Nothing of .Net in Longhorn?

turnitover writes "We've been waiting for Longhorn before we really get on the .Net train, but should we bother at all? According to Mary Jo Foley at Microsoft Watch, Longhorn won't be based on .Net at all. Foley, who's usually right on target, calls this MS's 'dirty little secret'." From the article: "We're guessing that Microsoft will maintain that nothing has changed-that no one ever promised that the .Net Framework 2.0 would be the foundation for Longhorn. But developer types we've been chatting with seem to find this update a newsworthy revelation."

Comments

Re:asdf

[jav1231]

This is why you should be able to club marketing reps to death.
Of course, Windows in general is an example of why you should be able to club marketing reps to death.

I am so relieved

[thammoud]

that typing 'dir' won't invoke a webservice.

When you have an model as beautiful as COM...

[Anonymous Coward]

...there's precious little to improve on. It would be like giving the Mona Lisa a face lift.

Re:So Why .NET?

[MikeMacK]

I use Microsoft products and am really getting confused about their software roadmap.

Don't worry, so is Microsoft.

Re:asdf

[c0d3h4x0r]

This is why you should be able to club marketing reps to death.
Of course, Windows in general is an example of why you should be able to club marketing reps to death.

Honestly, do we even need an example to justify why you should be able to club marketing reps to death?

Re:asdf

[clem]

I thought it was so you wouldn't damage their valuable Armani pelts...I mean suits.

Re:asdf

[MynockGuano]

From TFA:

But given how late [.Net Framework 2.0] is, and how new it would be, [Microsoft chairman] Bill Gates realized it would be foolish to build important pieces of Longhorn on top of .Net."

Not that building critical elements upon instabilities has ever stopped them before, of course.

Re:So Why .NET?

[AJWM]

So in other words, you don't know either.