Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portable

Michelle Meyers writes "Just days before Microsoft claimed to be making parts of the .NET CLR "available" to other platforms, NeoSmart Technologies had published an article bemoaning and blasting Microsoft's abuse of it's developers by pretending .NET was a true cross-platform framework when they're doing everything in their power to stop it from being just that. Of interest is NeoSmart's analysis of how Microsoft has no problem making certain portions of .NET available to Mac users — just so long as its distributed under an "open source" license that forbids any and all use of the code except for educational purposes — yet are terrified of the very thought of .NET being available to *nix users, even if that's to the benefit of .NET developers everywhere. Even more interesting is one of the comments on that article linking to legal documents in which Microsoft employees discuss the (im)possibility of creating a cross-platform code and UI framework, years before the .NET project even started!"

Comments

Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portable

[boisepunk]

MONEY!!!

Does it matter?

[brennanw]

There's no point in making a marketing sleight of hand portable to other platforms, is there?

Maybe it's changed in the last few years, but when Microsoft first started talking about "dot net" the only thing I could figure was that they didn't really know what it was going to do -- and four years after it had been announced it didn't really seem as if that had changed.

Maybe it's changed since then... it's been three years since the last time I paid any attention to it...

Re:Does it matter?

[eln]

I always figured the whole "cross-platform" marketspeak was just a ploy to take some of the wind out of Java's sails. MS wanted people to stop jumping on the Java bandwagon and start jumping on the .NET bandwagon, so they made it sound like .NET was (or would be in the future) more widely usable than it is.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, I'm no fan of .NET, but the Help Desk webcomic isn't exactly the best source for objective and serious assessments of Microsoft products. Several programming languages have been built for .NET and programs that are built with these will generally require the .NET runtime to run. Although this is irrelevant to the well-definedness of the concept, most people tend to acknowledge that these languages, perhaps C# in particular, are far better than Microsoft's earlier offerings along these lines, although they may of course not be everyone's cup of tea for various reasons including but not limited to their being tied to a closed system and their being generally non-cross-platform.

You may not like the framework, but there is no longer any confusion about what .NET is. You'll notice that the comic you linked to was from 2004.

Re:Does it matter?

[skiflyer]

I hear this joke on Slashdot all the time, but I don't get it, what is it that you guys fail to understand about .NET? It's not really hard to understand what it is or what it does if you spend 20 minutes trying to figure it out. I will definitely agree when they launched it they didn't seem to communicate the product to the marketing team well, and perhaps the argument could be made that they still haven't... but how does that change the reality of what the product is?

Re:Does it matter?

[Intron]

"Integrated across the Microsoft platform..."

I don't think that means what you think it means.

Re:Does it matter?

[errxn]

...the Help Desk webcomic isn't exactly the best source for objective and serious assessments of Microsoft products Neither is Slashdot, for that matter.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

What .net is now is completely different from the vast swarm of swirling spin and angry buzzing buzzwords that poured forth from Microsoft when that concept was spawned, half-formed from the bowels of that beast. It was going to revolutionize the world, one-up .mac on the personal services side while providing corporate services that scaled to millions of users and provide a synergistic end-to-end mashup of all business processes with qualitative and quantitative analysis of everything at once. dotnet was going to bring the ultimate in efficiency and productivity to every one of your workers, from the CEO all the way down to the guy who screws the plastic case together and puts it back on the conveyor belt. (Remember the cars on demand ad, with the robot painting the cars as people decide what color they want? .net made that possible!) There was going to be windows .net, office .net and so on, all of them designed to work with The Intarweb in new and wonderous ways that would blow the minds of every lesser being if so much as a hint of their power was whispered at them from across the room.

Now it's just a runtime for a bytecode interpreted language. Whoopity-doo.

Re:Does it matter?

[brennanw]

I will definitely agree when they launched it they didn't seem to communicate the product to the marketing team well, and perhaps the argument could be made that they still haven't... but how does that change the reality of what the product is?

If they're not communicating the product well, how am I supposed to understand what it is? I need more than "it's a bunch of things that do stuff." :-)

Re:Does it matter?

[nine-times]

It's true that .NET used to be something totally different (some sort of internet computing initiative), and then it wasn't clear, Microsoft seems to have settled on it as an actual product. It's a programming framework. I'm not a programmer so I can't tell you what's good about it, but it seems to be an actual thing now.

Re:Does it matter?

[nocaster]

Well, at the time Sun was putting the "dot" in "com", so someone needed to put the "dot" in "net".

Re:Does it matter?

[Ucklak]

Cross platform for Microsoft means it will work on Windows, Xbox, and mobile devices that run Windows.

It's just another word to ignore when Microsoft says it versus say Samsung when their printers are cross platform which means Linux/Mac/Windows.

Re:Does it matter?

[Goaway]

Are you incapable of acquiring information from any other source than marketing material?

Salesmen must love you.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are an assclown.

Re:Does it matter?

[nametaken]

You're exactly right. The nice thing about it is that it's comprehensive... it makes it simple to just get to work, instead of hunting down functionality written into various resources maintained by different people, all of which need to be obtained separately and glued together. Think of it like Java, except that the language you write in doesn't have to be Java, you pick the one you're comfortable with. Ultimately it all gets compiled into the same thing, so language choice has been reduced (almost) to a mere matter of pure preference. That's why you'll often see three groups of people in the VB.Net vs. C#.Net argument... one for each, and one to say, "Guys, it really doesn't matter." It's almost a running joke at this point. :)

Re:Does it matter?

[MightyMartian]

That's the Microsoft marketing machine. Disregard facts, say anything and everything to keep the developers worshipping at the altar of Redmond, and then, once you've once again kept them locked in, allow the truth that was oh-so-much less than fiction trickle out.

The fact is that if you're not interested in cross-platform coding, then use .Net. It's really no different than using VB6 or any other Windows-specific development environment. If you want true platform independence, then Java is still the only way to go (yes, I know, the web browser probably is approaching that point, but I still find it the worst development and application environment).

Re:Does it matter?

[r3m0t]

That explains .NET Passport and .NET messenger perfectly... thanks. :-)

Re:Does it matter?

[jedidiah]

...sounds suspicously like Unix actually, as Java did before.

Now unix has actually be successfully indpendently reimplemented in practice. Even java has.

It remains to be seen if .net will be in any meaningful fashion. It already has a sort of commercial Unix clannishness already built in.

Ultimately, any universal platform is "owned" suddenly becomes useless in terms of being "universal" simply because of that ownership. The legal definition of ownership is the ability to exclude.

Re:Does it matter?

[skiflyer]

They being developer evangelists, blogs, other developers, and the general documentation communicate it just fine. Marketing and webcomics do it poorly.

So yeah, they're not going to hook you if you have no interest... but if you're going to be interested enough to comment on it on slashdot, I figured maybe you'd get more input.

Re:Does it matter?

[FutureDomain]

most people tend to acknowledge that these languages, perhaps C# in particular, are far better than Microsoft's earlier offerings along these lines I heartily agree. C# is a much better language than C, or C++. It is elegantly simple, yet almost as powerful as C++ when you use features like unsafe code. It drives me nuts when I have to use C++ to write a native Linux program.

The best solution is to get C# out of Microsoft's .NET and make a native C# compiler. The language is an ECMA and ISO standard, so it shouldn't be much of a problem with getting stable language documentation. The next best technique is to clone the CLR like Mono does, and port the .NET framework over to Linux.

Re:Does it matter?

[Rob Y.]

...was just a ploy to take some of the wind out of Java's sails.

Absolutely right. Microsoft was originally pushing .NET as a 'better Java', and in some ways, it actually was better. But in the way that really mattered to most Java developers, it was much worse. Its cross-platform nature was the main appeal of Java. Yes, the language may have been viewed as an improvement, and the 'managed code' approach to security is nice. But 'write once, run anywhere' was the main selling point of Java.

So how did Microsoft 'compete'? First, by deliberately sabotaging the cross-platform nature of Java, and Second by implying that their Java clone was cross-platform as well.

And the saddest part is that if Microsoft had been broken up by the Justice Dept when it should have been, .NET probably would have been made truly cross-platform. Then it could have competed honestly with Java.

Re:Does it matter?

[wllmsaccnt]

I was under the impression that the .net framework (The ~thousands of classes built in a modular library) was not designed to be cross platform. In contrast, isn't the .Net CLR based on the open EMCA CLI specification? The same specification that novell used to create mono? This article appears to be confusing the different portions of .net. The comment about the impossibility of porting UI code would apply to the windows forms portion of the .net framework, and unless I am mistaken, has little to do with creating cross platform compatability with the CLR/CLI. Looking at MSDN's overview of the .net framework, the only snippet I see about cross PLATFORM interopability is the following*:

The .NET Framework is designed to fulfill the following objectives:... To build all communication on industry standards to ensure that code based on the .NET Framework can integrate with any other code. I am fairly certain this is refering only to the integration of SOAP based xml services that are so easy to create and use in the .net framework and I don't think it has anything to do with being cross platform. However, as the author of the website has stated, it does reflect poorly on Microsoft that the only cross platform .net implementations they have gone out of their way to create have been comercially hampered.

*From http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/zw4w595w( VS.80).aspx

Re:Does it matter?

[Shemmie]

Damnit, AJAX mod system and not being able to correct mistakes without making a post.

Re:Does it matter?

[spockrock]

Cross platform for Microsoft means it will work on Windows, Xbox, and mobile devices that run Windows.

hahahhaha.... pretty much....

Re:Does it matter?

[jesterzog]

So how did Microsoft 'compete'? First, by deliberately sabotaging the cross-platform nature of Java, and Second by implying that their Java clone was cross-platform as well.

It might appear that Microsoft competed by implying that DotNet was cross-platform, but I'm not so sure that it had much effect. From my own perspective, it seems that Microsoft's competed much more frequently by convincing people that they don't need to be cross-platform, because all their customers who matter either use Windows, or are on the other end of a web server. (No argument about the earlier sabotaging of the Java spec, though. That really was bad.)

Do you know of any Java shops that switched to DotNet because they honestly thought it would be cross-platform? I know of dev shops that have switched because DotNet was more suited to what they were doing, and also ones that switched because they had managers who just liked Microsoft, but I certainly don't know of anyone who switched with expectations of it being cross-platform. Anyone I've know who's used DotNet has quite consciously made a decision based on an assumption that they're unlikely to have a cross-platform product once they've done it.

Personally I think that Microsoft's main goal with DotNet has been to hold on to the Microsoft developers that they already had, as well as providing a decent managed platform for people who just want to develop Windows apps. Not everyone cares about cross-platform code, even if it's to their eventual peril.

Before DotNet came out, the only real options for coding in Windows were a mish-mash of ugly scripting languages such as VBScript, badly designed Microsoft languages (VBA), the unmanaged and less secure platforms such as C++, and platforms that weren't controlled by Microsoft -- such as Java.

If Microsoft hadn't introduced DotNet, all of those developers who were loyal to Microsoft would eventually have had to migrate to better platforms that were not only not controlled by Microsoft, but which were controlled by competitors such as Sun. This would have given companies like Sun a lot more control over Microsoft.

It's true that the marketroids at Microsoft skewed and mis-represented DotNet as they always do, but strategically I think DotNet was really a catch-up maneuver to make sure that Microsoft could keep what it already had.

Re:Does it matter?

[aybiss]

Bah, this is typical /. MS bashing. For starters, it is already well and truly possible to write .NET code that runs on many platforms. The biggest hurdle is that MS is not interested (and yes, money is the reason) in making an IDE or releasing its windowing API on other platforms. When you're talking cross-platform development there are actually very few viable options for APIs anyway, so most developers wouldn't find themselves too surprised to be looking at things like PortAudio and Gtk rather than relying on everything coming from MS.

So MS didn't know what .NET was going to do? You're probably right, they couldn't have imagined things like ATI drivers requiring .NET 2.0 for their flash control panel, or any one of the million other 'strange' places where developers have found .NET a convenient way to accomplish tasks from minute to mammoth.

As for their mandating that code developed under .NET for other platforms be open source, I'm in two minds. Clearly it could have been great if they'd decided not to do that, but when you consider that they've released a free IDE and framework I'm sure it would irk even the most philanthropic MS exec to see the resulting explosion of cross-platform compatibility and ensuing increase in the net viability of having Linux or Mac machines in your office alongside your Windows boxen.

Anyway... back to coding my cross platform app with my free tools from MS.

Re:Does it matter?

[chthon]

Part of our federal government in Belgium is an example how cross-platform really works.

Applications are developed in Java, but are currently not running on Sun.

Peter Strickx, CTO of Fedict, is a previous Sun employee, but his viewpoint is that he should be able to switch suppliers from one day to the other (probably barring contracts) on any level. That is probably also the reason that last year, he mandated the use of ODF.

Non Free is Predictable.

[twitter]

Is there anyone, anywhere who thinks Microsoft will ever do anything that's really free, and therefore portable, cross platform and all that other stuff they would like to say about .NET? The more they hype it, the more obvious the shortfall.

Re:Non Free is Predictable.

[Dionysus]

A software product/framework can be portable, cross platform without being Free. I don't know if Microsoft has ever claimed that .NET would be Free.

Re:Non Free is Predictable.

[eviloverlordx]

Is there anyone, anywhere who thinks Microsoft will ever do anything that's really free, and therefore portable, cross platform and all that other stuff they would like to say about .NET? The more they hype it, the more obvious the shortfall.

Of course not, because it's not in their best interests to open source .NET. MS would lose control over their product, which is exactly not what they want to do.

Re:Non Free is Predictable.

[jimstapleton]

agreed, and while Microsoft's implementation may not be free or portable, I've yet to see a good reason why Mono doesn't make .NET portable. Admittedly, Mono isn't completely finished, but any .NET applicatino that runs in Mono (and it's not unheard of) is an example of portable .NET

Re:Non Free is Predictable.

[Vellmont]

Is there anyone, anywhere who thinks Microsoft will ever do anything that's really free [gnu.org], and therefore portable, cross platform

Ever is a long time. Microsoft will do exactly what you describe shortly after they're losing badly to a competitor. Until then they'll continue to play the monopoly game.

Re:Non Free is Predictable.

[koreaman]

My dear Twitter,

Microsoft has indeed released Free software.

Very truly yours,
koreaman

Re:Non Free is Predictable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sandcastle...

Re:Non Free is Predictable.

[owlstead]

Mono will be finished just after GNU Classpath gets finished. API's grow you know. Saying that it is a .NET portable could better be called a Mono portable for that matter. Also, since there are no open source application servers for Mono (none that I found anyway), its usability can be questioned. Fortunately it seems that Forms are now supported by Mono, making cross platform GUI's at least a possability.

Re:Non Free is Predictable.

[Kalriath]

Hardly. It might increase Visual Studio's exposure, which in the opinion of the vast majority who've used it, is a really good product. It contrasts severely against the mediocrity (or downright crappiness, depending on which camp you occupy) of Windows itself.

I would have to say, I would be extremely pleased if I could hit "Build" in Visual Studio and know that the output works on Linux the same as Windows (with the obvious exception of if I was using System.Runtime.InteropServices functionality - but that could possibly be ported to SO support, no?) without even a recompile.

Re:Non Free is Predictable.

[The Bungi]

I find it amusing that you're complaining about .NET, given that you think it's a "buggy piece of shit" What exactly is it to you? Just like you enjoy compaining about the "M$ tax" but haven't bought a computer in eight years? Pointless flamebait, as usual.

Ah, but you're in karma whoring mode right now. I see. Gotta get out from under all those troll mods from the past few days.

Re:Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portab

[ArchdukeChocula]

Which is also the reason we will be a portable .NET ten years from now if they continue to loose ground in the business world and are still a big player but no longer the dominate monopoly. Hey, we saw it happen to Big Blue, why not Redmond?

Snooze.

[EveryNickIsTaken]

1) Slashdotted.

2) Since I'm sure this is just another cookie-cutter Anti-MS piece, I'll point out the following: Please stop referencing MS memos/docs from years ago in order to bash the company. Come on. That's SO 1999.

Re:Snooze.

[Opportunist]

So what you're saying is that what they said some years ago shouldn't be taken serious anymore? Why should I take anything said by MS now serious? Why should I believe that what's being spun today holds any meaning in the future if I am not supposed to believe what I was told earlier?

Don't get me wrong, but when a company makes a statement or announcement, there are two ways to deal with it. Either believe it and expect it to happen or declare it bunk and handle it accordingly. And if the former is expected, the results should warrant it. Either MS follows its words with actions or it has to accept that people ignore their announcements, or, worse, read them for the same reason they read the Prawda: To know what will certainly NOT happen.

Re:Snooze.

[Anonymous Coward]

but 1999 was the last time anyone around here had a solid job and that is all they remember

Re:Snooze.

[CmdrGravy]

Why yes, of course because we all know that Microsofts strategy today was largely determined yesterday afternoon. A large multinational company like Microsoft with product lead times measured in years would never have discussed the actions they're taking today 5 or 6 years ago would they. You muppet.

Terrified, they aint.

[LibertineR]

Come on.

Why is Microsoft the only company constantly expected to make decisions anti to their business model? Where is the clamor for Apple to adopt VB for the sake of 'developers'? Ok, bad example.

But seriously; with 50Billion in the bank, I think throwing around words like 'terrified' serve no purpose but to feed the rabid-anti-Microsoft crowds.

Hard to have a serious discussion, when the article is premised on hype and flaming rhetoric to start with.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[LibertineR]

Just to follow up, how stupid is it for the same folks yelling "Microsoft sucks!" on a daily basis, to turn around and ask for access to some of that suckage for themselves?

Do they suck or not, people? If so, why ask for their shit?

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure? I mean, can you point to someone who has done that? Or are you just confusing a group of people with the individuals within the group? 'cos I'm fairly sure that's what you're doing.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[Trailer Trash]

"Terrified" isn't really the word, but "paranoid" would probably do. Microsoft, as an organization, doesn't like to compete with other companies. So, their way of doing business is to rig the system so that they have such an overwhelming competitive advantage they don't have to compete. This is why they are paranoid about someone figuring out their file formats, certain network protocols. And they're paranoid about their army of developers being able to quickly and easily develop for other platforms. Look at their actions and you'll see that.

Frankly, that paranoia got them the $50B in the bank, so it's hard to argue against.

That said, they have as much interest in making cross-platform development tools as they have in supporting ODF, and basically for the same reason. The WWW is one of the only truly cross-platform development environments left; why do you think they want so badly to make a "flash-killer"? It's not about flash - it's about the web.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[suv4x4]

Indeed. If Microsoft has a fault, it's the fact their marketing does claim they'll be just as cross-platform and open, as Adobe Flash is, as a web platform (talking about Silverlight and the open-sources CLR here).

Adobe open-sourced part of the platform as they feel the heat from Microsoft. Microsoft did the same as they feel the heat from Adobe (yes, having 50 billion in the bank doesn't mean they're immune to failure, so they DO react quickly to competition).

It's stupid to expect they should spend years developing .NET and then give it all away randomly to make MS-bashers happy (which they will never ever be, anyway).

Acknolwedge the amount of effort that went into .NET and accpet it as a great platform, that's more or less tied to Windows, and has limited deployment on other platforms. That's all you need to do: see through Microsoft marketing, and use technology where it's best fitted.

I'm a Flash developer and would still see lots of uses for .NET/Silverlight, that in some cases even mix Silverlight and Flash in the same experience - why not? Why should I be a nazi and not just give it to Microsoft for having a great runtime, when they do.

Screw bashers.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[LibertineR]

Oh please.

Apple just did what they always do, which is to read the tea leaves sooner than the competition. DRM is limiting what Apple and others can do, but unlike the others, Apple doesnt mind taking a short-term risk in favor of a long term goal. Apple's foresight is the only reason they still exist as a force in the marketplace.

In that Apple customers have a religious zeal for their products, this decision is NOT against their business model.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[Da Fokka]

The article summary, for instance:

...yet are terrified of the very thought of .NET being available to *nix users, even if that's to the benefit of .NET developers everywhere

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[blankaBrew]

M$ Zealot Timeline

January 2007 - Apple is a DRM pushing monopoly

February 2007 after Steve Jobs' call to end DRM - Jobs is lying.. they would never agree to get rid of DRM because that would be against their business intersts in customer lock-in.

April 2007 after Steve Jobs announces Deal to drop DRM - They just read the tea leaves sooner than everyone else. This is not against their business model.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[Alien Being]

As someone who's been saying that MS sucks for 20+ years, I feel qualified to answer this. They suck in many ways.

There's the standalone suckage such as every version of WinDOS they sold before NT. Most of us don't really care about this, in fact we find it amusing.

It's the other crap that gets us worked up. Network suckage, such as NetBeui and SMB, file format suckage such as MSOffice, and
corporate suckage such as their misdeeds against Sun, Digital Research, Linux and countless others.

If we wanted their shit, we would buy it. What we really want is for MS to stop being like the Borg. They should communicate with open languages and protocols and stop trying to assimilate the world. The reason they won't is that they would become irrelevant almost overnight.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[Locutus]

It's for the customers man. Those poor thoughtless, ignorant, and mostly naive people who have bought into Microsoft's lies and are now stuck with them with no way out. Like a cute fuzzy forest creature following a food trail into a dastardly trap. You feel sorry for the thoughtless creature and want to help it out of its cage. So too is the desire to lead the caged masses out of the trap(s) Microsoft has lead them into. ;-)

LoB

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[dubl-u]

Why is Microsoft the only company constantly expected to make decisions anti to their business model?

I think Slashdot is pretty consistent in expecting companies to make decisions in favor of Slashdot readers. And when they don't, we expect them not to lie to us too much.

The problem with Microsoft is that their business model, which involves creating a fair bit of vendor lock-in and maintaining their monopoly by any means necessary, is one that doesn't fit well with either of those criteria.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[rbanffy]

Really, the question is why supposedly smart people insist in investing time and money on a project where Microsoft controls the requirements?

And yes - because Microsoft has an effective monopoly, it is subject to a different set of rules designed to protect the market from it.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[Locutus]

It sure seems like ANY company who makes software for Microsoft Windows is Microsoft's competition these days. Get it? Anybody who starts to become profitable on the Windows platform is a likely target for destruction by Microsoft. Talk about a love/hate relationship. I guess winning the lottery and building on the Microsoft Windows 'platform' have alot in common.

Oh, and I'm sure MS .Net is such a great tool that Microsoft would NEVER consider twisting, tweaking, and manipulating it to serve the purpose of controlling its competition. Never.

LoB

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Some people have a lot more of a problem with Microsoft's business practices than their products. I think I might be among them, at least, while there is significant room for improvement, I don't think their products are all as bad as detractors say they are.

You gave VB as an example, and when I've programmed in it, it didn't seem so bad in my opinion. I think what gave it a bad rap is more that programmers were using it improperly and causing problems.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[suv4x4]

It sure seems like ANY company who makes software for Microsoft Windows is Microsoft's competition these days. Get it?

I wonder if you actually get it. Windows-only applications that are useful and popular make Windows stronger. Microsoft will lead the desktop OS market for a long time to come, because apps make it useful.

Adobe's a danger to Microsoft not because it's making software for Windows, it's making *cross-platform* suite that makes Windows less relevant, and now they're owning the cross-platform runtime (Flash) that replaces many uses for rich applications and WMP on Windows. This makes Windows, again, less relevant.

So Microsoft can stay idle and look how Windows is made less and less relevant by Adobe, or move in and claim that market with its own solution. Which is what they did.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[CmdrGravy]

No one is asking Microsoft to give .net away, we're just wondering why a supposedly platform independant, er, platform isn't available for much in the way of non Microsoft platforms.

The reason you can't use .net on Linux has got nothing to do with .net. If the only consideration was .net then Microsoft would make more money by making it available for as many platforms as they could rather than restricting it to Windows.

The problem with doing that, for Microsoft, is that if people can run their .net applications on other platforms then they have no reason to by Windows operating systems anymore and Windows lose money and this is the problem with Microsoft, all their products are forced to bow down before the overwhelming goal of maintaining a Windows monopoly rather than being allowed to fulfil their true potential.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[Anonymous Coward]

Find that Microsoft internal email where they say "cross platform will never work" and "lets steal Java" and then come back and tell us how much effort Microsoft put into .NET

I'd prefer to eat my own gonads than infect my system with a CLR, speaking of which haven't Sun just open sourced Java :P

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[PitaBred]

Rather, it's what they're trying to do. We'll have to wait to see if it's what they actually did, and I sincerely hope that it's not.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[suv4x4]

The reason you can't use .net on Linux has got nothing to do with .net.

If the only consideration was .net then Microsoft would make more money by making it available for as many platforms as they could rather than restricting it to Windows [...]

all their products are forced to bow down before the overwhelming goal of maintaining a Windows monopoly rather than being allowed to fulfil their true potential.

Why is any company expected to kill its most profitable product, so some other less profitable product can realize "its full potential"? No one can ask from Microsoft to take active steps in destroying its profits and going bankrupt.

Imagine you worked your ass off for long years to afford a good house and a shiny car, and some hippie asks you to move out and let homeless people live in your own place and drive your own car, since it's "realizing your asset potential" better. Do you do it, or tell the hippie to piss off.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[suv4x4]

Find that Microsoft internal email where they say "cross platform will never work" and "lets steal Java" and then come back and tell us how much effort Microsoft put into .NET

I'd prefer to eat my own gonads than infect my system with a CLR, speaking of which haven't Sun just open sourced Java :P


I've read the memo, and I don't think it's so terrible. Microsoft has reasons to not have believed in crossplatform, because they've tried it before and it failed - the first version of MFC was cross platform (OS/2, Windows and more) and it was so slow and bloated they had to scrap it and redo it slim, just for Windows.

Even if a high level exec says "let's steal Java" it doesn't mean they downloaded the sources from Sun and did s/java/net. The fact they said that outlines their strategy, not the amount of effort it took to develop .NET.

If you *actually* worked a lot with Java and .NET you'll see how different they can be in some areas, the similarities are only in some of the basics (we got IL, we got runtime, we got Java/C++ like language syntax, called C#). .NET was developed highly modular, so today, it can be cross-platform. If Microsoft doesn't want it to be, it's their product, it's their call.

If they did announce "hey we're making it officially run on OSX and Linux", we'll have people like you come here to whine "omg it's a trojan hourse designed to kill Linux with patents and all that!".

If Linux companies were smart they'd actually stay away from .NET, as it could for very real make Linux dependent on Mictrosoft technology. Microsoft would love that.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[jedidiah]

Why? Because that's what MICROSOFT CLAIMS is going on.

They are making big noises about their new development environment not creating the usual barriers to entry and exit that they are so well known for.

Hey, if a development framework that won't trap end users and developers is going to "kill it's most profitable product" then there is something fundementally wrong with that product. What you're basically telling us is that Microsoft can't survive on an open playing field. Take away their legacy apps and vendor lock and they die quick and sudden.

If they weren't so genuinely lame, they could compete and win even if their product was a total commodity. Being able to do this is what separates the men from the boys.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[Locutus]

good point but I come from a background where being cross-platform allowed your customers to put your product on the best hardware for the task. I remember when "C" came out and all the talk about cross platform, when Pascal did the same, C++ application frameworks in the late 80s to mid 90s.

I can see how you might FEEL safe in a MS Windows-only world but that is NOT the world I see. If all you see is the Windows desktop PC then it's a narrow view of the computing landscape. There are mobile phones, handhelds, DVRs, and I'm missing a few million classes of devices. Adobe knows there's a larger world than the Microsoft Windows PC and they are taking up the task of playing in those areas.

So, isn't it still being like a caged animal when all you are ALLOWED to see is the Microsoft Windows desktop?

LoB

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[yoprst]

My impression is that they aren't afraid at all. They just want to be able to run their platform and software written for it on new hardware. They're also looking for exploiting suckers who can write code but don't quite get the core benefits of open source, but that's just a bonus. The prime goal is to run your code on some portable/pocket/rebranded underpowered pc crap.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[sveard]

It's odd that you compare microsoft to a decent home owner and open source to hippies. Why is that?

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[suv4x4]

I can see how you might FEEL safe in a MS Windows-only world but that is NOT the world I see.

So, isn't it still being like a caged animal when all you are ALLOWED to see is the Microsoft Windows desktop?

Reread my post. I never said how *I* feel about any of this, just the actual forces causing the decisions we see took place.

And drop the caps, and the psychobabble, about my supposed feelings and caged animal mentality, please.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[drew]

Even the dumbest company in the world can get something right once or twice by accident. Maybe they didn't realize that one of their new employees was actually more intelligent than he seemed in the interview. Maybe the POS competitor that they bought out actually had a good idea that they just never released. Maybe they accidentally bought a good company somewhere along the line. Maybe Microsoft really does suck, and possibly most of their products look like they were written by five year olds, but that doesn't mean that they've never released anything along the way that is worthwhile. Some of us would like to use the worthwhile bits that have snuck their way out the door without being tied to the rest of the sandcastle.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Network suckage, such as NetBeui

IBM invented NetBUI, and MS hasn't enabled it for about 10 years now. It doesn't even exist in current revisions of their OS. Like I said to Philip Glass, find a new note.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[krelian]

If we wanted their shit, we would buy it. What we really want is for MS to stop being like the Borg. They should communicate with open languages and protocols and stop trying to assimilate the world. The reason they won't is that they would become irrelevant almost overnight.

So why do they suck? Microsoft is a business that exists to make money. The last thing you can say about them from a business point of view is that they suck. They are actually the absolute best at what they are doing - making money out of software.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[BronsCon]

They're not the ONLY company expected to do so. the same is expected of every other monopoly, as well.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[krelian]

It's for the customers man. Those poor thoughtless, ignorant, and mostly naive people who have bought into Microsoft's lies and are now stuck with them with no way out. Like a cute fuzzy forest creature following a food trail into a dastardly trap. You feel sorry for the thoughtless creature and want to help it out of its cage. So too is the desire to lead the caged masses out of the trap(s) Microsoft has lead them into. ;-)

LoB
You make it sounds like Windows end users are in some sort of jail and are being enslaved for past mistakes. Most of the Windows users I know are actually pretty happy with how their computer works. Yes, you can say that they never really had a choice but the other alternatives will either look exactly the same to the average end user (Mac) or worse (Linux).

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[Locutus]

just replying to your comment and if it would make you more comfortable, exchange the word "you" with "anyone".

And sorry, can't help but go into "sychobabble" mode when talking about Microsoft since that is what 90% of this is about. The other 10% is actual technology and typically, that's been done years before Microsoft rebranded it as theirs. As far as the caps go, it's easier than changing to HTML(it's an acronym) and adding all the

  stuff to the edit/text. I apologize if it offends anybody.

LoB

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[oconnorcjo]

Why is any company expected to kill its most profitable product, so some other less profitable product can realize "its full potential"? No one can ask from Microsoft to take active steps in destroying its profits and going bankrupt.

You pointed it out perfectly. When Microsoft makes a developer product it is a conflict of interest to make that product portable. Almost all other developer oriented companies don't have this conflict of interest. So as a developer, it is best to avoid MS development products. MS knows this and so now is claiming they too can be cross-platform but they are lying because they know they have a conflict of interest. All the posts above and below are pointing out that MS is lying and they should either change their claim of cross platform or actually make thier stuff cross platform.

Unfortunately MS is trying to trap more people to MS by claiming "cross platform" while not providing "cross platform" which is evil/ugly/sad.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[Locutus]

The customer in my comment is the developer.

Regarding your comment with respect to the "user"; Not knowing the boundaries one is restricted to does not mean you are not constrained. What is that saying, "ignorance is bliss"?

But this is a whole other story that I just don't want to go into right now.

LoB

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[suv4x4]

You pointed it out perfectly. When Microsoft makes a developer product it is a conflict of interest to make that product portable. Almost all other developer oriented companies don't have this conflict of interest. So as a developer, it is best to avoid MS development products.

You're right about the conflict of interests, but it's not a good reason to avoid MS developer products. The developer products of Microsoft are great for what they do (software/server/clients for Windows).

You see, Microsoft's position is not unique here. Do you think Adobe's commitment to cross-platform solutions is based on their good-natured philosophy about software technology?

Adobe knows that if produces Windows-only technology, Microsoft will beat it anytime, as Microsoft makes Windows, and Microsoft makes the best dev tools for Windows out there. No one argues that.

So Adobe should offer something different, or die. It decided to offer something different, the only thing Microsoft can't offer: true commitment to crossplatform write-once-deploy-anywhere solutions and developer tools. It's their survival technique.

At one point Adobe started dropping their Mac based products or producing/sustaining new Windows-only products. (Premiere, PageMaker, Audition). But back then other forces shifted their decisions: Windows has much greater market share, they sell more for Windows, and writing for Mac is very expensive, and has low return. They were just a software company providing graphics/document tools.

They're no longer just that, so they now have their newfound reason to stick to platform neutrality.

As always, the customers win from all this. I today can deploy Flash solutions accross Linux/Windows/OSX/Solaris, and in an year or so, I'll have the option of deploying .NET/WPF rich clients on Windows, with rich 3D, video and layout capabilities, and taking a subset of that and deploying it on OSX/Windows with Silverlight.

Both of those platforms come with RAD tools, if Silverlight turns ugly on OSX and I need the OSX support, I'll port to Flash/SVG/HTML/whatever-has-traction-at-the-moment and say Silverlight bye bye. It's as simple as that.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[suv4x4]

Hey, if a development framework that won't trap end users and developers is going to "kill it's most profitable product" then there is something fundementally wrong with that product. What you're basically telling us is that Microsoft can't survive on an open playing field. Take away their legacy apps and vendor lock and they die quick and sudden.

I didn't say they die quick and sudden. That would require something quite catastrophic to happen. But the trend is important. All parts of the equation are important.

Microsoft does not believe that legacy will support their market share forever, and this is why they imitate OSX with the fancy interface, and try to buff up their security, and enterprise features. In fact some of this they did by sacrificing some compatibility with their legacy software.

But this just proves once more that it's not about one single thing, or one another thing: it's about the balance of everything that Windows should have, to stay dominant. There's no reason Microsoft to destabilize itself by letting competition make half the apps out there platform independent.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[CmdrGravy]

You say

Why is any company expected to kill its most profitable product, so some other less profitable product can realize "its full potential"

and so far as Microsoft are concerned they'd be stupid to do so.

The thing is what do I care about the internal pressures on a company which cause it to handicap it's products, all I see is that it's producing products which do not live up to their promises or their potential and this is annoying for me as a customer who relies on those products and has to use them in my day to day work.

Re:Terrified, they aint.

[jedidiah]

Sure. They're in business to make money by screwing their customer.

Bill himself started out with MITS.

The fact that Bill is prone to such tactics should not go unnoticed by any of his customers or partners.

.Net Framework Portability

[Wharper]

It does seem M$ is making some effort to take at least some portions of the .net framework to other systems:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/embedded/bb278106 .aspx

It even looks as if some companies are making dev boards with it:

http://www.embeddedfusion.com/default.aspx?id=76

In talking with them (M$) it seems that you pay to port this framework to whatever platform you would like to take the framework to. This is with or without an operating system.

Cheers,
    Bill

Re:.Net Framework Portability

[Locutus]

hey, that's great, Microsoft is doing what HP had done with Java 10 years ago. Well, you don't know this because when HP went to productize the HP Jornada with the Chai JVM and all Java application framework/GUI, the loss of Microsoft marketing $$ from their WinCE handheld line was enough to end the project.

So it's great to see developers getting exactly what Microsoft wants them to get. And only TEN YEARS later. Go Microsoft!

LoB

Hmmm...

[El Lobo]

Well, MS never hyped .NET as a truly platform independent envioroment. They hyped it as a language independent platform which *eventually* would run in several OS.

OTPH why should they be scared of the UN*X world? If they should be scared, then it's the MAC world they should be scared of in the desktop world? AND if they were so scared of Linux, they COULD have reacted directly to the mono project. They have all the rights to stop it and guess what... They never did it.

Re:Hmmm...

[symbolset]

Why should they be afraid? Because given 30 years and more money than the GNP of Texas they can't come up with a better OS than a finnish nerd's geek vanity project, or a better language than c++. They should be afraid because the future is Open.

Portability

[Egonis]

It's pretty sad.

On the other hand, there is always the Mono Project (www.mono-project.org)
It even has a Visual Basic Compiler.

Yes, it's not ready for primetime yet (imo), but it looks very promising.

Microsoft's actions will just result in more 3rd party and OSS development.

Re:Portability

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's pretty sad.

>On the other hand, there is always the Mono Project (www.mono-project.org)
>It even has a Visual Basic Compiler.

>Yes, it's not ready for primetime yet (imo), but it looks very promising.

Yeah.. it is sad.

Mono looked to be in about the same position 3 years ago ( looks very promising!). Unfortunately the devs have been suckered by MS. How can anyone be even slightly surprised when the .NET/c# bar keeps moving on the mono guys? They will never catch up and MS will just keep using them as an example of 'openness' .

Harsh truth does hurt.

Re:Portability

[CastrTroy]

I think that Sun should pour a bunch of money/time into Mono, to make it ready for prime time. This would allow them to have .Net on sun systems. I think that could play very well for them. .Net is a great framework for developing applications, but I've always found that IIS is a little lacking for running large enterprise systems.

Re:Portability

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF?

Ever heard of Java and the dozens of frameworks and app servers you can use to build applications? Apps that run on half a dozen platforms w/ little to no changes?

Jeez...

----

I suppose I just fell for a troll.

Re:Portability

[jimicus]

there is always the Mono Project (www.mono-project.org)
It even has a Visual Basic Compiler.

Yes, it's not ready for primetime yet (imo), but it looks very promising.

WINE isn't ready for primetime yet (imo). As a project, it's been going on for about 10 years and it's been looking very promising in the last couple of years.

But then Microsoft release something new - maybe some new APIs in the latest version of Windows, or as part of a service pack - and suddenly WINE has more catching up to do.

The same is true of Mono. A project like that simply cannot hope to ever reach the same level as the product it's aping because as it's trying to hit a moving target.

Re:Portability

[CastrTroy]

That's the whole point of my post. People could run Java and .Net on the same hardware. You could deal with one company, and have both platforms. I would love to be able to run .Net web services on a server that's a little more robust.

Re:Portability

[rice_web]

You're completely forgetting Novell's commitment to Mono. Mono has a great chance of reaching parity.

Re:Portability

[tieTYT]

I think you'll be saying "it looks promising" for as long as .NET is around. .NET will on come out with its next cool feature and it'll take mono a year to catch up to it. Either mono will always be behind, Microsoft will stop improving .NET so mono can catch up, or Microsoft will give Mono real support and bring it up to date. I see the first option as being much more likely than the other two.

Re:Portability

[jimicus]

TBH, I wasn't forgetting. I just didn't think it was terribly important.

Unless Novell get advanced warning on where Microsoft plan to take .NET (ie. they learn about it before anything is released to the public), I don't understand how mono can ever be doing anything more than playing catchup.

Though at least with Novell, there's the money there to hire the developers to make the catchup process rather quicker and easier.

Re:Portability

[Egonis]

See, this is what is interesting.

All of the responses have been targeted at .NET -> Mono compatability.

Who says they have to be compatible?

I'm looking for an alternative framework that doesn't cost me an arm and a leg, actually *is* multiplatform, and I am comfortable in.

To be a good alternative does not mean backwards compatability with Microsoft.

Although VB, C#, etc etc will change and whatnot, why can't the Mono project make their own turns and directions?

Mono Anyone?

[N8F8]

Stop griping and expend your efforts bringing Mono up to .Net 2.0 compatability.

Re:Mono Anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope.

I stopped gripping long ago and I'm using Java instead.

At the end of the day, the one and only reason Microsoft came up with C#, the CLR and so on is because Java was portable.
VB.NET could just as well have targeted the JVM, and as for the C/C++ compatibility which as I recall was the main argument for starting Mono in the name of reuse, and mysteriously dropped off the radar, that's just syntactic sugar in the C compiler.

So just what kind of moron expect them to make it cross platform now?!?
Yeah, I know, Miguel and those guys...

Whatever guys. For that I got Java.
For everything else I got Python, Perl and C.

Re:Mono Anyone?

[kestasjk]

Stop griping and expend your efforts bringing Mono up to .Net 2.0 compatability. Microsoft is on .NET 3.0.. Kind of sums up the problem doesn't it. :-)

Re:Mono Anyone?

[Shados]

Better shoot for .NET 3.5 right away, otherwise by the time you're done, you'll be a full version behind...

Java

[mwvdlee]

.NET is basically Java without the portability.
So why bother with .NET?

Re:Java

[Anonymous Coward]

Why use Java? I admit I'm more of a hardware guy then a programmer but why bother using either Java or .NET? C works just fine for most programs. It's portable, it's easier to learn, and it's less hyped with fewe buzz words?

Re:Java

[poindextrose]

I develop in both the Java and .NET frameworks. I like the Java language a lot more than C#. Unfortunately, users like Windows.Forms a lot more than Swing.

Re:Java

[j00r0m4nc3r]

So why bother with .NET?

Simplicity. I hate MS to my very core, but I can whip up apps in C#.NET faster than I can in Java. 99% of the time I don't care about portability. I just care about getting things done on time. Of course, then there's the other times when I have to use MFC for various reasons, and that pretty much cancels out any gains I got from using C#.NET...

Re:Java

[oliverthered]

.Net is Java without portability and with bugs. and don't even get me started on ASPX vs JSP.

Unfortunately we have too much code to shift from .NET/asp to Java and most of our developers only know .net otherwise we would be a Java on Unix with Apache house instead of a .NET on Windows with IIS house that keeps having 'problems' with practically everything we try to do with the technologies.

Re:Java

[hclyff]

Java runtime has to be installed separately, while .NET is preinstalled on Windows.

Re:Java

[Intron]

Linux and Mac users don't.

Re:Java

[suv4x4]

.NET is basically Java without the portability.
So why bother with .NET?

And you're basically a sack of carbons. This is why, they say, the devil's in the details.

Re:Java

[Opportunist]

Funny. I can write apps in C++ a billion times faster than in C#. That I've been doing it in C++ for about 15 years now could be a reason...

Of course you're faster with a language you know than one you don't.

Re:Java

[Timesprout]

.Net is Java without portability and with bugs.

MS want you to use their platform, just like SUN saw Java as a means to ship their hardware and Solaris. This surprises you why? Care to mention some of these bugs? I have been using both Java and .NET for several years and the bug counts for both platforms are quite low.

and don't even get me started on ASPX vs JSP

You are right, ASPX is a vastly superior and cleaner model for web development and does not require learning 5 different Java web frameworks to get anything done in a maintainable manner.

most of our developers only know .net otherwise we would be a Java on Unix

Since this is not the case you obviously dont call the shots on the IT Architecture so this is wishful thinking on your part, not fact.

that keeps having 'problems' with practically everything we try to do with the technologies

If you keep having 'problems' then maybe the issue is not with the technology.

Re:Java

[Anonymous Coward]

It's too bad there's not some way to make Swing look like native widgets. Oh, wait:

http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/uiswing/lo okandfeel/plaf.html

Re:Java

[Anonymous Coward]

.NET is basically Java without the portability.
No, it's not. Even cursory research into both runtimes and frameworks will begin to show you how different they are.

Re:Java

[aegisalpha]

Objects blah blah blah blah

They fear the power of C, obviously.

Re:Java

[Jarnis]

It may be preinstalled in Windows *Vista*, but it sure as hell is not preinstalled on XP.

Instructing end users to install this and that .NET framework is a common problem. As is explaining the fact 'WTF why do I have to install .NET 1.1, I already have 2.0!' - most users don't understand that the two can (and in some cases should) coexist.

MS has made .NET very end-user unfriendly in XP.

Re:Java

[PinkPanther]

but I can whip up apps in C#.NET faster than I can in Java

Just to clarify: I cannot believe that it is the language (C#) that you are faster in than Java. I strongly suspect you are talking about the IDEs and/or GUI development tools of the C#/.NET platform. If I'm wrong, could you highlight what you mean by "whip up apps" ?

Re:Java

[Knara]

Er, kinda sorta, depending on how you get Windows installed (often depending on when it was installed). And what .Net version you need. So, really, effectively, "no, it isn't". Your helpdesk might install it for you, or the vendor might install it on the image they use for their retail machines, but that's not much different than if they'd done it with some version of JRE.

Re:Java

[Richard W.M. Jones]

.NET is basically Java without the portability. So why bother with .NET?

Because the .NET languages don't suck quite as hard as Java? There's even now a promising set of functional languages available.

Rich.

Re:Java

[KingMotley]

Java is basically .NET with only one language and much slower. So why bother with Java?

Re:Java

[oliverthered]

If you keep having 'problems' then maybe the issue is not with the technology.
Your either deluded or you've never used Windows/IIS/.NET

Re:Java

[KingMotley]

Perhaps he knows what he's doing.

Re:Java

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if your C program has more than 1000 lines and 2 developers, its a buggy piece of crap. If it is written in Java or C++, its a buggy piece of crap with class. See the difference?

Don't believe me? You can't even write a 2-line post without one typo so how do think you could make 1000 lines all correct?

Re:Java

[mpcooke3]

Well one reason might be because the .NET runtime is on more desktops than the Java runtime. Given they are both huge this can be an issue.

Re:Java

[oliverthered]

Here's a simple example.
When creating a virtual directory under IIS for apsx pages do you set the application up for Scripts or Scripts and Executables?

Answer.
You setup for scripts, well unless that fails in which case you have to setup for scripts + executables for no apparent reason leaving IIS vulnerable to a hacker dropping a cgi into the directory.

I've never had similar problems with Apache/Tomcat.

Re:Java

[a1mint]

Java is *NOT* slower than .net.

There are *MANY* languages available for the JVM.

You are highly ignorant.

Re:Java

[PitaBred]

Great. Languages that work on only one platform, and are locked into the whims of a single vendor that has a history of monopolistic anti-consumer behavior. Give me a little more work to get my system available to 10-20% more people any day.

Re:Java

[vhogemann]

Use SWT.

Next question?

Re:Java

[CosmeticLobotamy]

As a .NET developer, I wish to God MS would just make the little error box that tells you the thing you're trying to run can't run without version X of the .NET framework have a button that says, "Click here to download and install it" instead of just failing. So every .NET program you make has to have its own bootstrapper in native code to make sure they have it or include a 22 meg installer for it in your own installer (assuming you're using an MSI [Which I'm not very good with, so maybe there's a way to download and run a second install from inside an MSI. If someone could tell me how to do that, if it's possible, I'd be grateful]).

Annoying.

Re:Java

[Anonymous Coward]

and don't even get me started on ASPX vs JSP

I code Java for a living and, in general, feel that it's a great programming language. But I'm still amazed that people think that JSP is anything other than the bastard nephew of Satan (with EJB being the bastard child). JSP syntax is horribly verbose (mostly JSTL, but the fact that JSTL exists at all is a testament to JSPs original lackings) and it makes it far too easy to embed logic that belongs nowhere near the view layer. And, at least in Tomcat's Jasper compiler, it somehow manages to perform poorly to boot (our tests showed FreeMarker out-performing JSP by between 4x and 10x).

Too often Java developers drink the Sun cool aid and believe that Sun knows the best way to do things when there are 3rd-party tools that work better and make your life easier.

Re:Java

[nuzak]

Most languages for the CLR work on Mono, and some like Nemerle are developed primarily on Mono. But thanks for bringing your informed expertise to the discussion.

Re:Java

[godefroi]

You know, I've run a -LOT- of large-scale .ASP (3.0) and .ASPX web applications and web services on IIS (5.x and 6), and I've NEVER, EVER had to set a virtual dir to anything other than scripts, and it's NEVER, EVER "failed" to work.

Re:Java

[Anonymous Coward]

If only there was a way to program in Java and use windows.forms. Oh wait, .net does java too.

Re:Java

[recharged95]

"users like Windows.Forms a lot more than Swing"

It's because of the FUD from early Swing adopters (pre jdk1.3). Swing has come a long way in providing presentation rich apps--much more that Window Forms. Also, have swing issues? Then use SWT.

Re:Java

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun have made a lot of mistakes in Java which Microsoft seems to have learned from.

Sun created one of the most hiddeous systems i've ever had to work with in EJB. It looks like EJB3 is finally solving this, but why the hell wasn't EJB1 done like that.

J2ME is a joke, despite being nearly universal in nearly all phones it got some major limitations. Key parts of the Java SE API are missing and every programmer is then forced to reimplment those themselves. For example there's no atan or acos, no function to calculate exponents etc. You can't even do g.setColour(Color.RED); you have to do g.setColor(0x00ff0000), would it really have added that much to the API? MIDP 1.0 was even worse, there wasn't even floating point support. However to be fair to Sun J2ME was invented for late 90s phones not modern ones. Problem is .NET seems far better and many developers seem to be preferring to develop in .NET for mobile devices (despite the lack of Windows Mobile devices).

The other area I think Sun have done pretty badly on is IDEs. Its far harder to design a GUI in anything Sun have produced than it was in early versions of Visual C/VB or even Borland C++.

Re:Java

[j00r0m4nc3r]

No, you're right. It's not the language itself but the environment.

Re:Java

[hf256]

What you need is a merge file for the framework version you want to use.

They are usually files with a MSM extension, if you have Visual Studio you can pretty easily include it in a Setup Project.

If not, you can do it using the tools that come with the Platform SDK.

Re:Java

[CosmeticLobotamy]

I'll look into that. Thank ya. I appreciate it.

Re:Java

[Abcd1234]

Unfortunately, users like Windows.Forms a lot more than Swing.

Good god, why??? Windows.Forms is the most inconsistent, poorly written GUI library I've come across in a long time. I mean, they have a frickin ContainerControl object, yet things like Panel, which clearly *contain* things, *aren't* derived form ContainerControl. What about triggering events on a control (say, a click event on a Button)? Oh, wait... you *can't*. And don't even get me started on the clusterf*ck that is their validation framework (how do you trigger validation on an uninitialized control? Why, by focusing each control in your form one-by-one programatically and calling Validate() from their owner, of course...)

Honestly, the only thing Windows.Forms has going for it is a top-notch GUI designer... and even that is debatable (there was a time when speed was also an issue, but modern Swing is pretty snappy).

Re:Java

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you do not have to install the .Net framework (any version) to run .Net applications. Linkers like Xenocode, Salamander, the ridiculously priced Thinstall, and many others will create a proper non-decompilable .EXE by linking your application with only the bits of the .Net framework that you need. The result is a single file .EXE that will run on any version on Windows from Win98 on up.

Yes these linkers cost a few bucks but blah blah blah if you aren't willing to spent some $$$ then you are not a professional writing commercial software so piss off.

Re:Java

[Jarnis]

Bit like ATI then, I guess. Their Catalyst Control Center still requires the framework installed...

As does the game Lord of the Rings Online.

Damn penny pinchers.

Re:Java

[oliverthered]

You've been lucky then.

Re:Java

[oliverthered]

OK, you must have come across this one then.

What verbs should you set for asp/aspx pages?

Answer, Generally Head, Post and Get.

Well unless the page randomly doesn't work then you have to set the verbs to all verbs. (Sometimes IIS works when you set them back to Head, Post and Get but it doesn't usually take too long before it starts to fail again and you have to set the verbs back to all verbs)

Re:Java

[oliverthered]

To me performance and the amount of code you have to write comes second to stability, knowing what your apps doing and knowing you can fix it if there's a problem (even if that means there's a bug in Tomcat you have to fix).

I've never had problems (that I couldn't fix) on Java/Tomcat/Apache/Linux so long as the hardware has Linux support. I frequently run into random problems that there's no apparent way of fixing without putting in some hideous hack and crossing my fingers on Visual Studio/.NET/IIS/Windows

Re:Java

[godefroi]

I've never had to change a verb list for a page, on any server, on any platform.

Re:Java

[oliverthered]

so you allow put's to all your pages, very secure.

Re:Java

[godefroi]

Nope, just .idc, because that's the only one that allows PUT by default. I've never HAD an IDC and I never would.

Besides, why is one verb more or less secure than any other verb? I fail to see your point, and I believe you're grasping at straws.

.NET Is Only Really Useful on Windows Anyway

[repruhsent]

Other implementations of .NET are kind of stupid anyway, and, like it or not, Mono really isn't very useful. Anyone who does development on Linux/Mac/anything that isn't Windows will just use native code, or Java - probably because writing a native app isn't nearly as difficult on other platforms, and Java actually is write once, run anywhere (well, closer than .NET, anyway).

The only platform that benefits from .NET is Windows; have any of you written a native code Windows app (I'm sure many of you have)? The code is a nightmare and makes my eyes scream. With Windows, you really, truly need a system like .NET to make developing any non-trivial app even remotely possible, unless you want to spend 1,000 hours writing fucking COM shit (which I sure as fuck don't).

Re:.NET Is Only Really Useful on Windows Anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

>have any of you written a native code Windows app (I'm sure many of you have)?

Writing in Win32 API is easy. I even do it all in C.

Can't handle the complexity of writing code?

Re:.NET Is Only Really Useful on Windows Anyway

[ivucica]

I agree that without a wrapper, writing Windows code is awful. However, that does not mean that you have to depend upon .Net. Bad argument. wxWidgets or GTK+ seem like quite good portability choices, as well.

The advantage of .Net is in its vast library of utility functions (compression, database connections, etc -- or so I have heard). Mono is used for this precise reason, and for advantages of using C#'s memory cleanup and similar things. If you write for Mono and only then backport to Windows, it's pretty certain you won't havep roblems.

Personally, I'm _AVOIDING_ .Net in large circles; portability is what I want to achieve, and that's (I hope) what's going be appreciated "when the day of awakening comes".

Re:.NET Is Only Really Useful on Windows Anyway

[makomk]

Writing in Win32 API is easy. I even do it all in C.

Coding with the Win32 API is horrible (and C is by far the easiest language to do it in). Functions with way, way too many arguments (CreateWindow/CreateWindowEx anyone?), some of which are usually structures that also have to be filled in, bizarre argument packing in window messages, no layout manager for controls (code it yourself!), functions that were 9x-only or NT-only (thank goodness no-one uses Windows 9x anymore), etc, etc. In some ways, it's quite powerful (well, the bits that weren't brought over from Windows 3.1), but I don't think it was ever exactly pleasant to work with.

Re:.NET Is Only Really Useful on Windows Anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. While coding in .NET (particularly C#) is ridiculously easy, doing plain Win32 in C is not terribly difficult if you know what you're doing. It may be tedious and verbose at times, but it's the closest to the wire and gives you the most control. I wanted to like MFC, and while it is useful I feel that it hides far too much with all those crazy macros. Win32 can be complex, but if you spend enough time tinkering with it you will eventually figure it out.

Object-orientation and elegance are secondary

[WillAdams]

at Microsoft.

When Bill Gates was asked if he'd develop for an object-oriented systems _years_ ahead of anything else then available his response?

``Develop for it? I'll piss on it.'' Randall Stross, _Steve Jobs and the NeXT Big Thing_, pg. 72

Which is probably why the ``Yellow Box'' in Mac OS X was so named. But that sort of attitude on the part of Microsoft goes a long way towards explaining their hostility to a true cross-platform solution.

William

For God's sake...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Please learn to spell "its".

Arrrgggghhh.

It's in their interest Not to...

[blueforce]

With the proliferation of Web Applications and SOA, and the diminishing relevance of desktop software, it's in Microsoft's best interest NOT to make it cross-platform.

Let's say that a full implementation of the .Net framework was available for *nix or OS X - all of the framework libs, ASP, WinForms, etc. What incentive would I have to fill a Web server farm full of thousands of dollars of Windows Server licenses when I could run my ASP.Net apps on Apache? The only real costs to add machines to the farm are hardware-related. .Net already has providers for Oracle and MySQL. Suddenly, Microsoft's Operating systems and platforms become irrelevant to developers who have years of experience and time invested in learning .Net.

Re:It's in their interest Not to...

[blankaBrew]

I disagree. It should be in M$' best interest to make great products that people want to buy, which includes allowing that web developer in your example to run his ASP.Net app on Apache. I hate to keep pointing out Apple, but look at the contrast. Apple gives the Webobjects developent environment for free with MacOS X, and once developed, it can be deployed on any Java server, including linux. They don't try to sell MacOS X servers buy requiring Webobjects to only run on MacOS X boxes. They try to sell their servers based upon their own merit. A company can operate this way and turn a nice profit.

Re:It's in their interest Not to...

[Anonymous Coward]

What incentive?

Well, *ideally*, because Microsoft has invested the resources to make .Net on Windows Servers perform the best and have the best support system. In other words: because they make the best implementation of the standard and service, and, therefore, it would be worth the extra money that having Windows Servers would cost. Best value for the money. Beat the competition fair and square. That sort of thing.

Of course, I did said "ideally".

I'm sure Microsoft is well aware of the scenario you describe. So, more likely, they'll drink just enough of the "cross platform" poison to get some other people on board, and then they'll stop. Kind of like they did with the original versions of Windows NT, which were also initially cross platform, and then were dropped.

Re:It's in their interest Not to...

[McGurk]

What incentive would I have to fill a Web server farm full of thousands of dollars of Windows Server licenses when I could run my ASP.Net apps on Apache?

Nobody mention this to the MS Ajax team; they better stick some MS only stuff to prevent it from being run on php!

Re:It's in their interest Not to...

[SnprBoB86]

If the client has the SilverLight plug-in installed, you simply have to host a file for them. You do not need IIS to do anything special. As far as I understand, you can very easily host a SilverLight application on an Apache server.

Okay, this is better

[Mateo_LeFou]

I'm proud of it, at least.
http://a4fs.net/img/lol.htm

(look at the "recommends" area)

Re:Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portab

[$RANDOMLUSER]

MONEY!!!

You misspelled "WORLD HEGEMONY!!!". The money follows naturally.

Simple

[VincenzoRomano]

Because Microsoft never made a single portable product!
Where "portable" means "on other OSs than the Microsoft's ones".

Re:Simple

[jaavaaguru]

Here arefive...

• MSN Messenger for OS X
• Microsoft Office for OS X
• Internet Explorer for OS X
• Internet Explorer for Solaris
• Outlook Express for Solaris

Re:Simple

[spyfrog]

And how many of these are still maintained?
I know that Microsoft Office is available on OSX, how about the other ones?

Re:Simple

[jaavaaguru]

I missed a few including Remote Desktop Client for OS X and Virtual PC for OS X.

Office, MSN Messenger and RDC are still available. MSN Messenger had a recent update which includes compatilibty with Microsoft Office Communicator.

Not dead yet.

its, it's, IT

[dailyrev]

Please forgive the grammar lesson, but this is the third time I've seen this error this week. And geeks should understand me more than anyone: you work with languages and grammar of your own. "abuse of it's developers" Here's your rule of thumb, author: 1. it's = it is (it's a beautiful day to bash MS) 2. its = belonging to it (its brain had been washed by Ballmer) 3. IT's = ah,now that could be either "belonging to the IT dept." or "I(nformation)T(ech) is..." So the correct spelling of the above would be "abuse of its developers..." --Brian Donohue, dailyrevolution.net

Re:its, it's, IT

[1u3hr]

the third time I've seen this error this week.

You must be new here... I've seen it three times on screen at once.

I used to comment on it, but Taco got pretty hostile, he called me an asshole for mentioning it. And there are plenty of fellow travellers who'll mod you troll as well. So I gave up. They're illiterate and proud of it. As hopeless as pointing out the dupes, the three-year-old blog messages promoted as "news", or the hoaxes taken at face value.

Re:its, it's, IT

[charlieo88]

Start many sentences with a conjunction while grammar ranting, do you?

Re:its, it's, IT

[dailyrev]

Wow, your bar for a rant is pretty low, isn't it? Now I am capable of ranting, mind you (try this). But a post that begins with the words "Please forgive..." is not setting itself up as a rant. In fact, the its/it's error is common even among professional writers and a few editors I've known; so I prefer not to hammer too hard about it.

Re: Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Port

[homey of my owney]

You really should watch your double negatives. This probably sez exactly opposite what you intended.

Just use Java

[RAMGarden]

I think Java has the market cornered in cross-platform programming. I could be wrong though - but probably not.

So C# is .Net?

[brennanw]

Keep in mind that (as I said) the last time I really paid attention to ".Net" was around 2004. I've heard a lot about C#, though -- as a programming language, and not in the context of .Net. Any time I hear about C# it's usually being compared to Java...

So I can understand that C# is good technology that people would like to see ported, but I was under the impression that .Net was supposed to encompass more than just a good language...

Re:So C# is .Net?

[revlayle]

.Net is a programming framework. C# is a Microsoft developed language, used pretty much exclusively in creating .Net applications (however there are other .net compatible languages, C# was just designed originally to use with .Net).

Re:So C# is .Net?

[digitig]

No. As I see it (and there's more than one way to see it) .NET is essentially an API and virtual machine offering that API. C# happens to be a high level language that maps very closely onto the virtual machine language, but in theory any language can compile to that machine language (and many do -- C++, Java, VB, Python, Ada, Eiffel, and so on). I like it as an API (at least at version 2.x), the VM makes multi-language programming a cinch, its memory manager really does seem to eliminate a lot of classic memory bugs, and its deployment model moves away from huge, centralised registries. But it comes at the expense of bloat and the speed penalty of an extra layer between the code and the metal. IMHO that's a reasonable design choice to have to make. If you're developing for MS Windows I reckon .NET is a decent design choice as long as you're not particularly size or speed constrained. If you're developing for anything else -- well, try starting here: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/02/133 6216&from=rss.

Re:So C# is .Net?

[Dragonslicer]

As a gross oversimplification, compare C#/.Net with Java. I may be wrong on any/all of this, since I haven't done a lot of work with either, so feel free to correct me.

Programming language: C# / Java
Class library: .Net / Java
Virtual Machine: .Net / JVM

I think a lot of confusion comes from the fact that different parts are commonly referred to by the same name, and the parts that share names are different between C#/.Net and Java. Hopefully I haven't just confused you even more.

Re:So C# is .Net?

[blowdart]

What should be interest to slashdot, and will probably be ignored is the announcement that MS will be releasing the DLR (Dynamic Language Runtime) under the BSD license. So IronPython becomes a "first class" .net language, and you can build your own on top of the CLR/DLR should you wish it.

Re:So C# is .Net?

[shutdown -p now]

I like it as an API (at least at version 2.x), the VM makes multi-language programming a cinch, its memory manager really does seem to eliminate a lot of classic memory bugs, and its deployment model moves away from huge, centralised registries. But it comes at the expense of bloat and the speed penalty of an extra layer between the code and the metal. IMHO that's a reasonable design choice to have to make.

Actually, it's faster than many think. Remember that the bytecode was optimized to be JITed rather than interpreted from the very beginning. The easiest way to check on it is to run your .NET program from within Visual Studio, set a breakpoint, and then go into "Disassembly" mode. You'll see what the JIT compiler made out of your code. I've found that for math, pointer operations, and method calls, it's pretty much the same as the output of a C++ compiler, except that you can't avoid checks for null reference on method calls (though it does not check for that repeatedly if one check is enough). Well, there's still the penalty from GC, and that one is harder to account for - but still, there really isn't much reason to pick C++ over C# for speed, unless you really really need that 3-5% extra.

Re:So C# is .Net?

[cduffy]

Pretty much right. Some little nitpicks...

While C# is one of the primary programming languages for .NET, VB.NET is also fully-supported/top-level, so giving C# some special status as first-class citizen among .NET-targeted languages isn't necessarily accurate. (This is different from Java, since last I knew, all languages other than the Java language targeting the JVM bytecode were effectively second-class citizens).

The .NET virtual machine is also known as the CLR ("Common Language Runtime").

(I'm a Pythonista, myself, so I don't really care too much about the .NET/Java wars unless folks go writing code that doesn't port to Mono -- which is unfortunately quite a bit easier than it ought to be).

Re:So C# is .Net?

[pak9rabid]

.NET can be compared to Java's bytecode. Basically, whenever one of the .NET languages gets compiled, it gets compiled into .NET code, which is then interpreted by the .NET CLR (common-language runtime), much like how Java's bytecode gets interpreted by the JVM when executed. The main difference between .NET and Java, however, is that .NET code can come from various high-level languates (C++, C#, Visual Basic, J#, etc), whereas Java bytecode only comes from one high-level language (Java). When libraries are compiled into .NET code, they can then be accessed by any other language in the .NET family. So, for example, one could write some libraries in C++, compile it into .NET code, then those libraries could be read by application written in say Visual Basic.

Re:So C# is .Net?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the way that everyone in this thread is commenting about .NET but nobody has even used it. And these people are modded at 4 or 5.

I've been using .NET since it came out. I have former experience with Java and CORBA.

I work for a big company. We have about 1 million users running our .NET web application. We chose .NET because of the following:

1. Support for distributed transactions (COM+).
2. Conversion from existing VB/COM product
3. Mature development tools
4. Support
5. Initial startup cost was relatively small
6. Very good performance and scaling with large projects.

We couldn't get all of those things from Java and multiple vendors. We could get some of them but didn't have the time and money at the start of the project to get them all.

We don't see any evidence that .NET is "bloated" or has a speed penalty when running with millions of users at a datacenter. In fact sometimes managed code is more performant in this scenario. This is very different than your experience may be with a client/server application.

By the way we formerly used Java and Corba and had very bad scaling issues there. This was in the late 90's.

Re:So C# is .Net?

[Dragonslicer]

I knew that C# isn't the only language that runs on .Net, but I've been trying really hard to forget that VB exists, and those are the two languages that most people think of with .Net.

I actually really like C# as a language, but I'm one of those people that thinks strict typing makes programming easier. I started a port of an IRC bot I wrote several years ago, but haven't worked on it lately. It ran from a shell and seemed to work fine (at least as well as it did on Windows, anyway) on Mono.

Re:So C# is .Net?

[zero_offset]

It's also worth noting that .NET applications can ONLY be executed in fully compiled native-code form. .NET applications compile to CIL (Common Intermediate Language, formerly MSIL), and a JIT compiles them as needed. Unlike Java, there is no option to run in any interpreted state. As such, the CLR is much closer to an API library than the traditional definition of a virtual machine (such as the JVM). Most of the things that led to the term "virtual machine" and all it implies are compiled to a native-platform equivalent by the time the JIT is done and the code is running.

Re:So C# is .Net?

[evil_Tak]

3-5%? My experience puts it at more like 30-50%.

Re:So C# is .Net?

[cduffy]

I actually really like C# as a language, but I'm one of those people that thinks strict typing makes programming easier.

Hmm. Did I put in a Boo plug in my previous post? I thought I did, at least in one of the drafts.

Take a look at Boo's typing system -- it's friggin' beautiful. The compiler infers the type, but then does proper compile-time checking based on it, and lets you explicitly select duck typing behavior (at a per-declaration level) if you want.

I haven't used it for anything serious yet, and as previously discussed, I'm a Pythonista; you may not find Boo quite as interesting as I do... but then again, you might.

Re:So C# is .Net?

[top_down]

If C++ is gonna be faster than C# there has to be a reason. If you are going the write the same program in C++ and C# there won't be much speed difference (3%-5%, 30%-50%, whatever). If you want C++ to be faster you have to write a different program using the features that sets C++ apart from languages like C# or Java. When you can avoid allocations on the heap and allocate on the stack instead, when you can give the compiler extra information by using the template system where C# generics can't or when you can get closer to the metal and avoid that extra copy, that's were you will see the real performance differences. Expect them to be massive.

Re:So C# is .Net?

[digitig]

Well, there's still the penalty from GC, and that one is harder to account for - but still, there really isn't much reason to pick C++ over C# for speed, unless you really really need that 3-5% extra. If you're choosing between C++ and C# runnung under .NET then C# may have the edge, being closer to the VM language, but it's a tough call because of the GC issue (and because C++ optimisation is pretty mature).

Re:So C# is .Net?

[digitig]

I should add, by the way, that most of the bloat is on the developer's machine, because of the huge libraries. The user only needs the runtime, and only one copy of it. That would be bloat if they only ran one small .NET application, but not if they run lots of .NET apps.

Re:So C# is .Net?

[Watson Ladd]

malloc()/free() is not the speed demon everyone thinks it is. If you are making a large number of small allocations a semi-space or compacting GC is much faster then other methods. GC can also run in its own concurrent thread, which means interactive tasks don't have to wait for it. The age of long GC pauses is behind us, unless you are using a bad GC.

Re:So C# is .Net?

[ClosedSource]

In addition, you can subclass a class written in one language in another language (e.g. VB.NET can extend C# classes or vice versa).

Re:So C# is .Net?

[Brandybuck]

Yeah, you and the Java guys keep saying that over and over. You've said it so much that you even start to believe it yourself. But out here in the real world we know the truth that native machine code is still faster. C# and Java will always have less performance than C and C++. You guys need to accept that fact.

That doesn't mean that C# and Java suck. Both of those have significant advantages over ordinary C and C++. But raw execution speed isn't one of them.

Re:So C# is .Net?

[sethawoolley]

Yeah, you and the C guys keep saying that over and over. You've said it so much that you even start to believe it yourself. But out here in the real world we know the truth that native machine code is still faster. C and C++ will always have less performance than asm. You guys need to accept that fact.

That doesn't mean that C and C++ suck. Both of those have significant advantages over ordinary asm. But raw execution speed isn't one of them.

Re:So C# is .Net?

[shutdown -p now]

It depends on how you go about it. If you compare a typical C++ program with a typical C# program, then sure, you're gonna see a bigger difference. Not just because of the GC, but also because all downcasts are checked for correctness, all references are checked for null before usage, and all array indices are checked to be within array bounds. C++ programmers, on the other hand, usually do not bother to do any of these when they know it's gonna be okay. The other problem is that in C#, you always allocate instances of classes on the heap.

However, if you bear all of this in mind, you can write C# code that avoids doing all these things, and thus gain a pretty good speed increace. Don't use classes, use structs (there goes inheritance and polymorphism, but we're discussing optimizations here, not proper OO design), and use out and ref parameters or pointers for those. When working with arrays, get a pointer to the array first, then use it to access the elements - doing so avoids the array bound check penalty. Etc.

Re:So C# is .Net?

[shutdown -p now]

If you want C++ to be faster you have to write a different program using the features that sets C++ apart from languages like C# or Java. When you can avoid allocations on the heap and allocate on the stack instead, when you can give the compiler extra information by using the template system where C# generics can't or when you can get closer to the metal and avoid that extra copy, that's were you will see the real performance differences. Expect them to be massive.

Well, you can put things on the stack in C# - that's why it can at least try to compete with C++, unlike Java. There are structs, and there's stackalloc (of which no portable equivalent exists in C++ land as of yet, by the way). The main reason why it's still not close enough to the metal is because of the GC. Then again, a lot of people use GC for their C++ programs as well...

Re:So C# is .Net?

[shutdown -p now]

Yeah, you and the Java guys keep saying that over and over. You've said it so much that you even start to believe it yourself.

I'm not inviting anyone to believe me. If you haven't noticed, my post had instructions on how to go and check for yourself. If you can't be bothered to do that, then why comment?

Out out here in the real world we know the truth that native machine code is still faster. C# and Java will always have less performance than C and C++. You guys need to accept that fact.

I didn't say anything to the contrary. I just said that the difference in performance is much smaller than many people think it to be. I believe Java is largely to blame for this perception, what with its slower VM, but more so because of the horribly slow Swing. It's pretty hard to convince anyone who ever saw a Swing application circa Java 1.4 that it can be anywhere even close to C++ (I know, I went through it myself).

Re:So C# is .Net?

[evil_Tak]

So what you're saying is, to make C# perform like C++, code it like FORTRAN.

Re:So C# is .Net?

[Brandybuck]

Except that asssembly is SO much harder to write than C and C++. But Java and C# are comparable in difficult to C and C++. Make assembly as easy to write and as portable as C/C++ and I'll switch back to it.

STOP whinging silverlight is coming to Linux!

[wwmedia]

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9714669-7.html?pa rt=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

Re: Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Port

[koreaman]

Allow me to use a Venn diagramme to help clarify things:

                               _
Those who do not use Windows: |_|
                               _
Those who care:               |_|

Alternatively,
                              ____
Those who use Windows:       |  |_| <--- Those who care.
                             |    |
                             |____|

Not that I agree with the OP, I'm just trying to help you understand his point.

Very truly yours,
koreaman.

Re:Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portab

[mabhatter654]

I view .Net as Microsoft's version of RPG. IBM still doesn't sanction moving RPG anywhere except AS400/iSeries/i5 and I wouldn't expect them to ever. I see .Net as Microsoft putting themselves in a smaller box so they can move from low cost commodities to high(er) profit support contracts and perhaps non-configurable hardware. They seem to want to be like "so-and-so" but not actually do business like that.

I think the biggest problem is that too many people outside want to make the Microsoft stuff work for them and it's just not practical.. look at Mono. First, it's a waste of resources that could be used on ruby, python or smalltalk based solutions. Second, it's just stepping into Microsoft's arena of IP and marketing "bait-n-switch". Novell will never win trying to "bargain" with the devil.

.Not!

[clang_jangle]

...yet are terrified of the very thought of .NET being available to *nix users, even if that's to the benefit of .NET developers everywhere.

Are you INSANE??
I would never defile my precious machines with that nasty M$ crapware!

Re:.Not!

[clang_jangle]

You modded me troll? Looks like someone's sense of humor isn't functioning properly. I recommend caffeine with sugar.

Hold up

[blowdart]

Microsoft employees discuss the (im)possibility of creating a cross-platform code and UI framework, years before the .NET project even started!

So what, computers don't move forward? People don't change their minds ever? You're attempting to justify a stance because of discussions years ago? If that is true, shouldn't you be a train driver because that's what you said you were going to be at age 6?

Re:Hold up

[danpsmith]

So what, computers don't move forward? People don't change their minds ever? You're attempting to justify a stance because of discussions years ago? If that is true, shouldn't you be a train driver because that's what you said you were going to be at age 6?

I am a train driver, you insensitive clod.

Blog post found to be incorrect, News at 11

[Michael Dorfman]

So, in other words, TFA chewed Microsoft out for not making .NET cross-platform, just days before Microsoft announces a cross-platform version of .NET. How exactly is this "stuff that matters"?

Re:Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portab

[ArchdukeChocula]

>I think the biggest problem is that too many people outside want to make the Microsoft stuff work for them and
>it's just not practical..

What about WINE? I won't argue with you about Mono but WINE is very practical. I doubt Linux would be near as popular as it is if it couldn't run any non-Linux binaries.

Re:Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portab

[Anonymous Coward]

I see the Microsoft astroturfers are out in force today.

Why is this modded TROLL? It is absolutely true and it defines (without any supporting arguments) the primary reason Microsoft has absolutely no interest in portability of any kind.

Coralized version: http://tinyurl.com/yvn88l

[Anonymous Coward]

Coralized version:

http://neosmart.net.nyud.net:8080/blog/2007/please -microsoft-stop-holding-net-back/

or just http://tinyurl.com/yvn88l

It is cross platform.

[kinglink]

It works on Xp and Vista, the only platforms Microsoft acknowledges.

Re:It is cross platform.

[iggymanz]

and it runs on two and a half architectures, x86, x86-64 and partly on IA-64 with limited offerings! Debian and NetBSD better watch out!

Duh!

[phillymjs]

Nobody with any sense is going to believe any cross-platform claims made by Microsoft anymore. The Windows platform is their lifeblood, and they'll do whatever they have to to artificially bind people to it. That's why they're fighting and delaying all attempts to truly open up their connection protocols and file formats. On a level playing field, people would desert Windows in droves, and Microsoft knows it.

Honestly, I don't see how this is even still open for debate in 2007-- Microsoft showed their true colors w/r/t portability after they added Windows-only extensions to Java. And that's if you ignore their prior attempt to balkanize the web and cause pain for anyone not running Windows IE.

Their "Flash-killer" and their "PDF-killer" and any other allegedly-open standards they try to foist off on us should be ignored and allowed to die. If we allow them to get a foothold, we deserve everything we get.

~Philly

Re:Duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Got to agree.

Microsoft's cash cows are Windows and Office which prosper precisely because of proprietary lock-in. Microsoft's only interest in cross-platform standards is in trying to kill them, and one way to do that is to compete with them with (with entirely disingenuiness long-term intent).

Re:Duh!

[McGurk]

Holy shit... Have you ever tried to develop with PDF? You have to pay out the ass (buy licenses or develop in-house) for PDF creation/editing tools, most of which suck cock for beer money (leadtools, PDF camp, they all suck shit). Then you're stuck with Acrobat on the client end, which is another bloated piece of shit that doesn't work half the time (ever try embedding a PDF in a page that uses dhtml? Make sure your users have the correct version of the plugin). XPS is a zip file with an XML doc and resources. And that's a bad thing? Any asshole can sit down, look at the specs, and create a program that can display the contents with minimal fuss. Face it, you want XPS to die because M$ is behind it. I want PDF to die because it fucking sucks. Sucks > hatred of M$.

Re:Duh!

[phillymjs]

Have you ever tried to develop with PDF?

No, but I've spent 15 years supporting non-Microsoft systems on Microsoft-based networks.

Face it, you want XPS to die because M$ is behind it.

That's right, I do, because I don't trust them based on their prior behavior. It was never enough for their standards to compete on technical merit-- as soon as they were in a position to do so they always felt compelled to use them as a weapon to punish anyone who didn't use their stuff. Any time they act in an altruistic manner I get highly suspicious of what their ulterior motive might be.

~Philly

So don't use Swing?

[dgym]

Unfortunately, users like Windows.Forms a lot more than Swing.
Your Linux users probably much prefer Swing. The article is about portability after all.

You have a choice for your Java GUI widgets, if you or your users don't like Swing there are numerous alternatives. Swing just happens to come with the JVM, thats all.

Re:So don't use Swing?

[AKAImBatman]

if you or your users don't like Swing there are numerous alternatives.

Indeed. Here's a few:

• SWT
  
• Qt/Jambi
  
• Java-GNOME
  
• wx4j (wxWidgets)
  

Those are the ones off the top of my head. There are quite a few more out there in the wild.

Well in that case...

[brennanw]

... if .Net is an API there doesn't seem much point in porting it. Taking into account that I'm not a programmer and have no clue what I'm talking about :) I don't see how you can effectively port an API that was designed to hook into a specific operating system without spending an enormous amount of time and energy on it.

Re:Well in that case...

[alienmole]

.NET encompasses the API (actually a huge set of APIs), as well as a virtual machine (known as the Common Language Runtime, CLR), as well as a set of languages (like C# and VB.NET) and a whole lot of infrastructure designed to support those languages and the applications written in them. Such a system can certainly be made portable, and Java did that (but with a single official programming language) before .NET came along. But you're probably correct that the Windows-specificity of .NET means that making it truly portable is a dubious proposition, on many levels. In a sense, .NET is the new version of the Windows API.

BTW, any programmer worth his salt shouldn't have had a problem understanding what .NET is. However, Microsoft needed to market it beyond that group because .NET was so central to the future direction of Windows. The confusion you noticed was the result of that rather challenging marketing problem.

To use the ob. car analogy: it's as though a car company tried to sell a new range of vehicles by pointing out how they all use the same chassis, and promoting the wonderful characteristics of Chassis 2.0. No-one who's not a car manufacturer really cares. The additional problem with .NET is that not only didn't customers care, they didn't even understand what was being described. At least in the car case, most people have some idea what a chassis is.

Re:Well in that case...

[digitig]

It probably is an enormous amount of time and energy to port it -- ask the Mono folks. The benefit is code portability across platforms. That's why Tk/Tcl has been ported to multiple platforms, that's why wxWidgets has been ported to multiple platforms, heck, it's even why Java Swing has been ported to multiple platforms. And they're (mainly) just the GUI side of things; .NET offers a lot of other stuff too. Of course, it's the "lot of other stuff" that causes the bloat. Remember, it's not just an API, it's a virtual machine, which in theory looks the same on every platform. "In theory" because there's the little issue of what Microsoft will allow to be ported, and even MS have the sense to realise that complete platform transparency is pretty much impossible so there are some platform specific elements to the API.

Re:Well in that case...

[molarmass192]

In non-programmer terms, if C# (the language) is thought of as sheet music for some unknown instruments, then the runtime is the band, and the API is the instruments themselves. You need the instruments (API) to do something useful with the sheet music and the band. The instruments should be implemented to result in a tune that most closely resembles the sheet music author's intent. It doesn't have to be 100% the same sounds. So there doesn't need to be a 100% functionally equivalent API, just one with the same instruments. That said, you can take C# and create a completely different set of APIs from MS's, but then you lose the code portability. As for it being a lot of work, yeah ... it is, just like it was for MS when they wrote the API in the first place. However, either way, work needs to be done. So, go it alone and write a non-compatible API or read the docs and write a compatible API.

Re:Well in that case...

[digitig]

.NET encompasses the API (actually a huge set of APIs), as well as a virtual machine (known as the Common Language Runtime, CLR), as well as a set of languages (like C# and VB.NET) and a whole lot of infrastructure designed to support those languages and the applications written in them.[/quote] Yes, I was simplifying wildly because there was no way I could reproduce all those diagrams in the documentation in a /. posting :-)

Such a system can certainly be made portable, and Java did that (but with a single official programming language) before .NET came along. But you're probably correct that the Windows-specificity of .NET means that making it truly portable is a dubious proposition, on many levels. In a sense, .NET is the new version of the Windows API. Well, the Microsoft specific stuff should all me in the libraries that begin "Microsoft". Looking at them there's some interesting stuff -- I hadn't realised that the Microsoft C# compiler is actually a .NET class, so I could have an instance of it in my Ada programme -- but I can't see anything in there that I'd need for anything remotely mainstream.

BTW, any programmer worth his salt shouldn't have had a problem understanding what .NET is. However, Microsoft needed to market it beyond that group because .NET was so central to the future direction of Windows. The confusion you noticed was the result of that rather challenging marketing problem. Quite. So in fact, lots of programmers worth their salt are left completely bewildered, because the MS marketing stuff gives no idea of what .NET is or what it does, so they never bother reading further into the real documentation (why should they?)

Spelling error

[MisterBad]

That should be "abuse of its developers". Possessive form of "it" is "its"; "it's" is a contraction of "it is".

Re:Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portab

[Anonymous Coward]

AND, slashdot and other website's love it too, think about it:

"Controversial topics" (i.e.-> Generally, anything that is "anti-microsoft" ( & there is an ABUNDANCE OF THAT, here @ /. , especially I have noted in my time here, browsing its news which is generally excellent on many levels, not just computers, and the responders are generally VERY GOOD imo as well on technical and business related issues to computing)) make the folks here or elsewhere online, monies, via pageviews on their websites.

"Good sheep, good sheep: Keep arguing about Microsoft vs. (insert UNIX variant here), while I make ca$h based on your viewing my website pages"

Keep THAT in mind, first & foremost, lol!

Controversy, arguments, & general online conflicts? As good as news for webmasters...

Re: Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Port

[nametaken]

I care. I maintain, and develop for, windows systems all day... then come home to all linux systems with the exception of an XP Pro VM I keep tucked away for emergencies. I'm not switching frameworks, and the business is not switching platforms. What's more, like most .net developers, I like the framework and the dev environment. They're the sort of things that MS actually got right.

It seems to me that the popularity of .Net should be obvious to those who frequent slashdot.

Whatever

[Concern]

Even if Java wasn't about to be GPLd, was it really worth all the effort, plus daring the world's most notorious IP barratrers' fairly obvious patent/IP trap, so you can get...

Operator overloading? Unsafe code in a VM? Not to say there aren't a few nice things. But too few. Mono is a dangerous waste of time.

That C#/.NET hype is so damn tired. It's a dead-end platform, unless MS opens it up, or chooses to add some truly novel features to it in the future.

Re:Whatever

[N8F8]

Java sucks, pure and simple. C# is a JOY compared to Java. And yeah, I program in Java at work 90% of the time. If C# would have made it here sooner they would have chosen that language for sure.

Re:Whatever

[bean123456789]

That C#/.NET hype is so damn tired. It's a dead-end platform, unless MS opens it up, or chooses to add some truly novel features to it in the future.

I'm pretty sure you don't know anything about .Net, which is why I'll correct you... .Net 3.0 was released recently with 4 MAJOR new components:
Windows Presentation Foundation
Windows Communication Foundation
Windows Workflow Foundation
Windows CardSpace

Plus .Net 3.5 is on the way

So A, .Net is NOT dead/tired, and B they have added truly novel features. Do some research instead of making asinine comments.

Re:Whatever

[Concern]

"C# sucks, pure and simple. Java is a JOY compared to C#. And yeah, I program in C# at work 90% of the time. If Java would have made it here sooner they would have chosen that language for sure."

See how easy it is to spout off nonsense?

So, do you have anything concrete to say - something I could learn how right you are from? I'll give you some examples.

Here, I'll do some of your work for you. That's a comprehensive, balanced comparison of the language features.

Here and here are some measures by which you can measure the relative popularity of programming languages, the availability of jobs, etc.

Think about your career, man.

And, next time, at least link some MS marketing materials or something.

Re:Whatever

[Concern]

OK, you guessed wrong. I know quite well what's released and what's in the roadmap.

Vector and 3D graphics (Swing and Java3D, check); interop via soap-like protocols (too many ways to list, check); workflow libraries (check); security library (check)... Oh it's not to say that there aren't a few things about these which aren't nicer than their counterparts (just as there are a few things which really aren't as nice or as interesting)... especially Avalon IMO... but there's nothing novel here.

Now LINQ, that's at least interesting. Until then, Hibernate 3+Java is a better (and better supported) ORM solution... perhaps the best widely used one in the world, but who could agree on such a thing.

Anything else?

Re:Whatever

[bean123456789]

Perhaps I did guess wrong about what you know about .Net, but I think it's pretty obvious that .Net is not dead/dying. It's being used and updated quite frequently. And I don't want to get into a dick swinging contest about Java vs. .Net, both have their places. Personally I prefer .Net, Java doesn't do much for me, never has. But the point is .Net is getting new development and it has quite a large developer base. Like it or not, .Net is a major player.

Re:Whatever

[segedunum]

Perhaps I did guess wrong about what you know about .Net, but I think it's pretty obvious that .Net is not dead/dying

On Windows, perhaps not, because guess what? Microsoft controls the development direction of Windows! However, in the context of the original comment and the article, coming up with a .Net clone so you can try and make .Net cross platform and because you might get two or three theoretical improvements (which have turned out to be false) is probably not such a good idea.

Re:Whatever

[N8F8]

Actually, you make my point quite nicely.

Re:Whatever

[bean123456789]

coming up with a .Net clone
Do you mean mono? Because the article was talking about the Microsoft created CLR on other OSes. Mono is a whole different conversation. The CLR isn't a .Net clone, it is in fact the .Net runtime or VM if you will. If the runtime is cross platform, you have the potential to use whatever language you want, compile it to the .Net CLR and take advantage of any .Net library written with any language on any OS that the CLR is implemented on. That's pretty damn powerful. So if that's where this is all going, I'm on board. So I don't think I missed the context as you claim, because this is pretty much what the article was saying. You did read the article right?

Re:Whatever

[Concern]

Was your point that, to like .NET so much, you have to be fairly divorced from rational argument? Is your point that you're easy to embarrass?

Re:Whatever

[Concern]

It's not really a major player.

Reference 1. Reference 2.

Java is a major player. C is a major player. .NET, maybe in a few more years, but I doubt it. They will have to do something truly innovative.

Today, .NET is marketing hype - and as I said, that hype is now getting tired.

My judgment that it's dead-end isn't really so pejorative. It goes for just about everything like it that isn't truly open. I say the same for VB, though they add features to it every year. Sure, MS would be crazy to drop .NET. Right? Never happen. It sounds familiar because the VB guys said the same thing. Look what happened to them.

The landscape is littered with the graves of proprietary systems like these. Most languages we use widely today are truly open. These days the world is finally learning you have to be crazy to hitch your wagon to a single vendor, let alone the world's most notorious. Who wants to have their platform supported only at the pleasure of the king? And you don't have to.

If Microsoft wanted to beat the crap out of Java all they'd need to do would be to put down the patent gun, open up their sources, and let .NET embrace cross platform. They could perhaps out-Java Java.

We both know very well they wont. It's because .NET is not designed to win the language wars or be the best language. It is designed to stop the bleeding from developers breaking out of MS's jail, by providing a new way of locking developers (and their code) into the proprietary Microsoft platform.

Re:Whatever

[bean123456789]

So those references you gave are just a compilation of web search hits based on language. This in no way reflects size of community or language activity. You would be dense to believe that these numbers reflect anything more than search criteria. I might as well take the number of books listed on Amazon for each language to see what is the most popular. It's all bullshit.

It sounds familiar because the VB guys said the same thing. Look what happened to them.

yes, what did happen to vb6? Well they upgraded the language to .Net and allowed .Net to call COM libraries seamlessly through the RCW. So you get a more powerful language and don't lose any of your old code/functionality. Boo Fucking Hoo.

Most languages we use widely today are truly open.

Newsflash: C# is open!

If Microsoft wanted to beat the crap out of Java all they'd need to do would be to put down the patent gun, open up their sources, and let .NET embrace cross platform. They could perhaps out-Java Java.
This I agree with

We both know very well they wont. It's because .NET is not designed to win the language wars or be the best language.
.Net is a set of technologies, not a language. You keep waxing intellectual about .Net, but yet, I keep having to correct you. And as for the open sourcing of .Net that is yet to be determined.

Re:Whatever

[Concern]

So those references you gave are just a compilation of web search hits based on language.

No, they aren't.

You should have actually read them. There are many different metrics included there. Not least, the counts of job postings - pretty easy to measure. Since I have to spell it out, on craigslist, C# is less frequent than Perl, around 1/3 of Java, and somewhere around 6% of the whole. .NET loses hugely on almost every measure, though not all - for instance not on cost per click on the keyword for advertising.

Boo Fucking Hoo.

I can always tell when people have maintained a large codebase and when they haven't.

I didn't get stuck holding that particular bag, but many companies are out billions of dollars because they have millions of lines of code they now either have to refactor or try to support on a proprietary platform that's end-of-life.

Yeah, the new version had great new features for a low low price. But customers don't always want to be on a treadmill. Most just want their apps to work.

MS has a different goal. They want you to pay, and pay on a regular basis. And they are totally happy holding you hostage to get you to do it.

Business is all about money. That's why MS is the way they are. So the question is, how many times will everyone want to be a sucker?

That's why everyone's demanding openness now, and that's why MS has a mendacious PR campaign to try to convince the world that .NET is too, even though it's not.

C# is open!

And when I say the .NET hype is tired, it's because honestly, not many people were fooled by this nonsense even at first, and now it's a joke.

C# != .NET.

It's you who'se being corrected here.

Java is a language, and a runtime, and an API.

The standardized portions of .NET are the language and the runtime.

Notice the critical missing piece?

What do you think happens when you want to leave Microsoft?

I can just picture the post now. "Hey ECMA said it's a standard but strangely when I tried to leave Microsoft, I got all these errors about missing classes? I don't understand."

You didn't write an app to add numbers forever without doing input or output. You wrote an actual app that uses the API. And now you can't leave because you need the API (if not whatever COM or other native stuff you used - notice MS encourages this as well). You are locked in.

What do you think MS does when they've got you locked in? What they always do. What any vendor that gets you locked in does. They bend you over a barrel.

You will be stuck watching Java people migrate from machine to machine, OS to OS, VM to VM, App Server to App Server... taking advantage of actual marketplaces full of innovation and competition... while you stagnate in MS's walled garden.

Java will be ported to new hardware architectures that the inventors of which haven't even been born. .NET has never been ported anywhere, and it never will.

(Go ahead, say that Mono will do it. I dare you.)

That is the definition of openness - when you don't have to pay MS a cent to use .NET.

Perfect example. We use a Java servlet container. One day we discover it has a bug. We go to the vendor. The vendor refuses to fix the bug. We switch to another container. Presto. The bug is gone.

Imagine, too, that if there is only one vendor and you are locked into them, they no longer care so much about fixing bugs or keeping you happy at all, because they have a monopoly, and they act like it. And I've had exactly this problem with MS. I catch IIS blowing up? I debug it with MS support, who actually talk to me because the client is fortune 50, and what do they say when we catch them red-handed? "Oh yeah, sorry, we know all about that bug after all. It's marked WONTFIX. Bye."

Imagine never having to hear that kind of thing again, because now you have a market instead of a monopoly. That's what real open standards do. That's what scares MS to death.

Re:Whatever

[bean123456789]

No, they aren't.
yes, they, are
from tiobe: The ratings are based on the world-wide availability of skilled engineers, courses and third party vendors. The popular search engines Google, MSN, and Yahoo! are used to calculate the ratings. Observe that the TIOBE index is not about the best programming language or the language in which most lines of code have been written.

dedasys also uses web stats, along with projects in freashmeat, well that is a language bias right there, why not include codeproject or sourceforge? Also in the normalized chart he doesn't include the jobs/1000's of google hits where c# dominates java. From dedasys: C# looks to be an up-and-comer in the corporate world, with lots of jobs posted, but not as much traction on the web. One might speculate that, since it's the future for the Microsoft platform, companies are requiring it as a skill for new hires. Metrics are a tricky thing, they only tell so much, it is very easy to get an incorrect bias in any direction.

Yeah, the new version had great new features for a low low price. But customers don't always want to be on a treadmill. Most just want their apps to work.
Every language progresses and in the process drops and adds features (deprecation). The Runtime Callable wrapper allows legacy code to run with no code changes. This makes them just work. It also allows for time to re-factor/update code into .Net an assembly at a time if so desired.

I can always tell when people have maintained a large codebase and when they haven't.
Oh really? Awfully pretentious of you to think so.

C# != .NET.
I never said that, and I'm not sure where you are getting the assumption that I think as much. I said .Net is a set of technologies, not least of which includes the language. You said .Net is a language which is a fallacy. .Net supports many languages, too many to list. Notice the critical missing piece?

What do you think happens when you want to leave Microsoft?
Never said I wanted to

What do you think MS does when they've got you locked in? What they always do. What any vendor that gets you locked in does. They bend you over a barrel.
Like when Sun had complete control of java? It's only been since November 2006 that it was open sourced. So that's what like 12 years of lock-in. And you try to pawn yourself off as an open source proponent.

taking advantage of actual marketplaces full of innovation and competition...
Trying to claim that the .Net world has no innovation or competition, that's rich, thanks for the laugh.

That is the definition of openness - when you don't have to pay MS a cent to use .NET.
I'm glad we agree, because you don't have to pay them a cent. You can get the .Net frameworks (all 3) for free and all of the express editions of the programing languages are free along with SQL server express.

.NET has never been ported anywhere, and it never will.
(Go ahead, say that Mono will do it. I dare you.)
I don't need to, they already have. 1.1 is fully supported and 2.0 is well on the way. Your arguments are so full of holes it's not even funny. You have pie in the sky dreams for java and open source. Fine, I have no problems with that, I wish both the best of luck. But your analysis of .Net just being tired and dying at the moment is completely false. It may be dead someday, I really don't care. A language is a tool, a means to an end. I'll always use what best suits the job and not get caught up in language bigotry. It makes me more marketable and higher paid.

Re:Whatever

[Concern]

Mm. Interesting.

Well, I'll give the satisfaction hardly anyone ever gives me and say I was wrong about something critical; last I looked, not so long ago, Novell had not yet done their devil's bargain with Microsoft, and while the Mono guys were hard at work cloning the .NET APIs, it was a reverse engineering effort, they were not done, and there was every indication that Microsoft would sue the crap out of them once they finished... though they might choose to wait a little while after, till more people were using Mono, and sue them all, just to make a point.

And there were lines of reasoning like this.

It seems now Mono and Novell are good friends with Microsoft, and MS is opening up the platform more after all. At least to them.

This changes my whole perspective on the thing.

With a few caveats, that is:

You're still dodging the issue of which language is bigger - they compared posted jobs on craigslist, c# is not really placing as well as perl, simple as that. Divide and multiply the job posting numbers by other things to your hearts' content, if it makes you feel better. That said, if .NET is truly going to be open, it has a future, so the trend will be better for it.

I think you answering "Never said I wanted to" about leaving Microsoft is hilarious - if you ever get in bed with a vendor and find you can't get out, you will learn why having the option matters soon enough.

Microsoft's .NET is not free - unless you steal Windows Server, that is. :)

I never said .NET was a language. Try and quote where I did.

All this said, if I can go to Mono and get a GPL .NET implementation, then I might use it. And that certainly would be free. It's not caught up with Microsoft now, but say they stay on schedule, and/or MS helps them, I suppose they could.

Java has been encouraging others to make totally compatible JREs and JDKs since the beginning. There have been GPL ones from early on - Sun encouraged it, unlike Microsoft, who I don't think were so encouraging of Mono at first. So it's hardly lock in, is it. :) Also, the source was open for most of the time - just not under a free software license. :) But now even Sun uses the GPL.

The interesting thing will be: will Microsoft really allow Mono to be a free replacement for their platform? And will the free alternative really be adopted in production, in major enterprises?

Will it really be possible/practical to migrate a .NET app from Windows to Linux, actually creating competition? Maybe not... after all, while Pure Java is a credo everyone knows, MS encourages users to interop with native code, making things non-portable. Time will tell. But I'll be very surprised if Microsoft makes it so easy to escape their platform.

Re:Whatever

[Concern]

Interesting... one other thing. Note the section on Mono and Microsoft's patents.

A choice of two

[Jerry Smith]

(1)Because of the money, or (2)because the customer demands/wants/appreciates it. Or a combination. So: why will Microsoft never make .NET truly portable? should be easy to answer now.

Re: Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Port

[tolan-b]

The OP makes no sense, which is probably why the second post assumed it was an unintentional mistake.

Re:Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portab

[Anonymous Coward]

I on the other hand think that N different virtual machines and M different class libraries is a waste of resources. Retargeting all those scripting languages to the Mono runtime removes a lot of duplicated effort.

Remember COM?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the mid to late 90's MS 'was planning' on migrating COM to *nix platforms. The last time I did a search on this they are *still* planning on it! They did not lie, they are planning, not doing.

Portable? Sure they did.

[freshfromthevat]

If portable means not-on-MS OSs, then they absolutely had portable code in the past, AND present.
MSWord was available on MacOS years before it was available on MSWindows. For that matter MSBASIC was available on CP/M a whole decade before MSWindows and I'm not sure it was EVER released on MSWindows.

MS STILL makes products for the Macintosh and while none of those products is as nice as what they had before MSWindows came out they are still useful. MSWord for Mac is still my favorite word processor.

Re: Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Port

[multisync]

You really should watch your double negatives. This probably sez exactly opposite what you intended.

The AC's post makes perfect sense. I don't think (s)he is the one who is confused about double negatives. You're "prolly" one of those people who also "sez" "I could care less."

Re:Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portab

[Anonymous Coward]

POWER!!!

Why?

[roman_mir]

Why help MS proliferation by writing code for them? Forget it, leave it to the weak-minded.

C'mon it is obvious

[Jasper__unique_dammi]

I am suprised that people are suprised..

Re: Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Port

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh.... You mean its pseudo intellectual talk

Ahaha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tired? Dead end platform? Yeah...thats why the number of websites powered by ASP.NET is growing like mad and I'm fairly routinely head-hunted for six-figure-salary ASP.NET jobs!

Re:Ahaha!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get TCL coding jobs for six figures too.

OK, now we know how you think.

Hahaha.

Controlling Programmers...

[ninken]

As a programmer I've stay far away from .NET. First .NET is just a component library, and to be honest Microsoft Library is not "great at all", Most end up paying for 3rd party tools.

Then deploying is another problem making sure your clients or server has the correct .NET library. "This is worst than those VB runtimes you had to deploy"

Then at anytime Microsoft may find a bug, and release an update that may break your application.

Forget cross system compatible, Microsoft wants to lock the programmers to programming in their environment. Microsoft is resorting to .NET like they did with DirectX make it easier for the programmer, then the plus side is it runs on Windows Only.

Microsoft did all this to slow down the efforts towards Linux and Macintosh from running windows applications. If they control the framework of the programming language then they can stop programs from being converted and complied on another OS.

The solution is use Borland, if you a VB / .NET user use Borland Delphi, the VLC library is just awesome.

Re:Controlling Programmers...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's very clear you haven't used .NET at all.

Re: Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Port

[Rakshasa Taisab]

I maintain, and develop for, windows systems all day...

The antecedent poster was referring to people who _don't_ use windows, not people who _do_.

Don't be stupid, it isn't meant to be portable.

[CFD339]

The whole point to the .NET framework is lock-in. It's the classic trade off Microsoft has always made. Back in the early 90's you could write Windows 3.x apps with standard C++ language tools, but if you used their framework you got to market 6 months quicker because you didn't have to create your own windowing code. So, you could hit 90% of the market six months faster and you did, but then you gave up cross platform C++ by relying on their windows only libraries, and thus your software didn't work on Mac. That was the play then, and it is the play now.

By developing for the .NET framework, you get a lot of things. You get easy install kits, a 'contemporary professional' look and feel, you get drag and drop design, and you get cross platform use from the standpoint of different windows desktop, server, and mobile platforms.

If you're willing to limit your app to Microsoft platforms, .NET saves you time and money on development. It really does. I prefer to write in Java, but when I'm doing something within the .NET scope, it makes sense to use it.

The whole point of this play is to tie users to Windows platforms. They're in business to make money, and this is one way to continue doing that.

Java was created specifically to provide an alternative to Microsoft based development as a way to thwart Microsoft. That was a (not the, but a) primary goal of its development and licensing structure from the world go. It wasn't created to make money and while its goals are laudable, they aren't always realistic. It has been an abject failure at the desktop and even as browser based applets. A huge amount of effort went into making it useful for web servers (j2ee) but even those are barely cross platform and are themselves rife with vendor lock in. It's not like you're ever going to host IBM's portal product on someone else's J2EE server instead of Websphere after all.

Portability, my ass ;)

[bonefry]

Remember ActiveX ? Remember how it was supposed to be portable to Mac OS ?
Remember the Windows Media Player port to Mac OS ?
Remember the Internet Explorer port to Mac OS ?
Remember the VBA support in the Mac OS version of Microsoft Office ?

Where are those ports now ?

I am sick and tired of Microsoft ignoring standards. I am sick of Internet Explorer pitiful support for CSS and PNG and non-existent support for JPEG 2000, just so they can push their own formats.
I am sick of Internet Explorer websites ... and don't kid yourself, they are making a comeback.

I laugh at people mentioning Mono.
Mono is and will always be incomplete, unstable, and also ... there will always be a cloud over it regarding possible infringements of patents and copyrights.
If you want to know why ... just ask the developers of all those Java clones ;)

I don't care about Microsoft's technology if it doesn't have an impact on my life and my business.
But since Silverlight is ActiveX version 2 ... my life will be affected.

Answer me this ... just how hard is it to make Silverlight behave the same in both Firefox and IExplorer (both on Windows) ?
Go here ... http://metalinkltd.com/?p=114
See something missing in Firefox ?

Duh

[yoprst]

In Microsoft speak crossplatform doesn't mean that you can choose what platforms your software will be running on. It means that they can choose what platforms/hardware your software will be running on. They have a long history of redefining English words for marketing purposes.

Mono Mania

[Doc Ruby]

Do developers really need .NET to be portable, when Mono lets C# run on Linux (and therefore get ported elsewhere)? Or has MS managed to stymie that way out? Or perhaps the Mono developers done the stymieing.

It's not just their programs we want

[roystgnr]

It's the programs that other companies write on top of their middleware. You know how Microsoft uses standards for network protocols, file formats, etc. that were developed for non-Microsoft platforms? Well, one of the reasons we yell "Microsoft sucks!" so often is that we've noticed how hard they work to prevent any de facto standards from spreading in the other direction.

Of course not, what did you think

[guruevi]

Microsoft won't make .NET available to other platforms than their own, just because it's the only thing that keeps developers and architects from moving to a more stable Unix-like solution.

Another problem is that Windows is not POSIX compatible. Sure you can get the add-on that makes it a bit more POSIX-like but still .NET developers (unless they're knowledgeable on the subject) won't use the POSIX-compatible definitions in .NET/C# because they're fed/learned to use the 'simple' Windows way. Eg. defining a path. You could define a path as follows (yes, in .NET): (pseudocode): $userdrive + $platformseparator + dirname + $platformseparator + filename. Every developer though uses $DRIVENAME + \DIRNAME\FILENAME making it utterly inflexible to be used on another platform.

Re:Of course not, what did you think

[swilver]

And that's where Java really shines. It has gone out of its way to design API's that are suitable for cross platform use; sometimes those have their limitations when you really need to do something specific on a platform, but in 99% of the cases they are more than sufficient to get the job done (and getting better all the time -- take a look at Swing's FileSystemView class for example, which is very nice :))

With .NET you are tempted frequently to use calls to DLL's directly, instantly tying your code to a single platform; their API's are full of Windows specific tidbits and are generally inferior to what is available (standard or distributed under a free license) for Java. I should know, as my employer specifically hired me to convert their existing C# product to Java so they can reach some of their larger potential customers.

Re:Of course not, what did you think

[Jaime2]

Only the ones who don't know what they are doing make that mistake.

System.IO.Path.Combine has been around since .Net 1.0 and it works with a defined "platform seperator" and doesn't care whether you use drive letters or any other designation. It certainly isn't Microsoft's fault that some people are too lazy to read the directions.

Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft? Did you actually use the word Microsoft? Surely you meant 'M$'? Are you feeling OK?

Re: Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Port

[Type-E]

When you say dev environment is better, do you mean VS.net is better than Eclipse? Eclipse has come to a point that it is way better than many development IDE.

Re:Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portab

[Gilmoure]

And then you get the chicks?

.NET is good technology and good FOR technology

[gseidman]

There are three parts to .NET: the VM/runtime, the APIs, and the compilers, so I'll address them separately.

The VM and runtime are just good technology. They are also standardized (through ECMA), Microsoft's implementation is reasonably efficient, and the design is at least as good as the competition (i.e. the JVM, and I'll vent on my pet peeve here when I say that making properties a first-class, reflectable part of an object/class is much easier to deal with than the JavaBeans method naming convention).

The APIs are, like any other system platform, huge. They are reasonably well-designed, however, and Windows.Forms is far nicer to program to than Swing or AWT (I haven't played with SWT or Qt's Jambi). Simply by virtue of being designed with the lessons learned from Java in mind, they avoid some of the pitfalls and backward compatibility issues that Java faces.

The compilers are decent (though I'm told that the Fortran compiler produces terribly inefficient code), but the important part is that there are compilers for a broad range of languages. C++, C# and VB.NET (which is really just a verbose dialect of C# with some additional gotchas) are there out of the box, but there is also an ML compiler (F#), a Ruby compiler (IronRuby, to be released with SilverLight), ECMAScript (available with SilverLight, but I think it might be right up there with C++, C#, and VB.NET), a Python compiler (IronPython), a COBOL compiler (available commercially if this is actually something you need, ugh) and more that don't come to mind right off.

That's the good technology part. The good for technology part is competition. Flash is good, but Flash being developed under competitive pressure from SilverLight is better. Java is good, but Java being developed under competitive pressure from .NET is better. Even if you have no interest in .NET's technology for itself, be glad that both Sun and Adobe have a vested interest in making their respective technologies better and more pleasant to use.

That said, I make my money programming Ruby on Rails on a Mac. Despite my previous experience with C, C++, Obj-C, awk, sed, Java, JavaScript, C#, VB.NET, ASP.NET, etc. (and only the .NET stuff on Windows), I'm just a spectator here unless and until I'm looking for a new job.

is .NET worth it?

[walterbyrd]

Serious question for developers. Is .NET worth being tied to msft?

Re:is .NET worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, your question implies that if you learn .NET and code for it, you are thereby prohibited from learning and coding for other platforms. Not mutually exclusive.

If we rephrase the question to "does the considerable investment (time, skull sweat, and treasure) required to learn .NET have a higher net present value [NPV] than the investment required to learn the LAMP stack or some other non-Microsoft platform?" we can perhaps list some factors to help us decide.

1) time horizon: there is no question in my mind that Microsoft has reached its peak. In future more and more systems will be built with non-Microsoft technologies. Right now there is plenty of work for .NET developers. 5 years out, probably not so much opportunity except for maintenance/extension of existing systems. There will still be some new development but it will be ghettoized. VAXen AS400 MVS CICS Windows...

2) personal competition: there are smart people everywhere. If you're in the USA particularly, you are competing against coders all over the world who are at least as good as you are, but willing to work for much, much less than you are. In at least one way Windows has been good for US coders because it costs a lot to build and maintain a Windows development shop, assuming you're buying the licenses and so on. The high cost of Windows has been a barrier to entry for people who can't afford $140.00 for a workstation OS, $500.00 for a basic server OS, $600.00 for a glorified email server, and $160.00 - $5,000.00 for a development environment depending on version. Not to mention $125.00 - $400.00 for a "productivity suite."

Don't think M$ is unaware of this, which is why they're starting to give away their stuff in "emerging economies." The first shot is free... but that means that your competitors will have much cheaper access to .NET than you do.

3) personal goals: if you're in software development for the money rather than because you love writing code, and you're an individual contributor (as opposed to owner/management), you may want to consider another line of work. The days of the average coder making 6 figures (USD) are over, and even the extraordinary coder who works in somebody else's shop will probably not get rich doing it. Not by coding pure and simple anyway: you will have to offer more than the ability to code if you want truly to prosper.

Since I am a coder for Microsoft platforms (not an employee) and have been since COM was called OLE, I know Microsoft-the-company pretty well. They are a commercial enterprise engaged in capitalist competition and are clear about that. Indeed I am suspicious of people blathering about "the good of the community" and all that sort of thing.

Nevertheless, my intuitive answer to the reformulated question is: "No. Investment in Microsoft technologies does not have a higher NPV than investment in competing platforms." If you are young, love computing, are good at writing code, and are considering whether to learn .NET or to get better at LAMP or whatever, get better at LAMP or whatever. Microsoft is the past.

Why bother

[Anonymous Coward]

.NET is nearly crap and is only there in the hopes of killing Java. A Java killer it ain't. It suffers from everything Microsoft. Bill Gates and company want to limit your ability to write applications that are as good as theirs. That's why they will not embrace Java. It's not theirs and they cannot control the developer's access to all parts of it. I quit developing for the Wintel platform back at Windows 3.51 and have never regretted it and have had a better income and career because of it.

Keep on using Windows and developing for it and be frustrated and keep paying through the nose for everything or use UNIX and Linux and have control of your world. The choice is yours.

P.S. Steve Jobs does the same thing with Apple but he wants to control the hardware you use too.

Re: Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Port

[utopianfiat]

Koreaman
Koreaman
Doing what a Koreaman can
Koreaman!
What a man!
Tosses the bad guys in garbage cans!
But watch out-
he's reckless, that Koreaman!

Multiple implementations is not portable.

[twitter]

A software product/framework can be portable, cross platform without being Free.

It's not portable if you can't move it to a platform of YOUR choice. Something that's not free may have SDKs for more than one platform, but that does not really make it portable. Being "open" does not help either. They could publish their entire source code but it would not be free if it was patent and copyright restrictions that keep you from doing what you want with it.

These days, that lack of freedom is a distinct disadvantage that will cost M$. It's always been a disadvantage to non free code, but the saving grace was a lack working alternative and someone might pay you for it. Because there are now entire free software systems, non free code has run out of saving graces. It won't even make money. Control is a loser.

Re: Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Port

[deathy_epl ccs]

When you say dev environment is better, do you mean VS.net is better than Eclipse? Eclipse has come to a point that it is way better than many development IDE.

I use both currently, and I can say that Eclipse may be way better than many IDEs, but Visual Studio.net isn't one of them.

Why wouldn't they? Very simple

[zukinux]

Cause' they don't want to make it multi-platform, so developers will use .Net and develop their stuff and when they want to use it, they will be able to use Linux/whatever, and Microsoft doesn't want the developers to enjoy with their code on Linux since they want them to buy another Windows (which is legitimate to them that they want to sell. The problem is that they are doing it very ugly.)

quite right

[nanosquid]

the (im)possibility of creating a cross-platform code and UI framework, years before the .NET project even started!

And Sun proved conclusively that it is, in fact, impossible.

and who cares?

[nanosquid]

C# is a nice language, Mono implements it on Linux and uses the Linux APIs that I like, and that's all I really care about. It makes no more difference to me whether my C# programs run on Windows (actually, they even do, thanks to Gtk#) than it did whether my C or C++ programs run on Windows.

This "cross platform" stuff and "truly portable" stuff was a Sun marketing gimmick for Java, and it is really old and tired by now. I've seen what Java "cross platform" support amounts to, and I don't want it, either as a programmer or as a user.

Why I hate Microsoft and Act on it.

[twitter]

how stupid is it for the same folks yelling "Microsoft sucks!" on a daily basis, to turn around and ask for access to some of that suckage for themselves?

That would be stupid, which is why few people really do what you say. Some people foolishly believe they can work with M$ and effortlessly exchange data with their users. M$ tells them this is so, and some people still believe it. Their problems are similar to mine, but their surprise is all their own.

I reject M$ outright. I don't want their shit, I want them to leave me alone. But they don't because they want everyone to pay the M$ tax and shove that agenda every way they can. I tell people exactly how M$ screws them and recommend they use free software instead. The tighter they squeeze their honest customers, the more justified I am.

In this case M$ sucks because they do non free software in the most abusive way possible and pretend to be all the good things free software is. This is what they always do to their competitors and anyone who's followed them long enough will recognize the infantile reasoning they push: Our stuff is everything everyone else claims for their stuff and Everyone else has our problems and worse. You might remember these tactics from kindergarden and remember why they don't really work in a company/customer relationship.

Customers don't the expect abuse which inevitably comes from M$. When people use M$, their data is trapped into the one or two hardware platforms M$ "supports" and M$ regularly breaks that data to sell them an "upgrade". This approach would fail if there were any easy alternatives.

To support the upgrade train, M$ purposefully uses their coercive monopoly power to break alternate implementations, from bios to file formats. If that were not enough, they service providers to make life hard too. ISPs block ports and crimp upload speed to make up for M$ shortfalls. They even try to make it hard to work with business and government without their crappy software. No, I don't really need them and I consider gnu/linux use far easier, despite the roadblocks they have put in place. Their booby traps ultimately harm their customers more than anyone else.

I'd love to just sit back and watch M$ fade away, but they won't unless people who know computing reject them tell others about it. They are out to screw all of us, so tell them to go to hell.

Re:Why I hate Microsoft and Act on it.

[The Bungi]

M$ tax

But twitter, I thought you haven't actually purchased a computer in ten years? What "M$ tax" have you been paying?

from bios

You have been called on that before and found lacking. Might want to stop using that link completely. It's just sadly ridiculous.

BTW, I think you broke your own "dollar signs per post" record with this one. I can barely make out coherent phrases in that faux anger/creative spelling shitstorm you charitably call writing.

there's no deception

[sentientbrendan]

I don't think that anyone was ever led to believe that microsoft would be bringing .NET to linux... Microsoft's long term stance on linux has been to develop no software for it whatsoever.

What I am surprised about is that it has taken microsoft this long to bring any part of .NET to OSX. Frankly, I'd have expected them to bring at least a slimmed down runtime to OSX quite a while ago. My guess is that apple has been pretty unenthusiastic about the whole idea since .NET would mostly just compete with their existing cocoa and java toolsets.

At this point I'm doubting that the runtime on osx will ever be used for anything other than the browser plugin, or at least I doubt microsoft will make it easy to do so on OSX.

Re:Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portab

[redcane]

Perhaps you are right, but most of the linux users I know don't run non-linux binaries. (I certainly don't)

Re:Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portab

[leenks]

Apart from the odd person running WoW or some other game, I don't know anyone that actually uses wine other than me (and I only use it for Internet Exploder for those sites that don't work in anything else, and the occasional iTunes download). Is WINE really that practical or popular?

Bad things stay in bad places.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can troll me all you want, but with the tools that already exist in *Nix environment all i can say is that it is a blessing the .NET can't be ported.

So many programming interfaces are better than the .NET Studio(VI anyone?) and hey, no annoying *.dll's (hurray!!!)

As for OOP... well *Nix has it too with Gnome/KDE.

If I said something wrong, feel free to bash me.

Once upon a time ...

[ClosedSource]

If you want true platform independence you'll find it about the same time you find unicorns. Of course if you're willing to narrow the definition of "platform" or slap a horn on a horse, you can fool yourself into believing in these fairy tales.

Re:Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portab

[Nataku564]

Or point them at Parrot ... which isn't covered by Microsoft's shadow.

BS, FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Have they not heard of mono? Until Microsoft forces them to close down, then this is just FUD.

English is my second language..

[Anonymous Coward]

..but I really don't understand how anyone can make this mistake. Just ridiculous. A "professional writer" who can't get this right should move to another profession.

M$ Claims otherwise.

[twitter]

Visual Studio's exposure, which in the opinion of the vast majority who've used it, is a really good product.

Microsoft does not like their compiler. Only the best compiler would warrent comments like this:

... !IF YOU CHANGE TABS TO SPACES, YOU WILL BE KILLED!...
*... !DOING SO FUCKS THE BUILD PROCESS! ...

// the fucking alpha cpp compiler seems to fuck up the goddam type "LPITEMIDLIST", so to work
// around the fucking peice of shit compiler we pass the last param as an void *instead of a LPITEMIDLIST

It's been a long time since I did anything with a M$ compiler, but they were all just as buggy as anything else M$ has done. Apple made the right move when the started using gcc.

Re:M$ Claims otherwise.

[Kalriath]

Ah, twitter - I figured you'd show up. Can't have anyone say something even REMOTELY Microsoft friendly, can we? Since your opinion is meaningless anyway (see: Slashdot is run by Microsoft conspiracy) I'll expend as little effort as possible to refute your pathetic troll attempt.

// the fucking alpha cpp compiler seems to fuck up the goddam type "LPITEMIDLIST", so to work Visual Studio does not HAVE an Alpha CPP compiler, and never has had one. Visual C++ might have had one once, but that is not Visual Studio.

It's been a long time since I did anything with a MS compiler, but they were all just as buggy as anything else MS has done I fixed your spelling, since you can't seem to find your "S" key. Anyway, I've yet to see an instance of a buggy compiler released by them. Irritatingly hard to use, yes. Buggy, no. In fact, the "doing so fucks the build process" is more likely due a really bad build script rather than compiler, since I've never seen a compiler bug (or ever heard of one, for that matter - except from you)

Apple made the right move when the started using gcc I don't recall Apple ever using Visual Studio. Do you mean for Quicktime?

Re:M$ Claims otherwise.

[twitter]

"doing so fucks the build process" is more likely due a really bad build script rather than compiler, since I've never seen a compiler bug (or ever heard of one, for that matter - except from you)

No, I've run into that bug where their compiler had problems with white space characters. Having the editor built in made the problem worse - it would swap out all of the spaces and replace them with tabs, then screw up and tell you spacing was wrong if you let your program get too long. Why they did this for FORTRAN is beyond me. Why their compiler would barf over the issue is even more mysterious. Tabs and spaces are both white space and should be treated the same.

Can't have anyone say something even REMOTELY Microsoft friendly, can we?

Not when it's dead wrong and M$ themselves admit it.

Re:M$ Claims otherwise.

[The Bungi]

Oh flocktard, I've seen so many examples like that in free software, it's not even funny. Why, here's the list of current serious regressions lately introduced by GCC. This one looks like a ton of joy. But there's more: here's a list of dumb bugs in GCC that they only recently fixed. And then there are the "features" they've claimed are not defects since forever (not that I care, but still).

I remember there was that early Plone (or Zope, I forget) bug where a password couldn't begin with an underscore or a tilde or something like that. That one was funny. But they fixed it, as I'm sure "M$" fixed this one.

But here you are, using a bug in a compiler that hasn't been used in years as ammunition for your "M$ sux" religion. How painfully lame can you get?

Re:M$ Claims otherwise.

[Kalriath]

No, I've run into that bug where their compiler had problems with white space characters. Having the editor built in made the problem worse - it would swap out all of the spaces and replace them with tabs, then screw up and tell you spacing was wrong if you let your program get too long. Why they did this for FORTRAN is beyond me. Why their compiler would barf over the issue is even more mysterious. Tabs and spaces are both white space and should be treated the same.

I'm a little curious on this - I don't know any languages where the compiler and editor are the same application - is this Visual Basic (versions 6 and below)? It's the only MS language I know of that actually is built this way. Yes, just this once I will agree that is a bit of an abomination when they do that, because you can't do awesome stuff like Build Scripts, decent debug logging, or anything like that - however I have never seen the C++ compiler, C# compiler, QuickBASIC or VB.NET compiler ever encounter issues with whitespace, and believe your ranting on that is just a bunch of FUD. I wasn't aware they ever built a FORTRAN compiler, so I'll defer to you on that one, much though it pains me.

I see your S key is still broken. Perhaps you should take a look at Newegg or Circuit City for a new keyboard?

advantage m$

[chrisranjana.com]

In fact m$ can use linux software on windows but not vice versa !! That is the boon and bane of open source software.

Re: Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Port

[koreaman]

I love you.

Re: Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Port

[koreaman]

Of course he makes sense. Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean he doesn't make sense. He's saying that non-Windows users would not want .NET. But Windows users already have .NET! So porting .NET is pointless.