Actually, since Windows Server 2003 and the next version of SQL Server include greatly expanded support for hosting.NET applications, I wouldn't say that have "nothing to do with the.NET platform".
It may not have been a good decision to market them that way, but it isn't that confusing.
I've already argued over this with enough people and gone through it so many times, I don't care to spend the time to detail out the.NET platform again. I would recommend you check out GotDotNet and MSDN for more info.
Okay, care to explain to me how B follows A in this conversation? There is NOTHING about timothy's original comment that suggests he doesn't understand.NET, or that it's vaporware. All he was saying is that it would be interesting to see the.NET creators interviewed. Seriously, nice strawman, dude.
The title of the article is "So, HP, What Exactly Are You Trying To Sell Us?". There is an implication there that the details surruonding the.NET platform is simply marketting and buzzword with no real underlying product available. I hardly see myself setting up a "strawman".
Personally, I'd love to see MS taken to task over.NET.
There are definately things I'd like to see MS taken to task over, but probably not.NET.
Oh!!, Ok. Now I see what you... Wait a minute! How are they going to dynamically readjust to "legal changes reguarding to [sic] auditing of customer privacy information" that affect its business "without having to modify code and recreate applications"? And how does a company dynamically readjust to "changes to the tax code" that affect its business "without having to modify code and recreate applications"?
If you have designed your applications and architecture so that the various parts of your application are "pluggable" so to speak, you could modify the systems that handle those behaviors in a more declaritive manner, rather than in code. While this might require some modifications of code to the systems that handle those parts, it wouldn't require changes to the original application.
Quite honestly, I'm not sure how HP is deciding to handle it's "Adaptive Enterprise" strategy, but that's how I do it.
Now here I can agree with you. People with "real-world experience with developing enterprise applications" probably DO feel compelled to bash Microsoft - after all, what other company tries so hard to produce enterprise level applications and fails so miserably at it?
Funny, but I have experience that says otherwise. As do many other companies.
No no no. You must have missed MS' marketing campaign..NET now is simply a java-ish wrapper around the win32 API.
It did get slightly out of control, but calling.NET simply a "java-ish wrapper around the win32 API" is fairly inaccurate. Many of the class libraries do simply wrap the Win32 api, especially things like Windows Forms, but this is only a stopgap measure until the support is built into the OS.
Also,.NET support is being built into more products like SQLServer. The ability to create stored procs in any.NET compliant language is coming soon (Yes, I know you can write stored procs in Java in DB2 and Oracle), along with other features.
So.NET is a lot more than just the CLR and VS.NET. It is seeping into just about every Microsoft product there is. I think the marketing just came too early.
What, exactly, is the ".NET platform" that you mention twice, and how does it differ from.NET? I.e., what's the difference between.NET programming and developing using the.NET platform? Except getting another important-sounding buzzword in, that is?
So now the word "platform" is a buzzword?
The.NET platform includes not only the CLR, but the various servies that are used frequently by.NET like IIS, MSMQ, SQL Server, and even COM+ through Enterprise Services. These are the technologies that work very well with the.NET CLR to create distributed applications (oh no, another buzzword right?)
All I need to know about.NET is that the graphics card applet for my video card runs under.NET framework, and takes up more memory and resources than Windows itself. This is reason enough for me to switch video cards and avoid any program that requires.NET framework.
What do you mean by "graphics card applet" exactly? Programming certain types of applications using the.NET Framework/Platform/Whatever is not a good idea. I don't pretend that.NET is the cure-all for everything. However, for creating business process type applications, it really is a great platform to work with.
There is plenty of information out there regarding what the.NET platform involves. I don't think it is my job to detail it every time an editor makes some dumb one-liner to satisify the zealots.
Soooo...like if I get a new customer I can dynamically readjust my database to reflect the changes that just affected my business? We've never had a machine that could handle SQL INSERT stetements before! What a breakthrough for HP!
Yes, I'm sure that's what he was talking about. Or perhaps he might have been refering to things like:
Legal changes regarding to auditing of customer privacy information
Changes to the tax code
Changes to your business processes with external entities
Now, I hate business-speak as much as the next guy, but the "gem" you quote made perfect sense. They are talking about the ability for your to change your business processes without having to modify code and recreate applications.
Of course, the fact you were compelled to bash MS in your post should say something about your real-world exprience with developing enterprise applications.
I'd like to see Charles Cooper interview whoever came up with.Net, too.
I swear, this has become almost an urban legend on Slashdot. Ha, ha,.NET is vaporware and doesn't mean anything. Yeah, we get it.
Of course, while I sit here developing both web-based and thick client applications and architecture using the.NET platform, I wonder why there has to be so much confusion about what.NET is. Whenever I get into a discussion about.NET with the Slashbots, I usually find that they have precisely zero exprience with it.
So just remember that while you are chuckling in your parent's basement about not understanding the.NET platform, there are people out here using it to create software (and God forbid, making money too!)
I'm sure glad you spent an entire paragraph in the article submission to explain why the article you linked to was wrong! I wouldn't have known what to think without such massive amounts of editorializing.
Do you think that if religions were to teach faith in humanity first that it would result in a more tolerent society insofar as others' beliefs?
I'm sure it would, but is that necessarily a good thing? Is tolerance the end all and be all virtue? Should I tolerate people committing horrible acts against others? Should I tolerate falseness and lies? Tolerance without any guiding morality is no virtue.
As a Christian, I am extremely tolerant. The Bible tells me not to judge others, that is reserved for God. I can exist peacefully with all sorts of people. I believe in the freedom of religious expression. I have no problems with people of any faith or of no faith, I get along with them all. But I do believe in an all-powerful God, who has set up moral standards and sent his son to save us from sin. Does that suddenly make me intolerant? Or incoherent? Well, I may be incoherent at times, but I don't think it has anything to do with my faith:-)
That would be perfectly legal. However, the majority of posts that talk about ROM downloading are talking about downloading ROM's you do not own. Or even downloading a ROM of a game you do own, which is still illegal. You have to rip it off yourself.
The original post only spoke of the flashing of the ROM onto a GBA flash cartridge. Since there was no mention of how the original ROM was picked up, I'm assuming they meant downloading it as 95% of the ROM's our there are obtained.
It gives a good overview of what "compulsory licensing" means:
The scheme Verizon proposes is known as "compulsory licensing." A compulsory license forces a copyright (or patent) owner to permit someone else to use the work for a predetermined fee. Accordingly, it precludes the owner of the copyright (or patent) from refusing to license her work to other people in certain, specified circumstances.
Was the code that was stolen then deleted by the thief? Why would this cause any sort of delay? This sounds like a fairly lame excuse for shipping late.
It only makes sense that code that would generate millions of dollars in revenue for Valve would be backed up quite reguarly offsite.
The libraries thing was wrong, and so was the comment about a layer upon C#. Both are compiled into MIDL. And for the most part, they both compile to identical MIDL.
But generally, they were right about VB.NET being completely different and totally incompatible with VB. Microsoft really "fixed" the language in one quick swoop that really left a lot of VB prgorammers angry. I am not one of them though since I'm going to C#.:-)
More ignorant flamebait...
on
Software Fashion
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
From the article:
VB.Net is really just syntactic sugar on top of C#. C# offers more and better libraries.
That alone should tell you that the author has no clue as to what they are talking about. I am most definately not a VB.NET fan, but that statement is just false and shows a huge lack of understanding of the.NET Framework.
If Linux were to reach the unwashed masses' desktops then most there would either run as root, or have a very simple one-click method to run things as root (ie: to install stuff).
Try Shadowrun MUSH. It's based on the Shadowrun RPG which is set in the near future and is a combination of high-tech and magic themes. I played there until around 1997 when I realized I was wasting my life on MUSH's.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know how much Walmart will be paying for an OEM version of WinXP? I'm going to guess with their buying power: not much.
The whole "Microsoft tax" is way overblown.
Actually, since Windows Server 2003 and the next version of SQL Server include greatly expanded support for hosting .NET applications, I wouldn't say that have "nothing to do with the .NET platform".
It may not have been a good decision to market them that way, but it isn't that confusing.
I've already argued over this with enough people and gone through it so many times, I don't care to spend the time to detail out the .NET platform again. I would recommend you check out GotDotNet and MSDN for more info.
The title of the article is "So, HP, What Exactly Are You Trying To Sell Us?". There is an implication there that the details surruonding the .NET platform is simply marketting and buzzword with no real underlying product available. I hardly see myself setting up a "strawman".
There are definately things I'd like to see MS taken to task over, but probably not .NET.
Actually, this was funny. But I am a CS major.
If you have designed your applications and architecture so that the various parts of your application are "pluggable" so to speak, you could modify the systems that handle those behaviors in a more declaritive manner, rather than in code. While this might require some modifications of code to the systems that handle those parts, it wouldn't require changes to the original application.
Quite honestly, I'm not sure how HP is deciding to handle it's "Adaptive Enterprise" strategy, but that's how I do it.
Funny, but I have experience that says otherwise. As do many other companies.
It did get slightly out of control, but calling .NET simply a "java-ish wrapper around the win32 API" is fairly inaccurate. Many of the class libraries do simply wrap the Win32 api, especially things like Windows Forms, but this is only a stopgap measure until the support is built into the OS.
Also, .NET support is being built into more products like SQLServer. The ability to create stored procs in any .NET compliant language is coming soon (Yes, I know you can write stored procs in Java in DB2 and Oracle), along with other features.
So .NET is a lot more than just the CLR and VS.NET. It is seeping into just about every Microsoft product there is. I think the marketing just came too early.
So now the word "platform" is a buzzword?
The .NET platform includes not only the CLR, but the various servies that are used frequently by .NET like IIS, MSMQ, SQL Server, and even COM+ through Enterprise Services. These are the technologies that work very well with the .NET CLR to create distributed applications (oh no, another buzzword right?)
What do you mean by "graphics card applet" exactly? Programming certain types of applications using the .NET Framework/Platform/Whatever is not a good idea. I don't pretend that .NET is the cure-all for everything. However, for creating business process type applications, it really is a great platform to work with.
Did I say that .NET, J2EE or any other object-oriented software platform is the only way to make money in the software industry?
I was simply saying that the idea that .NET is some sort of mystery technology is absolute bull.
There is plenty of information out there regarding what the .NET platform involves. I don't think it is my job to detail it every time an editor makes some dumb one-liner to satisify the zealots.
Yes, I'm sure that's what he was talking about. Or perhaps he might have been refering to things like:
Now, I hate business-speak as much as the next guy, but the "gem" you quote made perfect sense. They are talking about the ability for your to change your business processes without having to modify code and recreate applications.
Of course, the fact you were compelled to bash MS in your post should say something about your real-world exprience with developing enterprise applications.
I swear, this has become almost an urban legend on Slashdot. Ha, ha, .NET is vaporware and doesn't mean anything. Yeah, we get it.
Of course, while I sit here developing both web-based and thick client applications and architecture using the .NET platform, I wonder why there has to be so much confusion about what .NET is. Whenever I get into a discussion about .NET with the Slashbots, I usually find that they have precisely zero exprience with it.
So just remember that while you are chuckling in your parent's basement about not understanding the .NET platform, there are people out here using it to create software (and God forbid, making money too!)
I'm sure glad you spent an entire paragraph in the article submission to explain why the article you linked to was wrong! I wouldn't have known what to think without such massive amounts of editorializing.
Thanks again!
I've seen this joke driven into the ground on Slashdot, but this was one of the funniest posts I've seen in a long while.
Um, no. But we understand you had to throw that in there for some karma. Thanks.
I'm sure it would, but is that necessarily a good thing? Is tolerance the end all and be all virtue? Should I tolerate people committing horrible acts against others? Should I tolerate falseness and lies? Tolerance without any guiding morality is no virtue.
As a Christian, I am extremely tolerant. The Bible tells me not to judge others, that is reserved for God. I can exist peacefully with all sorts of people. I believe in the freedom of religious expression. I have no problems with people of any faith or of no faith, I get along with them all. But I do believe in an all-powerful God, who has set up moral standards and sent his son to save us from sin. Does that suddenly make me intolerant? Or incoherent? Well, I may be incoherent at times, but I don't think it has anything to do with my faith :-)
That would be perfectly legal. However, the majority of posts that talk about ROM downloading are talking about downloading ROM's you do not own. Or even downloading a ROM of a game you do own, which is still illegal. You have to rip it off yourself.
The original post only spoke of the flashing of the ROM onto a GBA flash cartridge. Since there was no mention of how the original ROM was picked up, I'm assuming they meant downloading it as 95% of the ROM's our there are obtained.
Whenever a neat, legal alternative to ROM's come around, there always has to be one post that talks about "Why not just do it the illegal way?
To answer this post and all the ones that will follow in future threads:
Because some of us like to obey the law.
If you were as confused as I was reading the article, check this out:
It gives a good overview of what "compulsory licensing" means:
Was the code that was stolen then deleted by the thief? Why would this cause any sort of delay? This sounds like a fairly lame excuse for shipping late.
It only makes sense that code that would generate millions of dollars in revenue for Valve would be backed up quite reguarly offsite.
Well.... I guess that is true. :-)
I'm glad I could be of service. Of course, since you have no intention (or ability) to actually refute what I said, I guess we will leave it at that.
The libraries thing was wrong, and so was the comment about a layer upon C#. Both are compiled into MIDL. And for the most part, they both compile to identical MIDL.
But generally, they were right about VB.NET being completely different and totally incompatible with VB. Microsoft really "fixed" the language in one quick swoop that really left a lot of VB prgorammers angry. I am not one of them though since I'm going to C#. :-)
From the article:
That alone should tell you that the author has no clue as to what they are talking about. I am most definately not a VB.NET fan, but that statement is just false and shows a huge lack of understanding of the .NET Framework.
Sounds like Lindows...
Try Shadowrun MUSH. It's based on the Shadowrun RPG which is set in the near future and is a combination of high-tech and magic themes. I played there until around 1997 when I realized I was wasting my life on MUSH's. :-)