket load of tutorials, examples, etc.
But it is not an amazing documentation browser. *NIX OSs already have the perfect doc browser: man pages. You can swiftly search to grab full reference info on some function. All without lifting your hand off the keyboard. I love the standard of man pages too; they give the FULL specs on almost every command, function, file format, , etc. Yes I do agree that man pages are not wonderful for learning new stuff though.
Going back to why I hate Microsoft's method: its just too damn slow to look-up reference information. You need to click click click click, type your search, then click click click click click click. Up pops a window, where then you need to click click click to pick the relevant topic. It's really bad for looking-up reference information, as it takes too much time to find specific info on some function/command/etc. When you finally find the reference info you need, I find it is not as complete as a typical full-fledged man page. Meaning, you need to read a couple of knowledge base articles too. So I wouldn't call it an amazing doc browser, but rather an amazing repository of information.
Still, nothing can beat the beauty of man pages: elegant, simple, and fast. Don't believe me? Run "man X" to see what I mean.
Judging by the number and type of talkbacks this pro Apache.NET hype is well coordinated.
I'm getting tired of the same worn out "Oh no, this must be some plot by Micro$oft to take over the world" Maybe they are actually trying to make .NET viable by supporting it on the world's most popular web server? Maybe we should allow Microsoft to make a good business decision, huh? This isn't the same thing as driving Netscape out of the browser market.
I swear, Slashdot has more conspiracy theories than my cable access channel.
Aunt Bea just isn't going to care, because it doesn't solve any of her problems. Solutions without real-world problems rarely find traction.
Web Services aren't about infrastructure any more than HTML is. There was a good reason to come up with the TABLE tag. There isn't a good reason for Web Services.
What's a yambag?
I think this is one of the major reasons that Apache still maintains such popularity. Not only does it work well (as in fast/stable/cross platform) but it works well with whatever technology you want to use.
Browser Not Supported
Microsoft®
passport.com
Member Services Terms of Use Privacy Statement
Some elements © 1999 - 2002 Microsoft® Corporation. All rights reserved.
It's not the embracing that hurts.
It's the extending...
I wish Slashdot had a Rejected Stories feed. If a story announcing a press release that is a preannoucement of another press release is worth reporting on, isn't my story on the George Bush's plan to recruit 1 in 24 Americans as citizen spies newsworthy? That's more informants than the East German Stasi had at their peak.
This announcement has nothing to do with the Apache Software Foundation.
Anyone can create any module for Apache that they wish. Microsoft has created Apache modules in the past; they contract with RTR to create a frontpage module. So partnering with some other company to do something similar is no big deal.
This is strictly a deal between Covalent and Microsoft. And, truth be told, it doesn't seem like a very interesting deal to me... but we will have to see the details. Again, this has nothing to do with the Apache Software Foundation.
We all know microsoft's motto, don't even go approaching .NET at all unless you plan on using only microsoft products.
Do consumers really want "Web Services"?
No, probably not, because they have no idea what they are. But imagine this (some ideas I've been kicking around in my head at work):
Those are just two ideas off the top of my head (obviously, I work at a financial institution:)... but these are what real web services are. It's not the consumer space where web services will shine... but in the B2B space.
Best I can figure out, the idea behind .NET/SOAP/XML is to be able to do every single bit of inter-application or client/server computing across the net via a web server on port 80.
I dunno...I still fail to see a use for it all that either hasn't been taken care of alread or is useful outside of examples of what it is.
Guess I'm just too stupid and stuck in my int main() ways!
Mikeysoft can't kill Java.
.net? Nobody freaking knows.... It's just this think that Mickeysoft is tryingto sell us on. It's going to save the world and make my life easier or something like that.
.net for a couple of years. Why? It's an immature technology, and like I said, nobody knows what it does. Mickeysoft employees that visit can't even tell us what it does.
Java is too well entrenched. The developers love it. It's a great language with a great feature set.
What's
I work for a BIG Wall Street company, and we're not going to even look at
I am always offered Metamod, so I can only keep asking when I see something I believe is insightfull.
.mono module for Apache 2.0. What if 60% of the web used .mono? :) It could be amazing (though I doubt that can happen).
I'd like to see a default
unfinished: (adj.)
Yes, I agree .net is not evil. It's just entirely useless. If someone want to use .net, why not just use java? java has more support, and more complete developenment resource.
.net supports other languages, in fact, they lie, because:
1.There are more implementations for other languages in java platform.
2.Thhose languages can't (almost impossible) be well-integrated with java or .net. Some features such multi-inheritance, dynamical-typing is not the nature in both java and .net, implementing them costs performance and others. (ex: jpython, and a python prototype in .net, which is too slow to actually work) What's .net provides is only a bitter better, see http://www.javalobby.org/members/jpr/clr.pdf
Although M$ says
I doubt .NET on Apache will be used by comercial, high traffic sites. But it could be a nice stable dev platform. This will be like FrontPage extensions on Apache. Did that change the balance of power?
PS - I hate microsoft
Cheer up folks... DotGNU, the GNU project's complete replacement for MS.NET, is the answer.
DotGNU's Portable.NET provides support for C# development and a CLR to run the IL bytecodes with. The compiler is written in C, meaning that its performance is far better than the Mono and MS.NET compilers. Also, it can bootstrap off of gcc (side-stepping many legal issues with MS that Mono will probably have to deal with).
The DotGNU SEE provides the framework for data marshalling and security of downloaded components. The plugin architecture of the SEE provides the ability to run a JVM (or Perl's Parrot vm, for that matter) as easily as the pnet CLR; plugins should also be able to provide data marshalling between the runtimes as well as between runtimes and native code. The DotGNU DEE (a distributed collection of SEEs) provides the server side support.
The DotGNU Virtual Identities system provides a passport/hailstorm replacement that is secure, decentralized, and even allows the individual to serve up their own info. instead of relying on a third party.
The DotGNU project is also a GNU/FSF project; most of the code is owned by the Free Software Foundation, and is therefore permanently GPL protected.
DotGNU is also aiming for full ECMA compliance, while still providing an ever-growing collection of GNU extensions which are available via the non-standard DotGNU namespace.
Within a year, DotGNU will be a superior and fully working replacement for MS.NET, and if the folks at Apache have any sense, they'll leave the darkside and join us back in the light.
((*) Anyone who has seen the Microsoft double-page ad in the last few issues of InfoWorld will understand why I'm using this word.)
Oh well, since I can't mod it back up, I'll quote it here for the benefit of anyone reading at >=1 and wondering what all the comments are to:
[quote] [/quote]
As it turns out, you can download some (EULA-limited) compiler from Microsoft. Doesn't matter, my main point was about the JCP (Java Community Process).
-- Alastair
Moving
Check out Cassini Web Server for more info.
Another one got modded down today, it's all over the discussion. "-1, Flamebait", "-1, Offtopic"...
Damn trolls. They're all alike.
But did you, in your karma-whore psychology and JonKatz technobrain, ever take a look behind the eyes of the troll? Did you ever wonder what made him tick, what forces shaped him,what may have molded him?
I am a troll, enter my world...
Mine is a world that begins with slashdot. I'm smarter than most of the other posters, this crap they post us bores me...
Damn underachiever. They're all alike.
I'm in my LUG. I've listened to presenters explain for the fifteenth time how to mount a floppy. I understand it. "No, Mr. Stallman, I didn't show my code. I did it in my head."
Damn kid. Probably violated the GPL. They're all alike.
I made a discovery today. I found a computer.
Wait a second, this is cool. It posts what I want it to. If it gets modded down, it's because I screwed it up.
Not because it doesn't like me...
Or feels threatened by me...
Or thinks I'm a smart ass...
Or doesn't like posting and shouldn't be here...
Damn kid. All he does is post crap. They're all alike.
And then it happened. A door opened to a world rushing through my phone line like heroin through an addict's veins, an electronic pulse is sent out, a first post is sought... a board is found.
"This is it... this is where I belong." I know everyone here... even if I've never met them, never talked to them, may never hear from them again... I know you all.
Damn kid. Wasting the moderators' again. They're all alike.
You bet your ass we're all alike... we've been spoon-fed reposts when we hungered for news... the stories we submitted were rejected as if they were pre-chewed and tasteless. We've been dominated by editors, or ignored by the posters. The few that had something to say found us willing readers, but those few are like drops of water in the desert.
This is our world now... the world of the crapflood and the flame, the terror of the post. We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be l33t if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us trolls.
We explore... and you call us offtopic. We seek after knowledge... and you call us flamebait.
We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us trolls. You DDoS websites by slashdotting, you bash MS, you censor, spam, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the trolls.
Yes, I am a troll. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outposting you, something that you will never forgive me for.
I am a troll, and this is my crapflood. You may mod down this individual, but you can't mod us all...
After all, we're all alike.
Anyone who's read even the basics can see that .NET is definately going to be a powerhouse.
.NET will ever actually catch up with J2EE. It might on those platforms where Microsoft's monopoly can be leveraged. Or not. As you point out, any valid browser will work, whether those webservices are delivered by Java (on the server) or by .NET.
Well, sure, it's following in J2EE's footsteps, which is already pretty widespread. Of course, it remains to be seen whether
-- Alastair
this is a Covalent thing not a apache thing.
you will have to pay $$$ for this
Now if we could only get MS to put out Office XP for Linux!
Who cares whether consumers want "Web Services"? The point is that corporations want web services to improve their collaborative abilities, cut costs, and deliver better products to their consumers.
So, while consumers may not have any idea what the suppliers are doing, the suppliers are using web services to make things better.
Note: this is a general comment on web services, not necessarily the Microsoft(R) brand of services.
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I dunno about that, but I swear I'll never drink another glass of water ever again.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I do not mean to troll you (look at my posting history), but I want to ask: What services do you mean? I don't ask for application specifics, company names, etc, I just hear a lot about web "services" and see very little except planning and idle banter. What would require .NET as long as you have server-side applications which meet the protocols in question? Isn't the point of SOAP that any client can get "services" from a server/app so-equipped? I think I'm missing something.
Would you mind sharing a bit? TIA...
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
Microsoft *NEEDS* Apache to support .NET if it is to survive. Apache SHOULD NOT SUPPORT IT. .NET could be stopped early if it doesn't get the support that MS needs.
>>Microsoft still has a long way to go to reach full n-tier architecture with a full fledged persistence engine and generalized stateful session framework.>>
I'm getting the hell out of here before I start to understand that sentence. Holy shit.
I hope you all who are in a management position realize that .NET is ONLY good choice when it's open source. We have NO reason to believe that M$ is doing this out of goodness of their heart.
Have you ever played Go, the ultimate strategy game? If you have you can probably see the similarities.
Does the devil turn good when it's threatened?
Wow.
.Net?
.Net is unproven, unused, and extremely expensive to develop for after you make every single one of my developers run a License for this Microsoft product, and that Microsoft product? All this while my competitiors build the same app with Java and Linux put me out of business because thier business logic can move from thier AS/400, BSD Box, Apple Macintosh or Linux DESKTOP throughout the entire enterprise with ZARRO the cost of additional licenses?
.Net with .Not Apache.
.No thanks.
Why would I want to run my infrastructure with a modified version of Apache with
Esepcially when I can build any web app with Linux, J2EE or Tomcat 4.x with zarro the nasty side effects of:
Tying my application to the PC platform and Microsoft's XP, both a combination made in hell to manage or even install.
Why would I do such a silly thing and restrict myself in any of these ways in this kind of business climate, which quite frankly sucks?
With a Mozilla client, a Linux, BSD, or Apple or AS/400, and a decent backend database and a Java VM I have all the tools I need to write my business logic for the 21st century.
Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
ISAPI is .dll hosted by IIS, as Apache hosts mod_something. Apache for Windows can host ISAPI already. So goes with .NET.
Xboxes have 8Gb of hard drive space. I don't think they're particularly well suited for webserving (where do you get the hardware support etc...?) but I suppose it could be done, once Linux is ported to it.
ill never use apache again!
seriously why cant m$ just stick with iis?
tards
Joel explains how Microsoft has crushed Lotus in here
Slashdot = Sarcasm
who can't tell the differnce between a serverside browser check and .NET.
Well, this sounds amazing...
But have't this been around for ages. And that without webservices?
otherwise i do not understand why there would be a standard like this, for example look up INVOIC..
What if this experiment means that Microsoft is considering abandoning the IIS core? If Apache 2.0 is free and extensible, it makes no sense for them to make a competing product if they can create Apache modules that they can sell. That way, they will cut development costs, and look good. Really good.
.NET to run on top of Apache.
Oh. They will also stop getting these embarassingly simple IIS exploits that result in worms. It's a winning proposition if they can get
After all, Microsoft appears to be starting to get the message. Did you see their new Linux page yet? It's not perfect nor correct, but it's better than what used to be. Now they are talking about facts, realizing they are not winning the idealogical debate.
I believe this is good news.
Stop the brainwash
I have a couple of comments: .NET simply for the technology of being able to use many languages for a single project. I doubt I'll ever use .NET personally though because all the technologies of web services are available through Java and I kind of have more trust that Java will remain compatible than .NET will.
.NET is about but be very careful about implementing it on your platform if longevity, cost and compatibility figure in your thinking.
I'm a web developer who has mainly done stuff in PHP/MySQL since that is what all the companies I was at used. Due to costs and job requirements I'm switching to the PC from the Mac and just bought my first ASP book. I also find myself interested in
What this boils down to:
1.Microsoft DOES make interesting technologies and denying this is a waste of time to me.
2.Microsoft is incredibly untrustworthy as companies go. They almost always try to shaft their partners and their customers in the name of the buck.
3.Learn what
Btw, how is that different from Microsoft's "ownership stripping" licenses? Microsoft's licenses, for example, strip me of the ownership of copyrighted materials that I paid for by restricting my ability to resell copies of Windows I don't want. And Microsoft's source and service licenses also often say that they own some of what I create.
Commercial software vendors and service providers have been stripping people of ownership for many decades. If it's acceptable for commercial software, it ought to be acceptable to keep free and open source software free and open. Or do you think only money-making ventures out to be allowed to strip others of ownership?
Well...I saw the joke anyway...and thought it was pretty funny...oh well!
I am NaN
What you said about needing .NET on both ends is absolutely untrue. Web services produced by .NET are perfectly capable of interoperating with any other platform that can be made to make SOAP calls.
Hi:
.NET is just a platform.
.NET, no matter what is...we can develop and build Open Source/Free Software applications for Java or for .NET.
Yes, this is a rigth step from Microsoft. Apache is the most widely used Web server and
I remember the article from Brian Behlendorf at "Open Sources Voices..." when he said "its all about plaforms" reference. Yes, this is the right point: Internet is a movement about plaforms and Microsoft knows it.
The best news we will the two enviroments Java or
That is the real challenge to us...Bring more and more good oss/fs apps for the Web services platform.
Best regards,
-bryam
That's also another working strategy - get mass market penetration with the computer illiterate, in this case IE (The Easy Choice®). Apache may be the server of choice amongst educated server operators, but if Msft can get an inch, they'll take a mile, if they can get a foot in the door, make a power grab, suddenly the closed proprietary bits of Apache don't work with the IE client and millions of zombie users suddenly start clammoring for IIS. Game over, Bill wins again.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
A troll evidently got you guys with a false story..
2 2/ 020722hnoreilly.xml
There is no Apache/Ms joint announcement at OSCON...
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/07/
Ah where are the editors? Falling down on the job?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Just a note: remember, Covalent is not the ASF and vice versa. Covalent happens to be a company that builds on top of Apache to ship their own software, just like any number of other companies. But they don't represent the ASF or any ASF projects, and the ASF can't control what Covalent does with Apache code (either the webserver or any of the other excellent software there) any more than we can control other companies. (Covalent happens to be big supporters of ASF projects internally, but that's different).
So it wasn't an 'Apache/Microsoft' release, it was a 'Covalent/Microsoft' release. While it may seem like a minor nit, it's a very important one.
- Anonymous ASF committer
Every few years Micrisoft tosses out yet ANOTHER technology that's going to be the next big thing and everyone has to use. So, how long is .NET going to survive before there's .NET+? Or .NET2005? Or .NETX?
Will Apache then keep up with that? Will Microsoft let them?
I remember COM, COM+, DCOM, and MTS. I still have to explain the difference to people.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
It will be interesting to see if MS can steal the crown jewels from Sun, a lot of people commenting on the topic are predicting a grim future for Sun's baby. We'll just have to wait and see.
scott
...developers could use Apache for the stuff that HAS to work and they could use IIS for the stuff that doesn't...
I want to be alone with the sandwich
Too bad it isn't that simple.. many webservices that are being deployed around our company only work with Browser X, one company even went so far as to say the only supported browser was Internet Explorer 5.5 SP1! That's hardly portable IMHO, and basically defeats the purpose of web applications. I'm guessing .NET isn't going to help browser portability at all, another application around work actually does browser checks and returns a "please download IE" page when you visit it (written in VS.NET). Unless you want to change your useragent string you can't even try to get the app working in your browser of choice.. *sigh*
You are obviously a fucking moron since you repeat this blatant Microsoft FUD.
1. Microsoft singled out part of the Open Source in their usual divide and conquer strategy.
2. Microsoft loves BSD because it loves to "borrow" BSD code and incorporate it into its proprietary products. This saves Microsoft quite a bit of money and, many would argue, gives them better quality code too.
3. I see that you have swalloed the "viral" propaganda. Perhaps you can explain to me how exactly GPL "infects" stuff? Maybe you mean the fact that GPL does not permit you to take the code you don't own and incorporate it into your proprietary product? But the same is true of Microsoft's code! You can't take their "shared source" and use it in your product either. With GPL, at least, you can use, modify, and distribute the code all you want as long as you distribute derivative works under GPL. With Microsoft, you have no such option. Why, Microsoft is the virus! I also want to know how exactly GPL "touches" stuff. Oh what you actually mean is that GPL "touches" the code when the company willingly decides to use GPL code in their proprietary product.
If microsoft has never done anything to help any apache or open source effort, why did they fly a few of the zend people into redmond for a week, having them perf tune php on iis ?
Uhhm, because it helps Microsoft, not Open Source. PHP is the most widely used server-side scripting language. It sure helps to have it run well on your web server.
Why is there a mod_frontpage for apache that microsoft publishes ?
Because it helps them to sell Frontpage and install viral software on Unix.
Oh yeah, you assume a lot of stuff about microsoft that is wrong, which makes you kind of an idiot.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Apparently, you don't...
"1) MS never said anything about OpenSource and cancer. It was GPL. GPL != OpenSource. Read the fucking articles and understand MS's point of view. MS is more than thrilled with BSD code and other non-ip-destroying licenses. They are not happy with GPL and they (correctly) point out that GPL infects everything it touches because it is viral in nature. This is not a debatable point, unless you just dont get GPL."
This is such bullshit I can't believe it... It's unfucking believable that ANYONE would think that. It's so fucking ridiculous that, were you physically here, I'd have to smack you upside the head!
Ok, again, it's like this. MS source code is proprietary, you don't get to see it, therefore you don't get to use it, you don't even have that option. You can buy _some_ of it and use it, if you can afford it. GPL code is open and free, you can use it, but if you do, anything you use it in you have to license under the same terms. You can buy _some_ of it, if you can afford it, probably much cheaper than MS code.
Sure, MS loves BSD code, because they can reap the rewards of everyone else's hard work without paying, or even so much as a Goddam "thank you". If you like giving BillG your anal cavity, be my guest.
Personally, I'll stick to the GPL, and if someone wants to use my code and not contribute back, they can damn well pay for it.
There's also the LGPL, which is what most GNU/Linux libraries are licensed under, to allow comercial developers to develop proprietary software for GNU/Linux systems.
I'm sorry, but this bullshit about "infectious" code has got to stop, it has absolutely no merit whatsoever, it is intentional mis-information from MS, meant to mislead people.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Stock market. This and weather doohickies seem to be the recipe programs of .net - that's about all anyone can really think of to do with the technology.
.Net as a whole, of which web services is just the most glorified, over-hyped subset) are invisible to end-users, or not even accessible to end-users. They target enterprise- and small business- level interactions. They're dealing with things that have been mostly hacked-together implementations from the very day that two companies wanted to share information that they kept on their computers. Whether it's sharing information in customer databases or checking inventory levels in the warehouses of your suppliers.
.Net, and probably still isn't today), or things like MS' online store, which has in the past (not sure if it still does) simply looked up the prices for your order from a number of affiliates, so you can choose which one will give you the best prices / shipping prices / shipping times.
The real problem is that a great majority of the uses for web services (as opposed to
The most obvious thing for an end-user ends up being fairly stale. Yes, one of the examples in MS' Office XP Web Services Toolkit is a spreadsheet that interacts with a web service to pull 20-min. delayed stock quotes based on the stock tickers you've supplied in the spreadsheet. The kinds of things that are really useful with web services are things that have historically been implemented in proprietary manners, such as checking inventories at local stores in a retail chain from the chain's web site (ie Best Buy's order online/pickup locally option, which probably wasn't originally implemented in
The simple fact is that the real must-have application for web services for end-users won't come along until a large number of developers are really comfortable with web services, and then it's not likely that it'll come from some large corporation. It'll just be something like Napster that comes out of nowhere from some college student finding new ways to use old ideas.
Apache should be avoiding .NET like the plague! So many have put it so well, eventually, the scorpion is going to bite!
>
It's obvious that 95% of you slashdotters haven't ever used .net. Currently .net executables will run under the apache webserver. so long as it's on a windows box and the .net framework are installed on the machine. they do not run on linux and won't until the mono project(linux version of the framework) is complete and I don't think that's anytime really soon. and don't forget .net for OpenBSD in ROTOR is in the works too.
Apache is free, of course, to implement any technology they feel prudent. I, however, will not make use of this code.
.NET is that it is a nice replacement for the dismal Win32 API and MFC. Also, with .NET Microsoft has introduced C#, which is a great replacement for the country music of programming languages, VB. These are all good things.
.NET is ASP.NET and the whole web development side of it. Sure, VS.NET makes gluming C#, ASP and JavaScript together into one fetid lump of crap easy, but that only benefits programmers who rely on pointy and clicky interfaces to do anything.
.NET is great for Windows desktop application programming, but for web development, there are much better and much cleaner technologies available. I'll use Apache's support for those instead.
My opinion of
What I hate about
Why the hell would anyone want to write web components in C# (unless they sold them at inflated prices to point and click ASP.NET developers), drag and drop them into an ASP.NET project and then have that and IIS generate an HTML page full of JavaScript for them? I can write my own JavaScript without having to jump through all the hoops; and do.
I think
Can someone please point me to more info? .NET on Linux(not Mono, you Monons).
As where it says
Remember that Apache also runs on Windows?
Could this just be ".NET for Apache on Windows?"
Thoughts on why this hasn't been pursued...or has it?
I apologize in advance for my utter lack of knowledge. ;-)
Maybe I am spoiled, but I get shivers when GPL projects save announcements for press conferences. I would prefer to see it pasted on the front page of the site's news section on the day the deal was made. That whole process just smells so corporate. What next? No patches released until funding allows us to buy air time to make the announcement. Sheesh
Comment removed based on user account deletion
All you need is a subtle performance advantage with the preferred platform, and just a general instance of "Quirks" on the non-preferred platform
Or, in the Win32 API's case, vice versa. WINE started out by implementing the winapi as it was specified in MSDN documentation, but not many apps worked. When the developers changed WINE to emulate the bugs in Windows, on the other hand, compatibility improved. Go figure.
Will I retire or break 10K?
That's all I wanted to say.
Did you ever heard WASP? It is a fantastic Java based web services implementation. www.systinet.com They are also preparing WASP.NET Or check out Glue for Java. It is also very nice. Better go to www.javaskyline.org and checkout existing ways to deal with web services on Java. You might be surprised to see 50 bullets.
Dear Bill, do you have a
.NET is in fact one of the implementation of WS. In case you didn't realize, regardless of what Microsoft claims, SOAP-RPC of WS in .NET is unfinished. You'd rather go with .NET for RPC.
.NET 'embrace' it. :)
Note that WS does not define implementation(and WS-I is pretty young), therefore I'm not surprise
Will this be as big of a security nightmare as Frontpage Extensions for Apache have been?
i see. does it fit in 64k?
The story above attempts to link to OSCON, but in fact simply links back to itself.
/. front page summary's link just links back to itself.
And the
Both should link (I presume) to the OSCON site.
Thanks for fixing.
At the risk of being elitist and even greedy, I think businesses like Microsoft need to be expressly restricted from open source. This only due to the double-edged sword of the strategy used by Microsoft and companies to advance their goals.
.Net functionality? Maybe they're going to provide funding and technical support to have the Apache project implement it. Accusing MS of having some devious plan to undermine Apache is a little premature.
.NET is loaded with patents. Even if they don't implement the functionality for Apache, they will still own it. If they own it, they can fully exercise control over it. The only benefit I can see to this whole venture is in the long term: perhaps gearing up to use .NET will allow for .GNU and Mono replacement drop-ins. Back on topic, I do not believe it is premature to state MS are trying to undermine Apache. Of course they are trying to undermine Apache! Apache usually means *nix, and *nix means no Windows. It cuts into their marketshare, and they want it gone. Their tactics here are similar to those used to defeat other forms of competition. The difference here is that they cannot "buy up" Apache because it's not a corporate entity. Instead, they need to get their foot in the door and poison it. Don't trust Microsoft. They want Apache + *nix gone by whatever means necessary. This mentality is why they are in court.
Microsoft capitalize on open source software (example, see the TCP/IP stack in WinNT). At the same time they are reaping the rewards of good, honest work on the part of open source developers, they are always trying to defame and "defeat" open source initiative. "Don't use Linux, it's evil. Replace *BSD with Windows. Apache is inferior to IIS." Etc.
Who's to say MS will be providing the
Please note that
I disagree. Get everyone, including Microsoft, into Open Source. Get the hobby programmers, the after-hours professional programmers, the big corporations. Bring them all in, get them to contribute to and use Open Source software.
The only people that have a right to be involved in open source (either as users or contributors) are those who will at the very least not hurt the movement. Microsoft want to damage open source in whatever way they possibly can. On this token, I want to see more IBM involvement in open source because while they are capitalizing on it, they are also giving it good press and contributing a ton of code. Do you see the contrast to Microsoft's attitude? They capitalize on it while giving it bad press and trying to destroy interoperability with it (hence patents on CIFS and attacks on Samba).
Do not trust them!
Why bother.
This is unfortunately irrelevant to almost all open source developments (with the possible exception of IBM, who patent everything themselves). It doesn't matter that the patents are unjustified or can be invalidated - there is no way an open source development can afford to go to U.S. court against Microsofts seemingly bottomless legal coffers to prove it. (In another country that implements 'loser pays' for the cost of going to court this may be less of a limitation.) The fact that someone is able to develop in another country where those patents can't be used to block development notwithstanding, if Microsoft decides that Mono or a similar development is a threat, then they WILL use those patents to try to intimidate anyone involved with it - customers, distributors, support organizations, developers - who has any U.S. interests whatsoever. If indeed they do so, then there are very few significant uses for the
It may be only FUD, but Microsoft are masters of successful (and possibly even legally sanctioned) FUD, and few corporate IT critters can afford to ignore it.
Oh, and I fully expect that the
Liquor
Sanity is a highly overrated commodity.
Maybe it actually doesn't do anything. I think the execs at Microsoft started reading "The Emporer's New Clothes" and thought the idea of selling nothing was actually pretty smart. Just make the customer think they're getting the "next big thing" and they'll be happy. =) Seriously, though, I think it's simply Microsoft's way of taking Java and XML-RPC/SOAP, changing the technology and nomenclature a little bit,
It is a hype contest between Sun and Gates. Gates got jealous of all the undeserving attention that Java was getting, so copied the same marketing techinques.
Two Elron Hubb*rds in the Battle of the Scient*logies. (Astersisks because I don't want to end up in their search. Those guys are scary.)
Interesting to see who wins the bet.
Table-ized A.I.
Any technology whose utility can't be readily digested by the masses will fail. If you have to explain to a significant non-zero portion of tech-savvy slashdot users the value of a technology, what are the odds Aunt Bea will adopt it?
Like the way the utility of relational databases wasn't readily digested by the masses, and they crumbled away and nobody ever heard from them again. Oh WAIT!
What matters is developer mindshare, not consumer, since these aren't consumer products. If Microsoft can create a tool which enables developers to write faster, better or cheaper systems, and can convince enough developers to use it, the technology will succede.
The leading 'guru's of the Linux 'community' finally admiting they dont' have a chance and throwing in with Redmond. Best thing that could happen to Linux really... you get MS's monetary backing and marketing ability and the security and stability of Apache without all the Linux code grief. Excellent news!
What you say is true about the messiness and incompleteness (and redundancy!) of many aspects of Common Lisp.
... or macros [ macros in the Lisp sense, which is a totally different thing than what most languages mean by macros] ... or CLOS's multiple dispatch)
With the benefit of hindsight, Common Lisp needs a LOT of cleanup. But as far as its feature set, all modern languages are converging on it (and have yet to get there), not the other way around.
Java and C#/CLR should receive a thorough overhaul, incorporating some of the really nifty dynamic features that Common Lisp provides (and has provided since the ancient times of computing).
(continuations, for example
DNA just wants to be free...
MS has 80+% of the browser market, and that isn't changing soon. Given the persistent rummors that Explorer will not support allow Java to execute within the browser environment in R7, and .NET is well on it's way into full service with development plans and SDK kits available to EVERYONE WHO ASKS, Apache is covering it's arse and doing the right thing.
.NET is set to take over based on merit as well as marketing.
Thank god too... JAVA is the worst language ever put forward to the luckless code geeks. You jumped all over it, embracing it's anti-MS stance, only to find out that it is slow, difficult, and full of faults... least of which is it's true lack of cross platform compatibilty (which was/is it's main selling point). Hell, MS managed to write a better Java implimentation that was faster and more stable... that ought to tell you something. They may be real pricks in the market and need a good spanking, but MS can afford to get the best coders and their latest round of software shows it... XP Pro and Win2K server are great, IE6 is amazing, and
This is an EXCELLENT article, and states in absolutely clear terms what those who develop for and advocate Linux as an alternative need to accomplish in order to gain market share. Free or not, the evolution of the Linux Desktop will depend on how well it addresses a set of principles that essentially describe the economic cost/benefit to the user. To ignore them or downplay them is to write your own prescription for failure.
Atleast they're extending the olive branch somewhat.
Even if it is Poison oak in disguise.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Smile, you have been assimilated. :(
Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.
"I've heard WinXP removed the cmd/command prompt."
No, Microsoft didn't remove the CMD.EXE or COMMAND.COM prompt from Windows XP. But Windows XP has reduced functionality, in many ways, not just in the command line. The command line is a big embarrassment because of its limited capabilities, but at least in Win 95 it worked. With every version since then it has worked less well. (There are two kinds of command prompt, and, according to Microsoft employees, the differences between them are not documented.)
The command line prompt sometimes begins to display short file names. Microsoft employees say that Microsoft has no fix, although someone not connected with Microsoft did make a work-around.
Cutting and pasting into a command line program often puts successive extra spaces before each line. Microsoft employees say that there is no plan to fix this.
The fast paste mode that is in Windows 98 is gone in Windows XP. Microsoft employees say there is no plan to fix this.
When using the command line interface, Windows XP doesn't always update the time. After several hours, the time reported to command line programs can be several hours in error.
There is a DOS program called START.EXE that can be used to start other programs. But it does operate the same way as in other versions of Windows. It starts a program, but cannot be made to return control to the command line program as previous versions did. There is no technical reason for this; it is just one of the shortcomings that are allowed to exist.
People often say that DOS has gone away. But Microsoft still calls the command line interface DOS, and in Windows XP Microsoft has added new programs for configuring the OS that work only under DOS.
Sometimes when you press a key while using Windows XP, it is seconds until there is any response. Apparently there is something wrong with the CPU scheduler in XP, because there are a lot of complaints about this in the forums and MS people have said that they are working on it. On one particular fresh installation of XP, on an Intel motherboard with either a Matrox G550 or an ATI Radeon video adapter, it requires 18 seconds to display a directory listing of 94 items. This is apparently related to a bug in the video software, not the adapter drivers.
Something is wrong with the Alt-Tab display of running programs under Windows XP. If there are a lot of programs, not all of them are displayed. The order jumps around in a seemingly random way.
Although articles often say negative things about Microsoft, I've never seen an article that fully documents how bad the situation really is. Microsoft's management is so bad that the company has become self-destructive. For example, Windows XP is spyware. Here is a list of ways Windows XP connects to Microsoft's servers:
1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.
These are just the ones I know. There may be others.
So, if you use Windows XP, your computer is dependent on Microsoft computers. That's bad, not only because you lose control over your possession, but because Microsoft produces buggy software and doesn't patch bugs quickly. For example, as of July 7, 2002, there are 18 unpatched security holes in Microsoft Internet Explorer. This is a terrible record for a company that has $40 billion in the bank. Obviously, with that kind of money, Microsoft could fix the bugs if it wanted to fix them. Since the bugs are very public and Microsoft has the money, it seems reasonable to suppose that top management at Microsoft has deliberately decided that the bugs should remain, at least for now.
It seems possible that there is a connection between all the bugs and the U.S. government's friendly treatment of Microsoft's law-breaking . The U.S. government's CIA and FBI and NSA departments spy on the entire world, and unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft software help spies.
Windows XP, and all current Windows operating systems, have a file called the registry in which configuration information is written. If this one (large, often fragmented) file becomes corrupted, the only way of recovering may be to re-format the hard drive, re-install the operating system, and then re-install and re-configure all the applications. The registry file is a single, very vulnerable, point of failure. Microsoft apparently designed it this way to provide copy protection. Since most entries in the registry are poorly documented or not documented, the registry effectively prevents control by the user.
Note that Microsoft does not support making functional complete backups under Windows XP. Look at Microsoft's policy about this: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation . Only those who work with Microsoft software will understand the true meaning of Microsoft's policy. Since almost all programs use the registry operating system file, if you cannot make a functional copy of the operating system you cannot make a functional copy of all your application installations and configurations. There are other software companies that try to fix this, but they don't work well, and Microsoft can, of course, break their implementations, as they have often done with other kinds of competitors.
Because the configuration information for the motherboard and the configuration information for the are mixed together in the registry file, the registry tends to prevent you from moving a hard drive to a computer with a different motherboard. That's another implication of the above Microsoft policy. So, if you have a motherboard failure, and a good complete backup, you may not be able to recover unless you have a spare computer with the same motherboard.
Note that Windows XP Professional can support only ten simultaneous incoming network connections. If you want more than that, you must use Windows 2000 server, and pay much, much more. (There is no Windows XP server yet.) Many businesses have very light network traffic; they just move files from staff member to staff member; they really don't need a dedicated server computer. The staff computers could easily handle the load except for this artificial limitation.
Apparently because the Windows XP GUI comes from Windows 98, Windows XP has the same problem with desktop icons that Windows 98 has. The icons sometimes flicker. Sometimes they move themselves around, particularly after the user switches monitor resolutions. Also, sometimes the taskbar settings un-configure themselves, as they do in Windows 98.
Only technically knowledgeable people know how to avoid signing up for a Microsoft Passport account during initial use of Windows XP. The name Passport gives an indication of Microsoft's thinking. A passport is a document issued by a sovereign nation. Without it, the nation's citizens cannot travel, and, if they leave, won't be allowed back in their own country. In Microsoft's corporate thinking, the company seems to be moving in the direction of believing that they own the user's computer. Most people are both honest and intimidated. Apparently about 95% do whatever they are asked on the screen. They give their personal information to Microsoft. They don't realize that, if they feel forced to get a Passport account, they should enter almost completely fictitious information, since the real question is not "What is your name and address", but "Can we invade your privacy". The honest answer to this is "No, you cannot invade my privacy", and the only effective way to communicate that is to give completely fictitious information. Since it is the educated people who have computers, Microsoft is building a database of the personal lives of educated people. Microsoft knows when they connect and from what IP address (which tends to show the area), what kind of help they ask, and information about what they are doing with their computers, including what music they like. It is not known, and there is no way to know, how much Microsoft or other organizations make use of this information, or their plans for future use.
Not only has Windows XP definitely gone further in the direction of allowing the user less control over his or her own machine, but with Palladium, Microsoft apparently intends to finish the job: Microsoft will have ultimate control over the user's computer and therefore all his or her data. Even now, under Windows XP, a recent security patch requires that the user agree to a contract that gives Microsoft administrator privileges over the user's computer . The contract says that if a user wants to patch his or her system against a bug which would allow an attack over the Internet, he or she must give Microsoft legal control over the computer. See this article also: Microsoft's Digital Rights Management-- A Little Deeper . You may need to be a lawyer to take apart the crucial sentence. "These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and [my emphasis] use other software on your computer" legally includes this meaning: "These updates may disable your ability to use other software on your computer." Note that the term "security related updates" is meaningless to the user because the updates have no relation to user security. So, the sentence effectively means that Microsoft can control the user's computer without notice and whenever it wants. That kind of sentence is known in psychology as "testing the limits". If there is no strong public complaint about this, expect to see more and stronger language like this.
This Register article shows the direction Microsoft is going: MS Palladium protects IT vendors, not you . Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Microsoft is well down that road. See this ZDNet article, also: MS: Why we can't trust your 'trustworthy' OS .
Microsoft's self-destructiveness does not mean that the user should be self-destructive. There is no need to apologize for using Microsoft software. The correct solution to abuse is persuading the abuser to stop being abusive. Once I posted to a Slashdot story a link to an article on a web site of mine. By far the majority of visitors from the Slashdot story used Microsoft operating systems. Rather than feel embarrassed because Microsoft is abusive, action needs to be taken to prevent the abuse. If you are against Microsoft abuse, you are not against Microsoft; you are more pro-Microsoft than Bill Gates.
These Microsoft policies mean that any government which wants to be independent of the United States government, and any government which represents itself as controlled by the people, cannot use Microsoft operating systems, or other Microsoft proprietary systems.
Honestly, I don't have to much trouble with .NET. From what I've seen, it seems to merge many of MS's technologies, and since the .NET framework and SDKs are free downloads, that's fine.
Actually, I'm pretty impressed with ASP.NET Web Matrix. It's free, WYSIWYG and code-friendly, and small (1.2MB).
Hm, ever heard of telnet...
It seems to work fine for 90% of our programs here...
Hosting ASP.NET
Apple already standardized a document portability standard: OpenDoc, but noone listens to Apple
It was suppossed to be yesterday. Where's the info?
Having worked in the Healthcare industry coding the applications to let Provider A talk to Insuror B and bill Patient C using credit card D, I can tell you the Health Care industry is about the poorest example to use when evaluating interoperability. Each segment of the industry has it's own rules and requirements, and not even in a face to face meeting can the data be communicated. It is, therefore, impossible to model the same data that requires literally hundreds of person hours to gather.
.NET or J2EE to accomplish it. It takes intelligent, creative programming and agreement on standards.
Add to that the fact that regulation, legislation, etc. complicate the matter, and what you have is 'One big medevial muddle' (Merlin).
If you want to examine interoperability, look to the logistics and transportation industry. In the T&L industry, there are standards, agreed to by all participants (ISO - International Standards Orginization). These standards mean that Customer A orders from Supplier B. Supplier B uses inventory to access Wharehouse C. Wharehouse C checks inventory, reorders as needed, and ships using Transportation company D. Transportation company D delivers the package to Customer A, collecting payment and signature as necessary. Transportation company D also notifies Wharehouse C (the shipper) who modifies inventory and notifies Supplier B.
This is all done using current technology. Combinations of standards, ODBC, XML, Common Data Modeling Language (CDML), etc. All this hype being given about interoperability is exactly that. It does not take a magic
Just remember, the simplest form of interoperability is a pen and paper.
Freedom is irrelevant. Sigs are irrelevant. You must comply...
You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
Micro$oft is now trying their classic tactic: embrace, extend and extinguish. Sure, they'll play nice with Apache for now, after all, they have 57% of the web server market. And being the good guys that they are, they may even offer some improvements and additions to our patchy little server friend. Then, watch out -- they will come out with a version of IIS that will attempt to kill the APACHE beast once and for all. That's the Microsoft tactic, and it has worked for two decades now. But this time, it will fail.
.CONF files and other "old-school" measures that one may use in order to make a *NIX box sing. In fact, oddly, we PREFER the flexibility that CLI and text control files offer.
.NET infrastructure.
The reason is simple: Micro$oft will be trying to sell their wares to experienced and very wary system administrators who have undoubtedly experienced the woe that is Windows security. This market does not need ease of use, it needs rock solid reliability, speed and execution -- we're not scared by command line interfaces,
That does not begin to mention the mistrust that Microsoft has generated for itself, especially in the server marketplace. NIMDA, Code Red and others are still fresh in our mninds. Sure, Linux, PHP and others have flaws of their own, but the community has seemingly always dealt with these in a far more forthright manner.
Finally, another note on the strategy Bill and drones are employing here: this is also a blatant attempt to kill Mono before it gets going, to eliminate any competition in the
Beware, SysAdmins, FUD bombs and "presents" from Micro$oft are coming! Brace yourselves and SAVE YOUR SHOES!
The thinking of an MS exec.... .net, one degree of separation, cool
.net there's only one degree of separation...
hmm, IIS one degree of separation, NOT COOL
OHH MY GOD, I can just hear it now:
Hackers, Crackers, and your data. With IIS and
What a serious marketing blunder, who the hell thought this one up.
errrr, we must divorce ourselves from IIS.
hmmm, Apache yeah that's the ticket!!!!!
Oh thank god for, Apache.....