Slashdot Mirror
Web 2.0, Meet .Net 3.0
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. "
Wow, how innovative! I wish the PHP documentation had user contributions too...
I'd like to propose that the first standard of Web 3.0 be to stop coining stupid phrases for every day things. Web 2.0, Dot Com's, etc.
My sig of choice is Marlboro
Please, educate yourself before trolling utter rubbish like the one in your comment. Some people might believe it.
.NET technology that is used for web browsers is ASP.NET. ASP.NET produces standards compliant xhtml and JavaScript that is sent to your browser. The only place where you will need to upgrade to .NET 3.0 is in the web server. Server side browser technologies never leave the server. They translate its content to something that your browser will understand. When you click "view source" you are not viewing .NET, you are viewing its output.
.NET 3.0 to run .NET 3.0 browser apps in the same way that you don't need to download PHP, Python, Ruby or Perl to your computer to use Slashdot or Digg or Google, etc.
The
You don't need to download
With dynamic OLE licensing 6.23.0 That's my vote.
Yeah...
From the article: "Microsoft has decided to avoid any confusion in the naming scheme for its core developer technology [...]"
Before my brain shuts down in order to protect itself and I start drooling on myself, I should say that it's one thing for tech journalists to be clueless and incoherent; it's another entirely for them to report something that's exactly the opposite of what's happening just because it's in the corporate press release.
I think you mean version 1.1 of the .NET Framework, not 1.3. Also, we published a very detailed list of breaking changes from 1.1 to 2.0 on MSDN. We never take a breaking change lightly, every single one of these would have been reviewed with a great deal of scrutiny to ensure that we really were doing the right thing under the circumstances.
With regard to .NET 3.0 (no longer WinFX 3.0), it's the next version of the .NET Framework. As a result, it includes new features, like WPF (Avalon), WCF (Indigo), and a ton of other cool, new things. This is merely a marketing change, no more.
No, but I used to work for Microsoft.
"purely a branding change" -- Standard operating procedure for MS -- they rename their stuff like clockwork. Trace the history of DDE, OLE, COM, DCOM, ActiveX, .Net etc etc etc (same basic stuff) or their alphabet soup of database access methods which all boil down to that incredible confusing ODBC control panel doodad. (And you have to install the drivers on EVERY DESKTOP, too, or at least you used to...) If MS is not renaming their techologies, they're reorganizing the company.
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.
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).
I think it's fair to say that MS were ahead of everyone else. I think it's also fair to say that they completely squandered their lead, sitting on a technology that they didn't have the vision to use to the full.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Given that his .sig says "Yes, I do work for Microsoft" and has done for ages, and also that his comments are generally informed and relevant, I'm not sure how you can call him a shill. :-)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Actually, I can tell you how to do one better than that. Go to the weblog for my Corporate VP, S. Somasegar, and leave that feedback for him there, or by sending him mail through the Email page. He does read the feedback posted there, and tries to always respond back.
No, but I used to work for Microsoft.
The rebranded WinFX (now .NET Framework 3.0) contains the RTM release of .NET Framework 2.0 (the runtime) as well as WPF (Avalon), WWF, and WCF (Indigo). It represents a superset of the 2.0 runtime.
Yes, I work there too.
You should have to change almost nothing to get a .NET 2.0 app working in .NET 3.0. The new version is essentially .NET 2.0 plus WinFx.
Since the .NET dll's live peacefully with each other across versions, you could still be writing .NET 1.0 applications if you really wanted to.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Of course with us we were running a web server with the 1.1 framework on a 32bit server when we ran into performance issues because we were more than 1000 times the traffic we regularly get. Fortunately this was an Opteron box so we popped on 64bit Windows and the 2.0 framework since 1.1 isn't available. Everything worked without having to make a single change to any of our code.
That is not to say their aren't some funky things that won't transfer over but you speak out of just plain ignorance or prefer to focus on minor details that affect but a few people. With that said I've never had a Windows update break anyOf course this is all moot considering updates in any corporate setting don't occur automatically but after happen after approval and testing so you'll know if it'll break your app assuming you have a proper testing environment which I definitely know a few don't. Of course I don't know any development houses which don't since staging on a production server is well, you know, not wise ;)
Don't mean to be harsh but realistic here. You're gripes are completely inaccurate so if you really want to gripe go ahead and find valid gripes. I'm not sure what they would be with the framework but I'm sure there are some out there.