IIS has plenty of modules and add-ins (like Apache) via ISAPI - lots of vulnerabilities in IIS5 were vulnerabilities in crappier extensions that were loaded by default. IIS6 ships with far fewer things "ON" and thus is more secure. IIS6 has been out for over 2 years now, and there are plenty of people (both black hats and white hats) trying to break IIS 6 (e-eye for example, which virtuall specialize in IIS - http://www.eeye.com/html/research/index.html).
That is one of the interesting benefits of virtual execution environments. AFAIK the JIT compilation process can take advantage of the target system's architecture, so.NET apps would not need to be recompiled to see a beneift. I don't have access to a 64 bit CPU so I haven't investigated but I did notice 64 bit versions of the.NET framework in the latest Whidbey betas. I'm not sure if there is a 64 bit version of framework 1.0 or 1.1. I did notice at least one Tech-Ed presentation from this year was on writing.NET apps to target 32 and 64 bit platforms.
Believe it or not there is a good side to WinME. My next door neighbour was running it on his Athlon 1000. The machine had never been stable and would frequently re-boot. I think the longest it had stayed up was under 1 hour. He always suspected the hardware, but I insisted he should try XP or Windows 2000 since I knew ME had a (deserved) reputation as a falky piece of crap. I even offered to help him upgrade etc. After putting up with this for ages he ended up going out and buying himself a completely new system, with XP pre-installed. He gave me his "old" machine, and I said I would install something else on it and see if it WAS the hardware, or WinME. I installed a trial version of windows server 2003 and it ran under reasonable load for a few weeks, running some VMs, databases etc. Of course it ran without a hitch. I told him that the machine seemed fine but he said (somewhat sheepishly) that I could "look after it for him". Schweet. It is _only_ an Athlon 1000, but it gives me another machine to play around with. So in summary, there is a good side to WinME! More PCs for me!
I guess if you're a developer "star" like Chris Anderson then sending out photos of your office is OK? I think it might have been more to do with the details of the location on campus etc, altho Don Box is prone to doing that from time to time in his blog too (check out the entry entitled "old school fun" to see what I mean).
I guess generics themselves are nothing new, but thanks for the info on the academic Java generics project. It seems like all-of-a-sudden Sun has decided to add some language features to Java that had perviously been on the back-burner because Sun had deemed them as un-necessary. As I said I like the rivalry between.NET and Java. Hopefully developers (and ultimately customers) will be the big winners.
A prototype C# compiler and CLR with generics support has been out for ages too (based on the shared-source ROTOR distribution). It's called Gyro. The alpha versions of Widbey (CLR, C#/VB.NET compilers, VS.NET Widbey) all have generics support. Attendees at the Microsoft Professional Developers Conference (PDC) which starts today IIRR, will recieve an updated preview of Widbey (not sure if it is being called an alpha or a beta, but the alphas that are already out there are pretty stable, and it is getting a pretty wide release). It's good to see Java following Microsoft's lead (after MS borrowed so much from Java). I think strong competition is good.
Isn't the purpose of EJB to meet these sort of goals without having to do anything special? Well, except architect your app. a certain way. If doing this is non-trivial then doesn't it mean that EJB has failed to a certain extent? If I have to hear about Data Transfer Object Factories and CMP entity beans again I think I'll puke....
I doubt if MS will ever allow WebMatrix to eat into VS.NET sales. Without auto-complete and about a million other little features it is not in the same league as VS.NET. If you need a small, simple light-weight ASP.NET IDE it is quite good but otherwise stick to VS. Sharpdevelop has auto-complete and looks promising. IIRR Borland where going to bring out a developer tool for C#/.NET also, although I've not checked that one out.
As another poster noted there is sharpdevelop as an Open Source.NET IDE. Also, I'm not really sure what significance eclipse running under the MONO CLR means in terms of a.NET development environment. AFAIK Eclipse doesn't allow you to build anything.NET related at the moment, and even if it did it's not really important that it also _run_ under.NET. Normally it would seem logical that a development tool run under the platform it is developing for, but if you were going to use the eclipse framework to develop a.NET IDE this might not really be true.
As far as I can see your last observation, that Varga has given an impressive demonstration of the robustness of IKVM and Mono is more on the money.
The IIS "registry-like-thing-that-is-not-the-registry" is the IIS Metabase. Most people who know about it do so because it has become corrupt on them. COM+ has a similar "registry-like-thing-that-is-not-the-registry" called the COM+ catalog.
AFAIK IBM's ObjectREXX has an active scripting binding, so on windows anywhere you can write VBScript/JScript you can also put REXX code there too. Similar bindings exist for a lot of languages including Python and Perl. I don't actually _know_ of anyone using REXX, but this is a possibility.
hmmm...you may be right - Litestep replaces the normal windows shell, much of which may be implemented in explorer.exe. Stardock/Desktop X is another example of a replacement to parts of the normal windows functionality. I'll agree with you that shell32, kernel32 etc _do_ come from the same source, but I think they're quite replaceable, and the fact that they come from the same place does not in any way make NT and it's descendants monolithic. Altho having said that GDI does run in kernel space in win2k and above (for performance)...I still don't think this counts as a monlithic kernel/graphics renderer however.
I know this is slightly OT but...does anyone else find this "keyword overloading" (IIRR Don Box's essential.NET was where I saw this nice euphemism, or perhaps it was "namespace overloading") annoying? C# is C and C++ derived...why not use Imports (which has not been used for anyting in C#)?
IIS is not required to install VC++7. It is required by some M$ products for non-obvious reasons (biztalk - why does it need IIS), but not VC++7 or any of VS.NET.
What makes one strongly typed Algog/C/C++ derived single inheritance language developed by a large IT corporation that gets compiled to a virtual instruction set and JIT compiled when it is run better than another?
This may not be popular on/., but Microsoft aren't the only people who have bugs in their code (Oracle's openhack entry was XSS'd but not M$'s). Admittedly the seem to have more than their fair share. I belive this will change in the future. Microsoft seem legitimately concerned about security and the reputation their products have. I've read the second version of "writing secure code" from MS press, and it is an excellent book for windows developers, but reading some of it it sounded more like an _internal_ document than one designed to be read by a wider audience. I'm fairly sure the "security pushes" in redmond will continue for years to come. Each product group (apparently) now performs what sounds like quite exhaustive "threat modelling" of their application. VC++ 7 has a compiler option to significantly reduce the likelyhood of buffer over-runs. Microsoft is also moving to using managed.NET code instead of C++ which will improve security also. Each version of windows from Win2K to windows server 2003 has added a number of security related APIs. Windows Server 2003 installs less stuff by default, uses more secure defaults on the things it does install, tells you if you enter a "weak" account password etc. All of these things are little things, but together I think they show a picture of how the focus may have changed to be more security conscious. It may take years and a number of versions (especially because of the backward compatibility they will want to maintain) but I wouldn't be surprised if windows became a much more security conscious platform. Wow, that sounds like a lot of M$ marketting on re-reading it but it is all true. M$ have woken up to the need to create secure applications.
Agreed - the guy from Ximian was skewing the TCO to look pretty good for GTK ($0) and bad for Qt (big $$$) which as pointed out is crap. Now what the _actual_ figures are...no body knows for sure. Your TCO for Qt might be less than mine becuase you know Qt better, or are smarter. Alternaitively if you know GTK really well then the extra money spent on Qt licenses might be a waste because you would have been more productive with GTK. It all depends on who you are, what you're working on etc. I agree the stuff from the Ximian developer looked like BS, but claiming a commercial product is actually *cheaper* in the long run because it is easier to use etc. (which is what the responder seemed to be claiming) is a pretty MS-ish move also;-). No-one said the GTK and Qt camps had to love each-other.
If using Qt means you're more productive then in some cases the extra cost of a Qt license (or licenses) is going to be worth it. I think we all know how TCO figures can be skewed any which way to support almost any point of view. If you like GTK use GTK. If you like Qt and can afford the license fees use Qt, or go GPL and don't worry about license fees.
Slashdot Mirror
IIS has plenty of modules and add-ins (like Apache) via ISAPI - lots of vulnerabilities in IIS5 were vulnerabilities in crappier extensions that were loaded by default. IIS6 ships with far fewer things "ON" and thus is more secure. IIS6 has been out for over 2 years now, and there are plenty of people (both black hats and white hats) trying to break IIS 6 (e-eye for example, which virtuall specialize in IIS - http://www.eeye.com/html/research/index.html).
That is one of the interesting benefits of virtual execution environments. AFAIK the JIT compilation process can take advantage of the target system's architecture, so .NET apps would not need to be recompiled to see a beneift. I don't have access to a 64 bit CPU so I haven't investigated but I did notice 64 bit versions of the .NET framework in the latest Whidbey betas. I'm not sure if there is a 64 bit version of framework 1.0 or 1.1. I did notice at least one Tech-Ed presentation from this year was on writing .NET apps to target 32 and 64 bit platforms.
This is a software development company..../> we're trying to <choking /> INNOVATE </mcBride>
<vader>And if this is a software development company then WHERE are the programmers?</vader>
Believe it or not there is a good side to WinME. My next door neighbour was running it on his Athlon 1000. The machine had never been stable and would frequently re-boot. I think the longest it had stayed up was under 1 hour. He always suspected the hardware, but I insisted he should try XP or Windows 2000 since I knew ME had a (deserved) reputation as a falky piece of crap. I even offered to help him upgrade etc. After putting up with this for ages he ended up going out and buying himself a completely new system, with XP pre-installed. He gave me his "old" machine, and I said I would install something else on it and see if it WAS the hardware, or WinME. I installed a trial version of windows server 2003 and it ran under reasonable load for a few weeks, running some VMs, databases etc. Of course it ran without a hitch. I told him that the machine seemed fine but he said (somewhat sheepishly) that I could "look after it for him". Schweet. It is _only_ an Athlon 1000, but it gives me another machine to play around with. So in summary, there is a good side to WinME! More PCs for me!
I guess if you're a developer "star" like Chris Anderson then sending out photos of your office is OK? I think it might have been more to do with the details of the location on campus etc, altho Don Box is prone to doing that from time to time in his blog too (check out the entry entitled "old school fun" to see what I mean).
I guess generics themselves are nothing new, but thanks for the info on the academic Java generics project. It seems like all-of-a-sudden Sun has decided to add some language features to Java that had perviously been on the back-burner because Sun had deemed them as un-necessary. As I said I like the rivalry between .NET and Java. Hopefully developers (and ultimately customers) will be the big winners.
A prototype C# compiler and CLR with generics support has been out for ages too (based on the shared-source ROTOR distribution). It's called Gyro. The alpha versions of Widbey (CLR, C#/VB.NET compilers, VS.NET Widbey) all have generics support. Attendees at the Microsoft Professional Developers Conference (PDC) which starts today IIRR, will recieve an updated preview of Widbey (not sure if it is being called an alpha or a beta, but the alphas that are already out there are pretty stable, and it is getting a pretty wide release). It's good to see Java following Microsoft's lead (after MS borrowed so much from Java). I think strong competition is good.
next "question"
Isn't the purpose of EJB to meet these sort of goals without having to do anything special? Well, except architect your app. a certain way. If doing this is non-trivial then doesn't it mean that EJB has failed to a certain extent? If I have to hear about Data Transfer Object Factories and CMP entity beans again I think I'll puke....
I guess it shows just how much the Java Community Process is worth when someone from Sun comes out and says "Java will not have X because we say so".
what's you're IP address exactly?
That is one of the most sickeningly wholesome sites I've seen on the web....
I doubt if MS will ever allow WebMatrix to eat into VS.NET sales. Without auto-complete and about a million other little features it is not in the same league as VS.NET. If you need a small, simple light-weight ASP.NET IDE it is quite good but otherwise stick to VS. Sharpdevelop has auto-complete and looks promising. IIRR Borland where going to bring out a developer tool for C#/.NET also, although I've not checked that one out.
As another poster noted there is sharpdevelop as an Open Source .NET IDE. Also, I'm not really sure what significance eclipse running under the MONO CLR means in terms of a .NET development environment. AFAIK Eclipse doesn't allow you to build anything .NET related at the moment, and even if it did it's not really important that it also _run_ under .NET. Normally it would seem logical that a development tool run under the platform it is developing for, but if you were going to use the eclipse framework to develop a .NET IDE this might not really be true.
As far as I can see your last observation, that Varga has given an impressive demonstration of the robustness of IKVM and Mono is more on the money.
The IIS "registry-like-thing-that-is-not-the-registry" is the IIS Metabase. Most people who know about it do so because it has become corrupt on them. COM+ has a similar "registry-like-thing-that-is-not-the-registry" called the COM+ catalog.
AFAIK IBM's ObjectREXX has an active scripting binding, so on windows anywhere you can write VBScript/JScript you can also put REXX code there too. Similar bindings exist for a lot of languages including Python and Perl. I don't actually _know_ of anyone using REXX, but this is a possibility.
You thought a Motif application looked slick???
hmmm...you may be right - Litestep replaces the normal windows shell, much of which may be implemented in explorer.exe. Stardock/Desktop X is another example of a replacement to parts of the normal windows functionality. I'll agree with you that shell32, kernel32 etc _do_ come from the same source, but I think they're quite replaceable, and the fact that they come from the same place does not in any way make NT and it's descendants monolithic. Altho having said that GDI does run in kernel space in win2k and above (for performance)...I still don't think this counts as a monlithic kernel/graphics renderer however.
not exchangeable? you mean like LiteStep?
I know this is slightly OT but...does anyone else find this "keyword overloading" (IIRR Don Box's essential .NET was where I saw this nice euphemism, or perhaps it was "namespace overloading") annoying? C# is C and C++ derived...why not use Imports (which has not been used for anyting in C#)?
IIS is not required to install VC++7. It is required by some M$ products for non-obvious reasons (biztalk - why does it need IIS), but not VC++7 or any of VS.NET.
What makes one strongly typed Algog/C/C++ derived single inheritance language developed by a large IT corporation that gets compiled to a virtual instruction set and JIT compiled when it is run better than another?
This may not be popular on /., but Microsoft aren't the only people who have bugs in their code (Oracle's openhack entry was XSS'd but not M$'s). Admittedly the seem to have more than their fair share. I belive this will change in the future. Microsoft seem legitimately concerned about security and the reputation their products have. I've read the second version of "writing secure code" from MS press, and it is an excellent book for windows developers, but reading some of it it sounded more like an _internal_ document than one designed to be read by a wider audience. I'm fairly sure the "security pushes" in redmond will continue for years to come. Each product group (apparently) now performs what sounds like quite exhaustive "threat modelling" of their application. VC++ 7 has a compiler option to significantly reduce the likelyhood of buffer over-runs. Microsoft is also moving to using managed .NET code instead of C++ which will improve security also. Each version of windows from Win2K to windows server 2003 has added a number of security related APIs. Windows Server 2003 installs less stuff by default, uses more secure defaults on the things it does install, tells you if you enter a "weak" account password etc. All of these things are little things, but together I think they show a picture of how the focus may have changed to be more security conscious. It may take years and a number of versions (especially because of the backward compatibility they will want to maintain) but I wouldn't be surprised if windows became a much more security conscious platform. Wow, that sounds like a lot of M$ marketting on re-reading it but it is all true. M$ have woken up to the need to create secure applications.
Agreed - the guy from Ximian was skewing the TCO to look pretty good for GTK ($0) and bad for Qt (big $$$) which as pointed out is crap. Now what the _actual_ figures are...no body knows for sure. Your TCO for Qt might be less than mine becuase you know Qt better, or are smarter. Alternaitively if you know GTK really well then the extra money spent on Qt licenses might be a waste because you would have been more productive with GTK. It all depends on who you are, what you're working on etc. I agree the stuff from the Ximian developer looked like BS, but claiming a commercial product is actually *cheaper* in the long run because it is easier to use etc. (which is what the responder seemed to be claiming) is a pretty MS-ish move also ;-). No-one said the GTK and Qt camps had to love each-other.
If using Qt means you're more productive then in some cases the extra cost of a Qt license (or licenses) is going to be worth it. I think we all know how TCO figures can be skewed any which way to support almost any point of view. If you like GTK use GTK. If you like Qt and can afford the license fees use Qt, or go GPL and don't worry about license fees.