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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't think Microsoft knows what .Net is. But judging by the commercials, I'd say it's some kind of magic laserbeam that transmits information to and from handheld devices. You know, like IrDA, but with magic lasers.
SIGFEH
I'm too lazy to bring up the ./ article, but there were some benchmarks less than a year ago showing that for most applications (graphical I/O being the notable exception),
the latest IBM JIT JVM outperforms C++ using the MS VC++ compiler with the default optimizations.
I'll agree that sometimes the JVM takes forever to load, but the latest IBM JIT JVM continuously profiles your code and then does the equivalent of compiling the most commonly run parts with all of the optimizations turned on. I would guess that C++ does better relative to Java on non-x86 platforms, at least if you're using one of the older JITs. This is becuase the register-starved x86 looks pretty much like a stack-based machine in comparison to say the IBM POWER, HP PaRISC, or Sun SPARC CPU families. However, the latest IBM JIT probably does wonders to naorrow the gap on machines with 16 or more general purpose registers.
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
this is a Covalent thing not a apache thing.
you will have to pay $$$ for this