Slashdot Mirror
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."
If Microsoft seems unwilling to bind .NET to its next flagship OS, then why all the rush to produce .NET-capable products? Is .NET going to be a wash? Why bother worrying about Mono's fate as well? If Microsoft doesn't seem to work hard to integrate it into their primary platform, then should the Mono developers continue to look over their shoulders?
.NET another Microsoft vaporware?
.Net Framework will be the core for a small subset of Longhorn, specifically the Windows API Platform (WAP), which consists primarily of the "Avalon" Windows presentation system and the "Indigo" Windows communications system, our tipsters say.
Is
Instead, the
Okay, but will Avalon be a core system in Longhorn? The new file system is out, and some of the early discussion from Microsoft indicated that Avalon might be 'out' until after the first version of Longhorn ships.
I use Microsoft products and am really getting confused about their software roadmap.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
If Sun seems unwilling to bind .=Java to its next flagship OS, then why all the rush to produce Java-capable products? Is Java going to be a wash?
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
First off, let me preface this post with the lol: I find it amazingly ironic that the advertisement on the Slashdot "read more" page has the Microsoft .NET ad, apparently Macro Flash.... with the hook: "If it takes eighteen months to write and integrate a new application...", [fade to next frame...], "It's not really new anymore, is it?".... the ad is for .NET!
I find Microsoft's "not eating their own dog food" rumors to be significant. Why does the rest of the world have to eat it (literally and figuratively) and not Microsoft?
More hubris from Microsoft. Apparently .NET is something Microsoft
discussed and presented and strategized around at one of Bill Gates' yearly
"meeting of the minds" at his Hood Canal retreat a number of years ago...
Former Microsoft CFO John Connors bragged on this during a one-day glad
handing session with the company I worked for at the time. He got up for a
impromptu presentation as we all worked on our .NET "labs", and described
how worked up into a slather the Microsofties were at the retreat....
describing the .NET architecture, and philosophy. He said, and I quote, "We
realized that not only had we won the battle [with .NET], but we've won the
war [against(?) the industry]".
The collective sound generated of all of the techies eyes rolling in the conference room was deafening, but the upper level management (and really, this entire session was about them getting to meet with Microsoft royalty, and cinching a sale/contract) postively glowed and nodded knowingly and smugly that they were part of this technology nirvana about to sweep the world.
I would say we're at least four or five years into this and so far what I've seen with .NET is:
So, again, the fact that by the time (and I guess we're all speculating here) Longhorn gets here if Longhorn is not largely based on and implemented with .NET says a lot for either: how difficult it really is to move
applicatioins to the .NET architecture, or, how much even Microsoft itself
believes in the technology. Neither possibility is good. Other
slashdotters feel free to offer other theories.
Yeah, this probably means they knew that the .NET framework wouldn't work for some reason as a basis for an OS.
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
you don't use a high level language for writeing interpreters. is the JRE written in java? is the .net runtime written in c#?
no, because they are runtime environments that provide an abstraction for the code to be interpreted. it does not make sence directly includeing an interpreter into a kernel instead you have a runtime environment that sits above the kernel. it would be a bad design decision to directly intergrate these because it would be bad for security, stability and it would also mean it would be even more dificult to change or update the runtime environment.
The danger is that, having touted .Net as "all that and a scoop of ice cream", people finally wake up and realize that viable alternative exist.
.NET. They were happy to jettison VB in favor of what one of my colleagues described as "true object oriented programming" in Windows.
.NET is stalled for any of the reasons you have described it would be a shame. There are programmers who are quite excited about the prosepects of building applications for the long-term with .NET.
Well, I got that impression from folks in our shop who code
If
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
The secret to surviving a crisis is not losing your head. .Net bread, let them eat Mono cake.
If there is no
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Ever since Microsoft announced .NET they've maintained the same standpoint they have now: use .NET where it's appropriate, don't be stupid and rewrite existing code but interoperate with it and that certainly holds true for their own products as well.
.NET, that there was never any plan to do this and that it doesn't make any sense to do it.
.NET and only be exposed through the standard Win32/Win64 API where and if it makes sense.
.NET, it doesn't make any kind of sense since with those the prime concern is not ease of development, it's responsiveness, minimal memory footprint and most importantly speed and .NET just gets in the way of that.
.NET and never bothered to read up on it beyond gossip and speculation.
You can find plenty of videos, articles, blog entries and chat transcripts on MSDN that show Microsoft developers clearly stating that Longhorn will not be built on top of
What has been said and still holds true is that any new programming API will most likely only be exposed through
While writing drivers, services, servers, etc is certainly possible with
The only thing this article reveals is that the author has no clue about
So let me get this straight: it's foolish for Bill Gates to build important pieces on
Let's face it, Microsoft Windows is beginning to buckle under the weight of their own code. I don't think Longhorn will be shipped any earlier than late 2007 or early 2008. If they release Longhorn now, they will orphan the OS: Too big to be run on today's hardware, too incompatible with many critical applications, and too few business reasons to make the switch.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
-
Put virtual machines on top, like Java and
.NET. Claim that they're more secure than the OS.
-
Put virtual machines underneath, like VMware. Claim that they're more secure than the OS.
-
Add software to catch known attacks, like firewalls, virus scanners, and spyware removers.
-
Patch, patch, patch.
It's not working.It's not just a Microsoft problem, either; Linux is acquiring exactly the same set of problems as the kernel grows and grows.
It doesn't have to be this bad.
Dave Cutler, the architect of Windows NT, tried to fix it. NT 3.51 was the last version he controlled, and the last one that looks even vaguely like a "microkernel". He once told Bill Gates "I won't pollute it [NT] with crap!" So he was taken off NT, and for NT 4, the kode kiddies from the Windows 95 team were allowed to put huge volumes of crap Win95 code in the kernel, for "compatibility". The end result is XP, which in practice is only slightly less vulnerable than Windows 95.
It's striking to run QNX, which is a true microkernel (about 60K of code), with drivers, file systems, and networking outside the kernel. It can run X windows, Firefox, multimedia players, and now has OpenGL. That's a demonstration that you don't need a bloated kernel. Nor do you need one that changes much. The QNX kernel changes very slowly; new capabilities are added outside the kernel, in user space. Unfortunately, QNX on the desktop is going nowhere, because there are few applications and the current marketing push is for automotive applications. Nor is QNX intended as a secure operating system, just a reliable real-time one. Despite this, it's a clear demonstration that the basic OS does not have to be big or constantly changing.
If the Hurd guys had a clue, and could write something as good as QNX, there might be some hope from that direction. But after ten years of screwing up, there's not much hope there.
Well, I think this has been clear for a long time. The Windows XP kernel and many of its key user mode libraries will continue to be written in C/C++. I suspect that Explorer, Internet Explorer, and the control panel will likely continue to remain C/C++ based.
.NET runtime with Longhorn, as well as lots of .NET libraries. I suspect that if you removed the .NET runtime, some applications and system utilities would break, although the system overall would probably still boot. (Didn't SP2 come with a .NET runtime anyway?)
.NET isn't a revolution, it's an evolution. Think of it as a Visual Basic replacement--a better designed runtime with a choice of better designed libraries. And, unlike Visual Basic, .NET may actually be good enough for Microsoft to start writing small applications and system utilities in.
However, it looks like they are going to ship a full
All of that is pretty reasonable. Why break working code? Why alienate thousands of developers? The inclusion of
If this is the accuracy of the Microsoft marketing then I wouldn't trust it very far.
This is why you should be able to club marketing reps to death.
After working as a programmer for 6 years I have heard a lot of marketing hype through brochures, white papers, and information seminars and I have come up with this principal: "Never promise that a task can be done based on what documentation or white papers say."
When a new API, IDE, framework or whatever is realeased I try building a small prototype, or test application, and only after first hand experience do I promise a project manager that it can be done. Otherwise I tell him that this new technology represents an unknown that could (is likely to) throw our timeline out of whack
Microsoft does spread FUD. Microsoft does pre-announce products and over-promise on release dates.
However, Microsoft also has an extrodinary history of actually delivering what they promised to (eventually). People thought that Windows 95 was technically impossible, but they shipped it. People thought NT5 (2000) would never see the light of day. Even Cairo 's announced features mostly shipped, in bits and pieces. Historically, you could take a MS product plan to the bank, which kept customers loyal to MS's direction.
That Longhorn seems to be proceeding so aimlessly and as such a soft target indicates a management breakdown. They used to be quite good with delivering large projects up there -- did the talent cash out?
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.