Honestly, so far you are one of the few people I've seen posting to/. who actually get it.
I'm by no means an expert on.Net. I've read what I can and attended some of our local.Net user group meetings.
It's really quite cool, and like you say is more than just C#. It's a whole new development paradigm.
As far as tightening up.Net. From the people I've talked to(mostly Developmentor instructors), the.Net framework is pretty tight as it is right now. It's being tweaked with enhanced capabilities prior to release, but there are whole production web sites running off the Betas today.
No, what will be the problem is training developers on how to properly use it. Most Microsoft developers still don't even understand MTS completely and that's been out for 4 years.
From the.Net user group meetings you can see a lot of people actually somewhat terrified that what they know now will just go away.
It's that training, learning... attitude that will be.Net's greatest problem.
"I think most see Java as a server technology at this point. VB always sucked at this. "
Out of curiousity, on what basis do you say this? I have a feeling you've no knowledge of COM, much less VB so how can you intelligently make such a comment?
As far as your little tirade about interoperability, that's what.Net is all about.
Just because you haven't taken the time to learn and understand something, doesn't mean it sucks.
Well first I'll point out that on the Macintosh it used to do the same thing. i.e. stick a DOS floppy in and it'd ask you if you wanted to format it.
This was back under System 6 or 7. But it was even more annoying than that, as it did have the capability of reading the DOS Floppy, but you had to run that utility before putting the floppy in the machine. If you didn't, and you didn't want to format the floppy it would eject it. It was really annoying if you didn't know about running that utility first.:)
For office environments with both machines, Windows NT does provide Client Services for Macintosh. This is far more important, especially given most people really don't use floppies any longer, but instead share off the network.
Hmm, interesting comments. I do not agree that my argument is muddled, but rather that I fail to see a dubious distinction that you wish to see that does not exist.
But regardless, you raise an interesting point which would make a fascinating argument for Mr. Mundie of Microsoft.
Microsoft can simply point out that their software is better, and unlike OSS companies like RedHat, they are willing to back up that claim with a warranty.
Suddenly that cheap little Yugo isn't looking like such a good deal.
Wow. I didn't realize you were going all the way back to DOS 3.x days to hold a grudge.
It appears that I was mistaken, but then I didn't waste my time in the DOS world until well after DOS 5 had been released.
However, your last point is most certainly wrong, or rather you are confusing yourself. As anybody from '93-'95 will tell you the QEMM product was far superior to that which came included with DOS. To claim that QEMM would not run with DOS 6 is utterly ridiculous. Yes, it did not run with EMM386, but that's because it replaced it.
Even so, don't you think perhaps it's time to maybe give up an argument that's 12 years old? I mean come on, no company today behaves as they did 12 years ago. Or is IBM still selling Microchannel?
The GPL grants you certain rights in return for you giving up certain rights.
Specifically you can copy, modify, and distribute the code. But if you do happen to modify it you are forced to release the source to your changes.
Similarly speaking, it's obvious that shrinkwrap and EULA extend from copyright law as well. That's the basis for the company being allowed to restrict your use in exchange for the right to use it at all.
I've never had a right to use restriction on an automobile I have purchased, nor have I on toasters, televisions or wristwatches.
Ok, I'm not a fan of UCITA and think it's overall a bad idea.
But I honestly have not studied it as fully as I would like, mainly because it's hard to find unbiased information that isn't all legalese.
Well whatever. This is the first time I've heard of anything positive being included in UCITA. That is as long as I am correct in assuming a 'mandatory warranty' is a guarantee to the consumer that the software functions as advertised.
Now I can understand why RedHat is against this, they certainly don't want to be responsible for selling a product that doesn't work.
But I don't see that as particularly ethical behavior worth commendation. Seems to me like that want to weasle out just like every other software company.
As long as you've paid money for something, there should be a guarantee that it works as advertised. That includes software as well.
Of course the shrink wrap license known as the GPL already disclaims any responsibility, but I guess that leads into another discussion...
I'm not at all certain I agree with your assessment of Quarterdeck.
Microsoft introduced MEMMAKER into DOS 6.x solely as a reaction to the introduction of a similar utility into DR-DOS. To claim that Microsoft did this to get QEMM infers that DR-DOS had the same reason.
I think the truth is that DR-DOS saw an opportunity to improve the DOS environment by requiring one less third party software purchase. Microsoft saw similar motivation, but they also had a goal of not allowing a competitor to be better than their own product.
There was certainly a bitter rivalry between MS and DRI at the time, and MS didn't behave ethically. But it was obvious even at the time that MS didn't do this to get Quarterdeck, they did it to get DRI.
Microsoft also didn't develop it, they licensed it from Helix Software. Most of the improvements to DOS 6 were licensed technologies, in fact.
Actually I fully suspect, they probably went to Quarterdeck and asked to license their product but couldn't work out terms.
Then not that it mattered anyway, as at the time even with Microsoft's MEMMAKER one still had to purchase QEMM. Go back in time and try to run Lantastic under DOS 6 on a early Pentium 90 system. With MEMMAKER you couldn't get near the free memory available(perhaps 475k) as you could under QEMM(more like 550k), so I highly doubt QEMM sales slumped that much except perhaps to the home sector.
No, what ultimately killed QEMM was Windows 95. But then Windows 95 also killed Desqview, OS/2, Lantastic, Stacker, etc. all in the same swoop.
But then isn't that progress? I often see OSS advocates claiming that Microsoft shouldn't fight back, they should just learn to live with change.
So shouldn't have Quarterdeck, IBM, Lantastic, Stack, DRI etc. all have just accepted change and stopped whining about unfair competition?
One of the things I find so fascinating about discussions with regards to Microsoft. It doesn't matter what happens, what the facts are, someone will always find some way to link a conspiracy to kill their favorite product to Microsoft.
Desqview was an interesting product, but it really died because nobody was all that interested in buying it at the time.
Sorry Brett, I normally like your posts, but I think your argument went off into fantasy land.
I actually did see a panel discussion two years ago which included Bob Young from RedHat and I think it was Ed Muth from Microsoft, and one other person I don't recall.
Mr. Young certainly tried to dominate the discussion at the beginning, but by the end Mr. Muth had made several extremely good points and really had a lot of people going "Oh, yeah, I guess I hadn't thought of that."
Have you stopped to consider that they have different perspectives?
There are a lot of highly skilled, technical people, like myself that see great advantages in what Microsoft has created and proposes to create. We're certainly not alone, in fact we outnumber the Open Source world at least 10 to 1.
However we aren't as vocal, either. There's no point. Our world is on top, we are having a lot of fun doing what we enjoy doing.
The Open Source world on the other hand is a lot like the Christian Right, losing the battle and shouting at the rain.
Java was a direct business response to Microsoft. Sun was losing ground as more and more companies were moving to develop software for Windows NT.
Java was created in a effort to sell the idea of cross-platformism, despite the fact that Java is simply a platform in itself and not much different than say using Uniface, etc. But if software could be written to run on NT, and it just happened to also run on Sun... Sun could sell more boxes.
Java had a rough start, however. It failed at just about every task it was sold as being the perfect solution for. Corel initially announced a Java version of WordPerfect, then canned the project. Sun told us we wouldn't need to buy new computers, a 486dx2/66 would run Java just fine especially with a Java accelerator board in it. Java would be the language of the web, embedded programs into your web browser. But none of these ideas panned out, performance issues, compatibility issues(Java does not run anywhere), etc. all made it completely unsuitable for these tasks.
However after years of trying to find a place for Java, it eventually became a pretty decent langauge for writing business/web middle-tier components sort of by default. It does have a nice language grammar, and is relatively easy to use and understand unlike C++.
C# on the other hand was a natural language evolution. Microsoft saw that there were some great advantages of Java because of the syntax being easier to grok than C++ and wanted to provide that same level of goodness to their customers. Customers who were tired of the limitation of languages like VB, but not wanting to mangle their brains with C++.
Unfortunately with Java being a proprietary standard of Sun, Microsoft wasn't able to bring it to the Windows platform. So they rolled their own solution and gave it away as an Open Standard.
A side benefit of the C# project is the development of the Common Language Runtime. This means that other languages under the.Net framework also benefit from C#'s design.
This results in Visual BASIC now having to conform to intelligent language design rules. Orthogonality, symmetry, etc. No more of this weird crap code syntax. This also means that VB programmers will no longer be quite as limited in what they are able to do.
Still if you want to write device drivers, C++ is the best bet. But for applications programming under.Net you will have choices and won't have to program with a hand tied behind your back.
My father used to work for Zenith back in the early 70's. He has an MSEE and designed audio amplifiers at the time.
Throughout my childhood we had Zenith televisions and radios. A 26" color console in fact.
Did he have schematics?
Yep, we had the schematics, he had the design specs. He knew exactly how this thing was built from his work at Zenith.
And the fact of the matter is... YOU HAD TO KNOW THIS BECAUSE THAT TELEVISION WAS A HUNK OF TRASH!
I'm not saying it wasn't a good TV for the day, but once a year some tube would blow out, and we'd make the regular trip down to Radio Shack or wherever to get a replacement. This was pretty common for televisions of that day and age.
They finally replaced it with a Magnavox 26" which used transistors around 1980 or so. That worked for 15 years before the powersupply went bad and couldn't be easily repaired.
The point is, over the years the quality of the televisions improved to the point that you no longer need schematics... BECAUSE THEY DON'T BREAK ONCE A YEAR!
The same is true of automobiles. The VW Beetle used to be regarded as a wonderful car. Not because it was good to drive, not because it was comfortable to ride in... it sure didn't have a working heating system, etc.
The reason it was regarded as a good car at the time was because you could overhaul the engine on the side of the highway with a small box full of tools.
And once again... You had to do this because the blasted thing would break down on the side of the road once a year and require an overhaul. IT WAS A HUNK OF TRASH!
I don't have to do that with my car today. Yes I change the oil, yes I put air in the tires. But in 28 months of ownership I have not yet had it break down, stop working or otherwise require maintenance outside of oil changes.
As a consumer, I should not need schematics...
I should not need source code. Your product should work as designed. If there is an API call into the OS it should be well documented with defined inputs and expected outputs. It should work exactly as documented.
If I need source, if I need schematics, if I need service manuals... Your product is a hunk of trash and I don't want it.
And out of curiousity, how do you feel about the abuse by pirates using such things as Napster?
Obviously that's ok, because you are getting something for free, right?
When I initially read this article I thought it was bogus. Then I read it again and realized what they were saying is that companies that sell ringtone downloads to phones for $1/song or whatever, should be giving a percentage of that to the original song owner.
I think that makes since. The only thing that differentiates their $1/song from my bring*bring is the tones from the song.
So whose work is that? Is the work to transpose 12 notes from a pop song worth $1?
Obviously not. So shouldn't the entity which is truly responsible for the work that makes the 12 notes desirable over bring*bring be rewarded?
I think so, and that's the entire basis of intellectual property.
Now if I encode it and put it in my phone myself... Then I consider that fair use, and I suspect the courts would as well.
As much as I dislike the Bush administration, your attempt to compare this to his disasterous energy policy plan is kind of silly.
Slashdot Mirror
It's really cool that you are such a wise, all knowing expert and can critique Microsoft from such an incredibly informed point of view.
But I'm just curious why you are claiming Win2k has a 2 Gig memory limit?
Just wondering, because... well that's wrong. It's actually a 4 Gig limit. But if that little factoid is wrong, how am I to view your other opinions?
I mean, are you truly informed, or do you just have some knee jerk reactionary attitude that all things Microsoft suck?
Honestly, so far you are one of the few people I've seen posting to /. who actually get it.
.Net. I've read what I can and attended some of our local .Net user group meetings.
.Net. From the people I've talked to(mostly Developmentor instructors), the .Net framework is pretty tight as it is right now. It's being tweaked with enhanced capabilities prior to release, but there are whole production web sites running off the Betas today.
.Net user group meetings you can see a lot of people actually somewhat terrified that what they know now will just go away.
.Net's greatest problem.
I'm by no means an expert on
It's really quite cool, and like you say is more than just C#. It's a whole new development paradigm.
As far as tightening up
No, what will be the problem is training developers on how to properly use it. Most Microsoft developers still don't even understand MTS completely and that's been out for 4 years.
From the
It's that training, learning... attitude that will be
"I think most see Java as a server technology at this point. VB always sucked at this. "
.Net is all about.
Out of curiousity, on what basis do you say this? I have a feeling you've no knowledge of COM, much less VB so how can you intelligently make such a comment?
As far as your little tirade about interoperability, that's what
Just because you haven't taken the time to learn and understand something, doesn't mean it sucks.
C# is a language which is part of the .Net framework.
:(
.Net is a development framework which includes CLR and all it's various languages, SOAP, etc.
Hailstorm is Microsofts strategy of subscription based content.
The original poster has a better understand than you do.
Well first I'll point out that on the Macintosh it used to do the same thing. i.e. stick a DOS floppy in and it'd ask you if you wanted to format it.
:)
This was back under System 6 or 7. But it was even more annoying than that, as it did have the capability of reading the DOS Floppy, but you had to run that utility before putting the floppy in the machine. If you didn't, and you didn't want to format the floppy it would eject it. It was really annoying if you didn't know about running that utility first.
For office environments with both machines, Windows NT does provide Client Services for Macintosh. This is far more important, especially given most people really don't use floppies any longer, but instead share off the network.
Uhh, you need to be using FAT-16 to have access from DOS. For FAT32 support you need win98 or better.
It depends on what your purpose is, but honestly I think FAT32 gives you just about the same problems as NTFS does.
Try to access a FAT32 partition from NT4.0 and you can't, for example.
Oh, there are undelete utilities for NTFS, check out Executive Software. www.diskeeper.com
Hmm, interesting comments. I do not agree that my argument is muddled, but rather that I fail to see a dubious distinction that you wish to see that does not exist.
But regardless, you raise an interesting point which would make a fascinating argument for Mr. Mundie of Microsoft.
Microsoft can simply point out that their software is better, and unlike OSS companies like RedHat, they are willing to back up that claim with a warranty.
Suddenly that cheap little Yugo isn't looking like such a good deal.
I really don't think the price of the product is the crux of his argument.
I would have to agree with the AC that you are trying to equate to malice what is rather a desire to improve the product to spur more sales.
Even so to claim that Microsoft built EMM386 only to eliminate Desqview sounds to me like grasping at straws.
Wow. I didn't realize you were going all the way back to DOS 3.x days to hold a grudge.
It appears that I was mistaken, but then I didn't waste my time in the DOS world until well after DOS 5 had been released.
However, your last point is most certainly wrong, or rather you are confusing yourself. As anybody from '93-'95 will tell you the QEMM product was far superior to that which came included with DOS. To claim that QEMM would not run with DOS 6 is utterly ridiculous. Yes, it did not run with EMM386, but that's because it replaced it.
Even so, don't you think perhaps it's time to maybe give up an argument that's 12 years old? I mean come on, no company today behaves as they did 12 years ago. Or is IBM still selling Microchannel?
I'm not sure I agree.
The GPL grants you certain rights in return for you giving up certain rights.
Specifically you can copy, modify, and distribute the code. But if you do happen to modify it you are forced to release the source to your changes.
Similarly speaking, it's obvious that shrinkwrap and EULA extend from copyright law as well. That's the basis for the company being allowed to restrict your use in exchange for the right to use it at all.
I've never had a right to use restriction on an automobile I have purchased, nor have I on toasters, televisions or wristwatches.
Ok, I'm not a fan of UCITA and think it's overall a bad idea.
But I honestly have not studied it as fully as I would like, mainly because it's hard to find unbiased information that isn't all legalese.
Well whatever. This is the first time I've heard of anything positive being included in UCITA. That is as long as I am correct in assuming a 'mandatory warranty' is a guarantee to the consumer that the software functions as advertised.
Now I can understand why RedHat is against this, they certainly don't want to be responsible for selling a product that doesn't work.
But I don't see that as particularly ethical behavior worth commendation. Seems to me like that want to weasle out just like every other software company.
As long as you've paid money for something, there should be a guarantee that it works as advertised. That includes software as well.
Of course the shrink wrap license known as the GPL already disclaims any responsibility, but I guess that leads into another discussion...
I'm not at all certain I agree with your assessment of Quarterdeck.
Microsoft introduced MEMMAKER into DOS 6.x solely as a reaction to the introduction of a similar utility into DR-DOS. To claim that Microsoft did this to get QEMM infers that DR-DOS had the same reason.
I think the truth is that DR-DOS saw an opportunity to improve the DOS environment by requiring one less third party software purchase. Microsoft saw similar motivation, but they also had a goal of not allowing a competitor to be better than their own product.
There was certainly a bitter rivalry between MS and DRI at the time, and MS didn't behave ethically. But it was obvious even at the time that MS didn't do this to get Quarterdeck, they did it to get DRI.
Microsoft also didn't develop it, they licensed it from Helix Software. Most of the improvements to DOS 6 were licensed technologies, in fact.
Actually I fully suspect, they probably went to Quarterdeck and asked to license their product but couldn't work out terms.
Then not that it mattered anyway, as at the time even with Microsoft's MEMMAKER one still had to purchase QEMM. Go back in time and try to run Lantastic under DOS 6 on a early Pentium 90 system. With MEMMAKER you couldn't get near the free memory available(perhaps 475k) as you could under QEMM(more like 550k), so I highly doubt QEMM sales slumped that much except perhaps to the home sector.
No, what ultimately killed QEMM was Windows 95. But then Windows 95 also killed Desqview, OS/2, Lantastic, Stacker, etc. all in the same swoop.
But then isn't that progress? I often see OSS advocates claiming that Microsoft shouldn't fight back, they should just learn to live with change.
So shouldn't have Quarterdeck, IBM, Lantastic, Stack, DRI etc. all have just accepted change and stopped whining about unfair competition?
One of the things I find so fascinating about discussions with regards to Microsoft. It doesn't matter what happens, what the facts are, someone will always find some way to link a conspiracy to kill their favorite product to Microsoft.
Desqview was an interesting product, but it really died because nobody was all that interested in buying it at the time.
Sorry Brett, I normally like your posts, but I think your argument went off into fantasy land.
Like I said... out of touch.
Wow, you are really out of touch.
I actually did see a panel discussion two years ago which included Bob Young from RedHat and I think it was Ed Muth from Microsoft, and one other person I don't recall.
Mr. Young certainly tried to dominate the discussion at the beginning, but by the end Mr. Muth had made several extremely good points and really had a lot of people going "Oh, yeah, I guess I hadn't thought of that."
It was interesting.
Out of curiousity, can you provide any examples of this "best software"?
I can't for the life of me think of any software licensed under the GPL which is anything more than adequate.
I know of a number of open source projects which are pretty good, but the really popular good ones like Apache aren't licensed under the GPL.
I keep asking this question, and nobody can provide a clear answer.
Well I would label your post as FUD.
What is it that the business flunkies don't see?
What is it that the engineers know better?
Have you stopped to consider that they have different perspectives?
There are a lot of highly skilled, technical people, like myself that see great advantages in what Microsoft has created and proposes to create. We're certainly not alone, in fact we outnumber the Open Source world at least 10 to 1.
However we aren't as vocal, either. There's no point. Our world is on top, we are having a lot of fun doing what we enjoy doing.
The Open Source world on the other hand is a lot like the Christian Right, losing the battle and shouting at the rain.
Wow have you got it backwards...
.Net framework also benefit from C#'s design.
.Net you will have choices and won't have to program with a hand tied behind your back.
Java was a direct business response to Microsoft. Sun was losing ground as more and more companies were moving to develop software for Windows NT.
Java was created in a effort to sell the idea of cross-platformism, despite the fact that Java is simply a platform in itself and not much different than say using Uniface, etc. But if software could be written to run on NT, and it just happened to also run on Sun... Sun could sell more boxes.
Java had a rough start, however. It failed at just about every task it was sold as being the perfect solution for. Corel initially announced a Java version of WordPerfect, then canned the project. Sun told us we wouldn't need to buy new computers, a 486dx2/66 would run Java just fine especially with a Java accelerator board in it. Java would be the language of the web, embedded programs into your web browser. But none of these ideas panned out, performance issues, compatibility issues(Java does not run anywhere), etc. all made it completely unsuitable for these tasks.
However after years of trying to find a place for Java, it eventually became a pretty decent langauge for writing business/web middle-tier components sort of by default. It does have a nice language grammar, and is relatively easy to use and understand unlike C++.
C# on the other hand was a natural language evolution. Microsoft saw that there were some great advantages of Java because of the syntax being easier to grok than C++ and wanted to provide that same level of goodness to their customers. Customers who were tired of the limitation of languages like VB, but not wanting to mangle their brains with C++.
Unfortunately with Java being a proprietary standard of Sun, Microsoft wasn't able to bring it to the Windows platform. So they rolled their own solution and gave it away as an Open Standard.
A side benefit of the C# project is the development of the Common Language Runtime. This means that other languages under the
This results in Visual BASIC now having to conform to intelligent language design rules. Orthogonality, symmetry, etc. No more of this weird crap code syntax. This also means that VB programmers will no longer be quite as limited in what they are able to do.
Still if you want to write device drivers, C++ is the best bet. But for applications programming under
But that's rather the point.
This hasn't been the case.
But it should be.
I don't.
:-(
I owned an Acura Integra.
Well now that's an interesting side argument, which I'm sure you won't respond to because of your AC status.
:(
;)
As others pointed out, if you go to my homepage, I do indeed own an Infiniti G20 which is Japanese made.
Prior to this, however, I owned an Acura Integra. This car also happened to be japanese made.
The Integra also happened to be require bimonthly trips to shop for maintenance. It therefore rates into my HUNK OF TRASH category.
It would be rather foolhardy to make a claim that Japanese cars are better, at least not based on my experiences.
However, I would have to say Infiniti is better than Acura.
I never trolled rec.autos.driving. I did respond to an awful lot of trolls, and it sounds like perhaps you are one of them?
My father used to work for Zenith back in the early 70's. He has an MSEE and designed audio amplifiers at the time.
Throughout my childhood we had Zenith televisions and radios. A 26" color console in fact.
Did he have schematics?
Yep, we had the schematics, he had the design specs. He knew exactly how this thing was built from his work at Zenith.
And the fact of the matter is... YOU HAD TO KNOW THIS BECAUSE THAT TELEVISION WAS A HUNK OF TRASH!
I'm not saying it wasn't a good TV for the day, but once a year some tube would blow out, and we'd make the regular trip down to Radio Shack or wherever to get a replacement. This was pretty common for televisions of that day and age.
They finally replaced it with a Magnavox 26" which used transistors around 1980 or so. That worked for 15 years before the powersupply went bad and couldn't be easily repaired.
The point is, over the years the quality of the televisions improved to the point that you no longer need schematics... BECAUSE THEY DON'T BREAK ONCE A YEAR!
The same is true of automobiles. The VW Beetle used to be regarded as a wonderful car. Not because it was good to drive, not because it was comfortable to ride in... it sure didn't have a working heating system, etc.
The reason it was regarded as a good car at the time was because you could overhaul the engine on the side of the highway with a small box full of tools.
And once again... You had to do this because the blasted thing would break down on the side of the road once a year and require an overhaul. IT WAS A HUNK OF TRASH!
I don't have to do that with my car today. Yes I change the oil, yes I put air in the tires. But in 28 months of ownership I have not yet had it break down, stop working or otherwise require maintenance outside of oil changes.
As a consumer, I should not need schematics...
I should not need source code. Your product should work as designed. If there is an API call into the OS it should be well documented with defined inputs and expected outputs. It should work exactly as documented.
If I need source, if I need schematics, if I need service manuals... Your product is a hunk of trash and I don't want it.
It's not clear to me that it is fair use if you are essentially making money off of someone else's work without permission.
If you encode the songs yourself, without paying this third entity... Then that is fair use.
And out of curiousity, how do you feel about the abuse by pirates using such things as Napster?
Obviously that's ok, because you are getting something for free, right?
When I initially read this article I thought it was bogus. Then I read it again and realized what they were saying is that companies that sell ringtone downloads to phones for $1/song or whatever, should be giving a percentage of that to the original song owner.
I think that makes since. The only thing that differentiates their $1/song from my bring*bring is the tones from the song.
So whose work is that? Is the work to transpose 12 notes from a pop song worth $1?
Obviously not. So shouldn't the entity which is truly responsible for the work that makes the 12 notes desirable over bring*bring be rewarded?
I think so, and that's the entire basis of intellectual property.
Now if I encode it and put it in my phone myself... Then I consider that fair use, and I suspect the courts would as well.
As much as I dislike the Bush administration, your attempt to compare this to his disasterous energy policy plan is kind of silly.
I work for a company that buys and sells mortgages.
:)
I don't see anything odd about that.