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.
At last we'll have Code Red ported to Linux!
Je t'aime Stéphanie
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
The Mono project hasn't started work on an Apache module yet. But Mono's ASP.NET support is designed such that an Apache 2 module shouldn't have to be longer than around 80 lines of code. It's trivial when you have the right framwork, but we are still a few weeks away from that.
.NET framework on Windows and Apache 2 for Windows. No great deal.
If the guys who've done this have based their work on Mono, they certainly haven't informed the project. My educated guess is that this uses the
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 . .
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?
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"
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.
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
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.
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
Nah, the real announcement is that Microsoft has finally faced up to the insecurity of IIS and is discontinuing it in favor of Apache. They will provide (for a modest licensing fee, this is Microsoft) a tool to convert ASPs to JSPs.
(And if anyone really believes that, please contact me about this money in a Nigerian bank I need help with transferring...)
-- Alastair
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
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
if I had any mod points, I would mod this down, if they had read apache's website they would have found this:
Why the name "Apache"?
A cute name which stuck. Apache is "A PAtCHy server". It was based on some existing code and a series of "patch files".
For many developers it is also a reverent connotation to the Native American Indian tribe of Apache, well-known for their superior skills in warfare strategy and inexhaustible endurance. For more information on the Apache Nation, we suggest searching Google, Northernlight, or AllTheWeb.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
... 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.
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!"
If it's just an add on, who really cares?
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.
If it is Microsoft picking up Apache to some degree:
The best case scenario: Microsoft offer Apache integration options, open sourcing the relevant code (ASP/.NET hookups, management console integration).
The most likely scenario: Microsoft release binary compatability modules which work with the open source Apache.
The worst scenario: Microsoft release a binary-only Apache with sundry improvements they refuse to release back to the main source trees, attempting to undercut Apache on Windows.
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,
I hate to sound like I'm defending MS, but IE runs on my Mac (I replaced it w/ Moz) and I believe there is/was a Solaris version as well.
I've never purchased an MS os and I don't use them willingly. However, claiming that IE only runs on Windows when the Mac version is more standards compliant than the Windows version is just silly.
t'nera semordnilap
Bleh!
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.
That's impossible. Maybe you're using Mozilla version 0.01 or something
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.
A "good" business decision by Microsoft is often very bad for Microsoft's competitors. Don't get me wrong, either: I am not anti-Microsoft by any measure of the imagination (ironically I'm working on an IIS/SQL Server project in another window at this very moment, and I do almost entirely Microsoft platform consulting work), but rather I am realistic, and every single decision Microsoft makes has underlying motives. They might be aligned with other peoples, and sometimes they might be best for the computer industry as a whole, but sometimes they aren't: It's pretty naive to presume that it's "conspiracy theories" to assess why Microsoft does what they do.
.NET viable by supporting it on the world's most popular web browser" (presuming you mean web server), but then you berate those who think it's "some plot by Micro$oft to take over the world" : Wouldn't that be exactly why they're targeting the most popular web platform?
You sort of contradict yourself in any case: You claim that they are "making
It's not difficult at all to do SOAP in Apache (well, Tomcat actually:) with Java... you just write your service class and then write a deployment descriptor, then throw the whole thing in a WAR and drop it in the webservices directory. I had a simple stub up and running in about a day... and I was still teaching myself Java at the time. All I needed to do was flesh out the business logic and it was all ready to go. Of course, I've since decided my architecture was crap and thrown the whole thing out because it turns out I didn't need SOAP to begin with, but it ain't hard to do... I could very quickly build a SOAP front-end to the new code.
Now, I did have the advantage that my service was not meant to be a public service--it's a simple interface between us and one of our vendors--so I didn't bother figuring out how to do the WSDL.
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!
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.)
Apparently you have not heard about glue yet.
War is necrophilia.
And then every time you want to change a jpeg you have to reburn the website onto 20 some-odd cds.....
any website big enoughand visited enough to warrant the kind of demand an xbox cluster could serve up, wants and needs it all to be dynamic/changeable content......which means, not the xboxes.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Actually, I'm willing to bet they release it for FreeBSD as well as windows. The MS source for the CLI,CLR (can't remember what the acro's mean) and other bits can compile itself for FreeBSD already here.
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
php, no thanks. mod_perl for me. at one remote execution compromise a month for the past couple of months, php is starting to look like sendmail (yes, it was a long time ago) or dare I say IIS? time will tell...
cat
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I can download the Java SDK from IBM. With that, I'm not too concerned with Java being, strictly speaking, proprietary to Sun. You can pretty well count on IBM and Sun keeping each other honest. I can't blame Sun for keeping tight reigns on the language. It's far too easy to make "improvements" which destroy the integrity of the language. Both IBM and Sun have an interest in Java on enterprise-class systems, where hidden pratfalls are very unwelcome. .NET.
Many problems with Microsoft software can be explained to users as Microsoft has trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time. This is not a desirable attribute for doing anything effective with
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 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.
Microsoft "Soon would have .NET on all sorts of other platforms....like Java!".
Like NT on all sorts of platforms?
I would expect the FreeBSD/.NET to wind up a pretty lame stepchild.
Judging from past performance, avoiding single vendor "lock-in" means avoiding Microsoft.
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.
who can't tell the differnce between a serverside browser check and .NET.
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?
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.
Seriously, I think that's a possibility. The only reason I can think of why anybody should run IIS is because it's from Microsoft (you know, all that marketing buzz with better integration etc.), so an Apache version rebranded as IIS can do the same thing for Microsoft.
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); }
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
Actually, I'm willing to bet they release it for FreeBSD as well as windows. The MS source for the CLI,CLR (can't remember what the acro's mean) and other bits can compile itself for FreeBSD already...
.NET class library.
The FreeBSD port does not include very much of the
Significantly, it does not include the ASP.NET classes - so a lot of work would be required before there would be any point linking it to a web server.
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
...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.
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.
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?"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
.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
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.
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.
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...
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.