Slashdot Mirror
Longhorn Developers @ MSDN
ePIsOdEOnline writes "The official Microsoft Longhorn Developers website went live. Content is filled with information fresh from the PDC, and the host of secrecy swarming Microsoft and its next generation Operating System,
Longhorn"
If you ask me it's a very Good Thing that Microsoft is making it possible to get developer insigt into Longhorn at this point. After all, the OS is not scheduled to be released for several years.
And before we start with the M$ bashing, let's remember that Microsoft can also do some things right, just as the Gnu/Linux community can do some things wrong...
My 2 cents, anyhow.
.: Max Romantschuk
Well, I for one care. I'm sure there are plenty of others here too. Some of us actually have jobs based on Windows technologies that provide well for our families. Interesting concept, eh?
It seems the signal to noise ratio of this discussion is terrible. People are bashing the site like there's no tomorrow, without taking into account what it's for.
This is a developer resource. Take this UI guide on the Sidebar. Excellent writing, and finally something which approaches what has made Apple keep the UI edge for all these years.
If an article was posted about the GNOME Human Interface Guidelines I suspect the crowd would be singing to quite a different tune.
Where is even the slightest bit of objectivity these days?
.: Max Romantschuk
Don't blame us if you aren't using Active directory with Win2k/XP clients w/Group Policy and SUS.
Microsoft has provided the tools to make software installation, management of desktop settings, and automatic pushing of patches and service packs completely automatic and easy to do.
If you refuse to use the technology, you deserve what you get.
If you use Win9x/ME, you deserve to be shot.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
You complain about a four year old operating system, you list off a bunch of complaints, and then you say you will ignore Longhorn, which fixes all those complaints. With Longhorn, you can even write your own XML-based installation scripts.
.NET, WinFS, Avalon, and the rest of the Longhorn technologies aren't better than crappy old 2k.
I'm just trying to point out that if you're going to wait, wait for something worth waiting for. I personally don't see longhorn adding anything that justifies the expense.
I'm sorry, but you're an idiot if you don't think
My With Longhorn, you can even write your own XML-based installation scripts.
Ok. Well, I can do this on linux today. In fact, I already have done it (I use an XML-based install/update script for a large application I'm developing). But I can even accomplish it with a simple call to rsync. No hidden settings, no scattered dll files. If I want, an application installs all in one directory. rsync that directory, and thats it- applications are updated and/or installed automatically.
Of course, I could also wait 3 years for windows to get to this point.
I'm sorry, but you're an idiot if you don't think .NET, WinFS, Avalon, and the rest of the Longhorn technologies aren't better than crappy old 2k.
I didn't say that they aren't better than 2k. In fact, you even quoted me saying "not worth waiting for". I don't think they are. I'm not totally convinced on .NET, a lot of it is marketing fluff, and it's being controlled by a corperation that will change everything, if it meets their business needs at the time (it's hard to maintain an application when the API is not totally documented and will randomly change).
Avalon has been done (XUL), and is cross-platform. I don't see the point in waiting 3 years for a proprietary version that's less mature.
WinFS is about the most interesting development, but worth the headaches of windows? Probably not. There are similar concepts in development for other OS's anyways.
Speak before you think
From this:
Finally, it is worth noting that Windows executables can be hosted in a window (by default) as well as in the browser.
For Longhorn, desktop executables are the next version of today's Windows Forms client-side apps. On the other hand, XAML and browser-hosted applications represent an evolution of today's client-side programming model to work over the Web. Right now, existing client-side applications can rarely be deployed over the Web. If you want to embed a Windows Forms form into a browser page, you'll get a reduced feature set and have to tweak bits and pieces of your code. With Longhorn, the common application model will let you write one application and deploy it over the Web. However, the final application is Longhorn-specific--very different from a traditional Web application like ASP.NET.
Sigh. I remember when the web was based on open standards...
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Linux and Apple now have three years to change that. MS has now told everyone they won't have anything new to show until 2006. Since OS X is pretty much now what Longhorn promises then, Apple can make huge strides during this period. Likewise, all the governments and companies considering Linux have 3 years to decide whether to get off the MS forced march or not.
And what are the compelling business features? 1. We get to rewrite all our custom apps that work just fine to use new APIs! 2. We get to buy all new computers for our employees with 4GHz processors and 1TB disks so the file open dialog box can be 3D and texture mapped with moving video! Or something. (ps The Longhorn graphics features run on current Apple hardware in OS X now.)
Meanwhile, MS is already starting to see revenue losses due to companies hesitant to upgrade because of security concerns.
I'm starting to feel almost bad for MS. Nah, not really.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
XML Tools for Mac OS X