Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Lifts Curtain on Indigo Software
daria42 writes "Microsoft has released an early version of Indigo on the Microsoft Developer Network. Indigo is a new communications system intended to let Windows programs more easily connect to other software. Indigo was one of the three original "pillars" of Longhorn, however under the new plan it will be re-tooled to work with Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, in addition to Longhorn."
This, Avalon, and WinFS are all jokeworthy now, but at least one of these if not all of them will see decent implementation in GNU/Linux three to five years after they're being used in Longhorn, at which point Microsoft will have the replacement ready for release.
It might even have a better interface than Apple, spawning a whole new series of Longhorn themes for X-Windows.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Nah, just kidding. That will never happen.
I'm really glad to hear this. DDE, I mean, COM, I mean, I mean, OLE, I mean, DCOM, oh no wait, ActiveX, er, COM+, uh, LOL, um, Indigo! will be really great.
Everything in Longhorn will be based on the .NET framework and sandboxed, with the Win32 API scrapped. Longhorn's ability to run the Win32 API will be through a compatibility layer, similar to the DOS compatibility layer in XP. However, WinXP's ability to run Indigo and Avalon, the two pillars of Longhorn, will be done through a forward compatibility layer.
Fortunately, they're doing everything clean this time with XML and SOAP, with an open API, as opposed to binary-only files, arcane RPC calls, and endless piles of undocumented, insanely messy code dating back until the early 90s. There actually might be some interoperability this time around -- Longhorn SAMBA certainly won't be nearly as hard to code and reverse engineer, especially with Mono in hand.
More details: http://msdn.microsoft.com/Longhorn/understanding/p illars/default.aspx
- - - - - Fear not the reaper, but my shiny white teeth.
With the way they're promoting Longhorn, you could swear it was a religion. Next, they'll declare a jihad on Linux.
" I still don't see the benefits of XP over 2000 as a lowly end-user."
;)
I use XP-pro at work, 2k at home. When I'm at home, there are a few reasons I'd rather have xP. I'm not trying to talk you into switching to XP (I doubt you'd be all that happy if you did) but I figured I'd share in case you or anybody else is considering it.
1.) I like ClearType. YMMV.
2.) XP's image viewer is nice for viewing sequences of images. Some of you probably know what I'm implying.
3.) You can run multiple simultaneous users on XP. Mildly nice, but if you're the only user, hardly worth mentioning.
4.) You can actually LOCK the taskbar so you don't accidently drag that around. I'm extremely hacked off that I can't do this in 2k. Because of this feature, my Task-bar is quite useful since I've tweaked it.
5.) Grouping of common tasks (i.e. several folder windows) and system tray items takes a little getting used to, but in some cases it's very useful. (Potentially annoying, too. But you can always choose.)
6.) The start menu shows the most recently used stuff. Not the greatest whoop-de-doo ever, but I have to admit I've saved a little time as a result of it.
XP has grown on me. I haven't had stability or security issues with 2K or XP so I can't tell you that it's better or worse in that regard. 2K to XP is sort of like getting a moon-roof for your car. You pay more for it, and it has its uses, but you probably wouldn't miss it if you didn't get it.
Okay, I'm not being terribly on-topic here, but I imagine there are people out there wondering if 2K to XP is worthwhile.
"Derp de derp."
This started out as practically a greenfield project within MS with a brand new team at least five years ago. It's being done by incredibly competent people, and they have done a huge amount of work on interoperability issues- that whole raft of WS standards represents solutions to a whole range of issues that no else is really confronting. And I'm not saying they've solved them in an ideal way but as long as no one else puts anything out there that is less proprietary, they will jump out in front here. Remember how they eventually "got" the Internet?
Those of us who love F/OSS and Linux need to be less dismissive and more frightened.
MS is fragmented and balkanized internally but there are pockets of real capability. Web Services have not achieved anywhere near the level of adoption they could/should have by now (to all you trolls: the few dozen desultory SOAP projects at your company prove my point, not disprove it). And that's because of lack of "security," which boils down to lack of widely supported standards. We gotta be more proactive about this, and not make the same mistakes we are making in regard to Avalon.