Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Web 2.0, Meet .Net 3.0

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the higher-number-means-better-code dept.

An anonymous reader writes to mention an eWeek article about Microsoft's move to rename WinFX to .Net Framework 3.0. Microsoft has also announced the availability of the beta version of the MSDN Wiki, the company's first step toward allowing customers to contribute to Microsoft's developer documentation. From the article: "It is purely a branding change, company officials said. The gist of the issue is that Microsoft has two successful developer brands in WinFX and .Net, and the company has seen 320,000 downloads of WinFX -- and 700 signed GoLive licenses -- since the December Community Technology Preview, and more than 35 million downloads of the .Net Framework since the November launch. "

5 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. One-upsmanship by Billosaur · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Micorsoft just wants to stay ahead of everyone else, so Web 2.0 means .Net 3.0, Web 3.0 will mean .Net 4.0 and so on. This is their cheeky way of making it seem like they are ahead of the game. Branding doesn't make up for crappy products.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:One-upsmanship by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Troll, huh? One fairly major part of the whole Web 2.0 buzz is AJAX. AJAX (at least as it's usually implemented) relies on the XMLHttpRequest object, which was created by MS.

      AJAX, like much of the IT technology is yet another brainless wave of hype and fawning over a wheel re-invented for a 1000th time. After massive, convoluted, unmaintainable, sluggish, super-sensitive to smallest browser incompatibilites AJAX applications sweep the web, causing untold havoc and sufferring (just look at AJAX compatibility with various browsers at major sites like DailyKos) there will be a "new", "innovative", "fresh" idea called "server side applications" and "lightweight web client 7.0" and all will be excited at this genius attempt to make user's life easier. Lemmings will follow an masse extrolling the virtues of this new and never before heard approach, talking trash about anyone who is "behind the times" and sticks to the "old" AJAX and .NET nonsense. Following which everyone will find out that there are some things that can be made more "exciting" by giving users "immediate feedback" using JavaIEEEAppleScript 12.6 after which someone will coin a term AJAMAZAX or Web 25.0 to describe the wonderful new idea of putting shit back on the client and the wheel will spin once more, fed by new blood coming to the information industry fresh out of school who have never heard of AJAX, thin-clients, dumb-terminals or server-side transactions ever before. And the only people who will gain are the middle men whose do not give shit about any of this as long as they can make money on change in some form.

      Now it's true that noone really used it for a long time, partly because it was only implemented by IE. It's also true that you can simulate asynchronous requests using hidden frames (something my company did back in 99), but that also never really took off (and probably won't now).
      The whole point of a web browser is to render static documents. But idiots are desperately atttempting to remake it into an application platform and eventually an OS. With all the baggage, complexity and other nightmares which follow that "logic". Attempts such as ActiveX, AJAX, Java Applets, .NET and other such nonsense will, as they must, cause untold havoc and problems everywhere if deployed widely on the web, or conversly, make no sense whatsoever if deployed on a controlled intranet where a thin client (such as RDP, ICA, VNC or X11) makes way more sense in that context.

      But idiots never learn, and thus are doomed to repeating this history over and over and over.

      I think it's fair to say that MS were ahead of everyone else.

      If leading the lemmings on this merry and utterly futile (although profitable for MS) goose chase is what you mean, then I agree.

  2. Re:Icredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I wish the PHP documentation had the functional specification, rather than forcing user contributions to deduce functionality. It's been a bit of a sick joke, which fortunately I'm not forced to work with on a daily basis.

  3. Re:Icredible by jon787 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I wish PHP had correct and useful user contributions.

    --
    X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
  4. Not "seems" - *is* flailing about. by Helldesk+Hound · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    > Given that they're the most powerful platform vendor in the world, with the ability
    > to force adoption of virtually any programming environment, language or library that
    > they choose, Microsoft sure does seem to act desperate sometimes.

    Micro$oft is crapping itself over the fact that OSS is improving at a speed that M$ can only dream about coming close to - and that includes replacements for .NET, M$ Office, & M$ Windows and all manner of useful programs.

    That is because of one main issue - developers are migrating away from the Win32 platform.

    The migration curve of developers migrating to the Linux platform is such that before the end of this year (2006) there will be more developers actively writing software for the Linux platform than developers actively writing for the Win32 platform.

    The consequence of all this is that current releases of Linux already have user-friendly functionality (without the DRM) that M$ is planning to initially introduce in M$ Windows Vi$ta.

    M$ just can't keep up the pace - that is why it's taking to rebranding instead of producing updates.