No. But I think if Microsoft shipped interim builds the way many freeware packages do, where every now and again you got the odd dud build where some major features are really broken, there could definitely be a chance of it.
I think basically its silly to suggest that people are interested in getting gadgetised marketing for their operating systems. Microsoft has Windows Update, people get critical patches through it, people don't want to reinstall their OS every year... most people NEVER want to reinstall or upgrade their OS, they just want the thing to work.
I don't think Microsoft can get away with releases windows like they did in the 90's. When people buy a new computer these days pre-shipped with windows, it better work and keep on working, if anything they need to be far more conservative with their releases.
They certainly didn't port the whole of Office to the.NET CLR, if that is what you're implying
That's exactly what I'm saying, I've yet to find a link on the net to confirm it, but at developer meetings I've heard verbal confirmation from a developer at Microsoft that they are in fact in the process of porting Office to.NET.
....What's your point -- that maybe they won't screw up again, this time?
How can you honestly make this statements as if they were truth without anything to show for it? Expression is meaningless right now, and is practically of toy status
Well alot of people will disagree with you there. I think.NET has been very successful, and quite a number of businesses are picking up on it. I've been personally involved in a number of projects for major corporations, including banking and financial organisations. I hear from people in managerial positions, in major corporations with a large investment in Java and Oracle looking at migrating to.NET all the time.
As for Expression being a toy.... it's actually got two distinct parts, the Microsoft Expression Graphic Designer and Microsoft Expression Interactive Designer. The graphic designer is Microsofts Photoshop killer app, it produces, GIF, JPEG, PNG etc etc... HTML and XAML. Unless you classify Adobe Photoshop as a toy it's very much a serious app and is already released. The Interactive designer produces XAML and yes until Vista is released and Win FX is shipped through windows update to XP and 2000 systems, you could say it's a "toy".
Have a read of this article I just found on sourceforge it might help you convince you, it pretty much repeats and re-affirms everything I said in my original comment.
Make no mistake about it, Microsoft has had a bias towards ASP.NET developers, and has been very successful in hooking alot of people into this technology for web development. XAML, WinFX and Vista are some major signs that Microsoft is beginning to shift their focus from web development back towards windows development.
Too bad I don't have metamoderator points at the moment, I'd definitely mod you up....
I think you're right on the money here.... whether Vista ships now or a year from now has no bearing on whether it will be succesful or not. None of Microsoft's competitors are even in the ball park on this one. I think it'll take at least a year or two after Vista's release for people to comprehend what Microsoft has done with it and where they're heading on this one.
Microsoft is currently developing Microsoft Office on.NET. Vista's whole UI runs off Direct-X....
Vista is real.... there are beta's of it. Since the release of.NET I think everything you could once say about Microsoft technically had to be thrown out the window. Microsoft has delivered on.NET, they have dilivered on SQL Server, Microsoft Expression, development tools specifically for XAML and Vista have already been released. I think you're in denial here.
You obviously don't quite understand how big a release this is....
This product is an order of complexity greater than an IPOD or any freeware product out there....
Unlike freeware Microsoft users will not put up with the odd crappy build or two... downtime = lost revenue = class action suit against Microsoft.
And again you have to understand the target audience... it's not a bunch of tech savvy geeks... its going out to people who have troubles figuring out how to operate their toaster.
Sure they're probably not going to capture the imagination of the likes of you... but I really don't think that's a high priority for them on this one.
I'll go further and say Vista is even more relevant than Windows XP, and Windows 2000.
Microsoft has had 10 very long years to think about the internet. Vista is what they've come up with as a result of it. Developer's of.NET will know that Vista is the part of a larger design. Vista is the first OS release that is part of Microsoft's.NET initiative, which is to evolve the internet into a transport for technologies designed and/or inspired by Microsoft. Vista's support of XAML is a very major feature to be released with Vista, many have overlooked it and do not understand it's ramifications.
Many will scoff at this but, we are approaching the end of HTML's reign over the internet. HTML is simply not a rich enough medium to deliver the complex user experience people want. AJAX is a symptom of this, it's just yet another attempt to hack out a solution to the many architectural flaws of HTML as an application development platform. HTML was never designed to be used for what people do with it today, it's evolved organically, and like most things which have been designed organically it's simply not an elegant solution.
Many things have been developed to superceed it.... Macromedia Flash, W3C's SVG, Mozilla's XUL. All these technologies offer similar features to Microsoft's XAML, slick, vectorised graphical interfaces, designed to scale up/down for tomorrow's display devices. What these technologies don't have which XAML does is the full power of direct-x and all the resources and security features packed into the Microsoft.NET framework behind it.
It will offer a very seductive and compelling experience for users. It will also seduce those wanting to deliver content to the net with Microsoft's Expression suite of products, enabling graphical artists to work seemlessly with developers.
XAML downloads in a browser, it's somewhere between a web form and a windows form. If all Microsoft's dreams come true, decades from now much of the content you'll see on the net will be in XAML. Vista is the first step to realising this dream.
Oddly, even though they are citing the need for more time to tweak security, business editions will available to volume licensing customers before the close of the year
When a product is ready to be shipped Microsoft releases it immediately through MSDN subscriptions. It's products are always available for download to registered customers a month or more before it ends up on the shelves. Round that time of year I doubt they would be wanting to go to the expense of pushing it to the stores round Christmas.... I mean it's not like anyone out there is going to buy a copy of Vista to fill a christmas stocking.
This doesn't surprise me at all. A staged release of a system like Vista is only sensible. I'd want to know about every little possible glitch or issue on installation of the system before, mum, dad, grandma and grandpa start installing the thing.
My former employer still cannot get ASP.NET working the way they want it to.
I think that'd have more to do with your former workmates understanding of HTML, javascript and ASP.NET than the architecture of ASP.NET. ASP.NET allows you to render HTML in a number of ways, if you want to you can completely customise the way HTML is rendered. Basically if you can hand write the HTML you want ASP.NET to generate you, you shouldn't have too much trouble with ASP.NET. However if you don't know how to write cross browser compliant HTML, then there's a strong likelihood you won't be able to get ASP.NET to do it for you either.
Downloading Java is not that hard, http://www.java.com/ click on the automatic install button, wait
A while back my mother lost about 3 months worth of work out of Excel because the system crashed, it turned out she hadn't shut down the computer, closed Excel, or even saved during that whole period. Each day she just turned off the monitor.....
You like most slashdot readers really over estimate the average user's ability by an extremely large magnitude.
When I made the Java suggestion it was 2001
Round that time I was at a company using JSP (very similiar to ASP.NET) to generate HTML for a web application, they had explored client side java quite seriously, having developed an application in it from 1996-1998. They dropped client side java in 1998 after that project for a whole number of reasons, such as performance, memory requirements, Suns inability to standardise the language, the kludginess of swing, plus the end result looked ugly, it looked like a step backwards from windows not forwards.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion. A tip for you, in a professional situation, making statements like yours is pretty unwise, because you end up looking like twice the schmuck if/when the day comes that you're given your chance to proove your argument, and it ends up being just as problematic or even more so than the original system you slagged off. In that situation it won't matter what the cause of the problems might be, people will have their knives out for you, and will be more than keen to return the favour you did them.
Well... I don't know where you're buying your PC's from... Here in Australia I've never seen a PC pre-loaded with any of the software you've listed other than MS Works.... and even that is optional.
In any case... JRE... swing... it's so cludgy... Java is a dated, proprietry architecture. ASP.NET produces simple HTML and Javascript. No-one coding ASP.NET uses client side vb script unless they're building an intranet application for a company running on MS Windows. Therefore ASP.NET is more compliant with open standards than client side Java.
For someone to boast about what a poor decision it is to choose ASP.NET over client side Java, is pretty ridiculous, at best it's a pretty grey area, I know many people who would laugh at such a proposition. What I was getting at here, is that it's pretty easy to slag off someones architecture, its a lot lot harder to come up with your own.
My solution was to use Java, instead of client-side scripting in Javascript and VBScript. Then any browser that supports Java can run a Java servlet and it can be programmed to be easy to use. Just make sure that their JRE version matches the one we use to develop the web applications for and everything should work out
Just make sure the JRE matches..... Thats a pretty big just. You do realise that as of Windows XP, windows doesn't even ship with Java ?
Your solution would have resulted in half your users having to download and install Java, and the other half calling your support hotline... I really don't think there would be that many people out there seriously considering client side Java on a new project for the web, if I were one of your managers I might be thinking you were going out on a bit of a architectural limb here too (depending on the target market for your application).
I think every solution out there has it's draw backs. ASP.NET is just a server side technology for outputting HTML. HTML is HTML no matter what technology you use to generate it... Anyhow ASP.NET works, tens of thousands of companies out there use it. I know many sites which use it and get thousands of hits a day, with no down time.
Using any technology to create a major web site that creates a good user experience is not easy, no matter what technology you use, not everyone can do it. However creating a solution that works on your PC with a single user hitting is pretty easy and creating hypothetical solutions that are never implemented, is even easier, pretty much anyone anyone can do this.
It's far from a perfect solution but Start->Programs->Accessories->System Tools->System Restore (or %SystemRoot%\System32\restore\rstrui.exe) in windows does do a pretty good job of uninstalling Malware....
It creates a journal of changes to the registry, files added and deleted, and uses this information to roll back changes made to your system since a particular date.
It's bad points are....
* It rolls back every change, and I do mean every change, so if you downloaded some pictures off your camera since the last restore point... bye bye piccies. * Because it's a roll back feature it really works best when you restore sooner than later.... * If your system becomes infected you can end up with viruses in the restore archive if a new restore point is created following the point of infection. Restore points are created periodically and on every install. * The OS does provide some security protection the restore files and system restores program files, but I'm sure some hacker out has or could create something to attack this feature.
I personally rely on Ghost and a well organised hard disk partitioning.
I don't think you understand what exactly I was getting at. I don't disagree with your assessment as to how an OS should be constructed, I disagreed with your assumption that Microsoft had overlooked this approach simply because they have not utlised.NET in implementing its kernel for Vista. My point was that I don't think.NET would be suitable in it's current form. If I were Microsoft and I were wishing to write a kernel using a VM like.NET, I would actually take.NET and customise it specifically for the job of building the OS. I would not write it on.NET out of the box, in particular the evidence based security in.NET out of the box simply would not facilitate what you'd need to do in constructing a kernel.
I think your comment and this whole topic has just revealed what a petty silly little website slashdot is, it's really lost it's credibility with me as a serious source of technical discussion.
Why don't you tell us... Perhaps you can start the implementation for Plan9....;)
Anyhow it looks like the boys at Mono are on the job so why don't you ask them ?
XAML and Vista are a while off, but it's definitely coming within the next year, when it's ready Microsoft will submit it as an open standard. I think you will see more movement on.NET as a crossplatform framework when Microsoft releases their version Office built on.NET (which is also currently in development). At this point there will be some tangible incentives for Microsoft to supply a version of.NET running on Mac and Linux. Till then I think you'll have to content with the efforts groups such as the Mono group to provide support for non-Microsoft platforms.
There are thousands of libraries out there that specifically deal with either mitgating the risk over buffer overflows or detecting them such as this one and this one . Anyhow my point was that you can accomplish adequet protection against buffer overflow in C++ with the right code, and a consistent approach. Buffer overflows needn't be a factor in your choice of development language. I'm sure those architecting Vista are well aware of these issues and would have some very sophisticated C++ libraries and tools that do the job alot better than any freeware product you'll find on the net.
My original point was that you actually have no clue as to the architectural choices that have been made, and the approach taken by the developers of Vista and that your original post was based on complete speculation.
This would fit fairly nicely with the "Evidence based security" that MS is talking about, and it would include not giving evidence of higher trust than is absolutely needed for each piece.
As for your imaginings about the suitability of using.NET Code Access Security to deal with your least privilege mantra. As I have been repeatedly trying to say with little success, I understand it quite well, and NO IT DOES NOT FIT NICELY at all.... It's evidence based security that MS talks about is specifically designed to deal with the problem of how to allow untrusted applications loaded FROM A LOCATION OTHER THAN YOUR LOCAL COMPUTER, to run in a partially trusted context. It simply doesn't do what you imagine it might do.... it has no constructs that could be utilised to accomplish what you're talking about, which is the segmentation of an OS's internal components.
I will pre-empt your reply, which most undoubtedly will be... oh well then... what a hopeless job of security they've done in.NET then....
It is simplistic for a very good reason, it's purpose is singular and that is to quote my original comment...
....its part of a larger strategy which aims to see a decline of a html based applications on the internet, in favour of Microsoft.NET applications, which is probably quite similiar to Sun's vision of client side Java, and Macromedia's vision of flash. I think it's only a few years away and you'll come across web sites which may at first glance look like like old school html with a bit of flash, but are in fact XAML... a windows application.
I can hear you all saying... but Java and Flash are cross platform. Like Java and Flash,.NET to some is going to increasingly become more cross platform, it's been designed that way from the outset. But at the end of the day you can bet it will always be more fully functioned on Windows than it will ever be on Linux or Mac or some other OS. For Microsoft I think they'll be hoping this will lead to a continuing dominance the desktop market.
So basically you should really avoid critizing someone for not using a tool that you have no understanding of to tackle an objective within an architecture that no-one except those who would be bound by non-disclosure agreements would have an authority to talk about.
I think Java is all but buried as a client side technology, and Microsoft is currently handingout the spades to bury flash.
And I say bring it on... I've always hated flash and always will....
Microsoft's Expression suite will totally kick ass over flash, hooking in the power of Direct-X and C#, into an idiot proof suite of tools.
as I've fairly much ignored.NET due to time constraints
OK so you admit you don't know what you're talking about.
Well I can tell you didn't read my comment, so I'll repeat some of it for you.... I know.NET, it is for application development. It exposes the OS resources and services in a sandboxed environment, to allow untrusted applications to run without full trust and full access to the operating system. Basically it's the gateway / conduit for applications running on windows to the outside world.
Also, "garbage collection and memory management" has little to do with this - the issue close to this in C++ etc is the naked pointer support, and the ease of creating various forms of security errors (buffer overflows) using that.
*Cough* Ummm you smoking crack or something ? What else does garbage collection and memory management have to do with other than eliminating the use of naked pointers, and eliminating buffer overflows ? Anyhow my point was that people have been working with C++ libraries out that do garbage collection and memory management in C++ for years specifically to remove the use of naked pointrs and buffer overflows from their code. I would actually bet that Microsoft is actually doing this in their C++ development..... Any C++ developer out their with half a clue knows about this stuff.
I second your shenanigans, and expand it to half the comments posted here. I've read alot of them, it's been quite a while since I've seen such an eruption of bull$#!^ as I've witnessed in this slashdot discussion... George Bush should probably be recruiting from here.... there's some real talent in the disinformation department here.....
So guys.... maybe it would be better if you stuck to commenting about what you know, rather than just making stuff up.
You haven't ever developed applications using.NET have you ?
1.0.NET is astoundingly bug free, it's well documented, things actually work the way they say they'll work, even the Beta's were pretty good, I was astounded to begin with. Anyhow.NET 2.0 has been out since december, I've only heard good things about the framework. Also I know for a fact.NET 2.0 was never linked to Vista in any way..NET 3.0 will be released shortly after vista which shall incorporate many things into the framework that are currently seperate SDK's (on.NET 2.0)...
Anyhow yet another completely ignorant, highly modded comment on Slashdot...
Why doesn't MS port their non-OS apps to.Net? MS wants their customers to always port software to the latest and greatest MS language/environment of the year, so why doesn't MS do the same?
I've also seen a MSDN.NET show where one of the developers confirmed this.
Office has been and will be for some time to come their #1 cash cow... I'd say that's commitment enough.
As it looks to me,.Net is the "soup of the day" at MS..Net will be replaced in 3-5 years with something else that will require MS customers to re-purchase their development tool chain.
As for.NET being replaced in a few years... I really doubt that, a few years from now.NET 3.0 is going to be released, I know this as I was in a meeting where they were presenting the new features that are going to be added to it. I can also say as a MS.NET developer, that Microsoft.NET is hugely popular and well liked by anyone who has spent time on it. I've yet to meet anyone who was negative on this architecture who has actually used it. There's nothing wrong with it, architecturely it's very well thought out. So I think basically you're talking totally on emotional grounds here with little or nothing to back it up.
I'm really quite amazed how highly such a stupid comment can be modded here simply because it's anti-Microsoft.
If you want to secure an OS, you don't allow non-secure applications to run on it directly, you do it through a VM.
Basically what you're saying is... I should be able to connect my network to the internet without a firewall. But the reality is that everyone has a firewall to restrict communication between the world and their network. Likewise you have a VM to regulate the api that can be called by applications. Microsoft.NET or some other VM is an absolute necessity in the world of distributed applications, which lays beyond HTML and AJAX.
Well you really are speculating here. Garbage collection and memory mangement are entirely possible to implement in C++, what do you think.NET is developed in ? Or perhaps they have another VM (not.NET) on which they are developing Vista.... There are very few people around who could talk on this subject with absolute authority, and they would be architects working for Microsoft on vista.
Anyhow... Microsoft.NET is totally inappropriate for the task of implementing components within an OS. If you think otherwise you really don't understand it, or the strategy behind it...
Try reading my other comment in this discussion.... That's my take on it.
Slashdot Mirror
No. But I think if Microsoft shipped interim builds the way many freeware packages do, where every now and again you got the odd dud build where some major features are really broken, there could definitely be a chance of it.
I think basically its silly to suggest that people are interested in getting gadgetised marketing for their operating systems. Microsoft has Windows Update, people get critical patches through it, people don't want to reinstall their OS every year... most people NEVER want to reinstall or upgrade their OS, they just want the thing to work.
I don't think Microsoft can get away with releases windows like they did in the 90's. When people buy a new computer these days pre-shipped with windows, it better work and keep on working, if anything they need to be far more conservative with their releases.
These are obviously not the features I'm referring to.
They certainly didn't port the whole of Office to the .NET CLR, if that is what you're implying
.NET.
....What's your point -- that maybe they won't screw up again, this time?
.NET has been very successful, and quite a number of businesses are picking up on it. I've been personally involved in a number of projects for major corporations, including banking and financial organisations. I hear from people in managerial positions, in major corporations with a large investment in Java and Oracle looking at migrating to .NET all the time.
That's exactly what I'm saying, I've yet to find a link on the net to confirm it, but at developer meetings I've heard verbal confirmation from a developer at Microsoft that they are in fact in the process of porting Office to
How can you honestly make this statements as if they were truth without anything to show for it? Expression is meaningless right now, and is practically of toy status
Well alot of people will disagree with you there. I think
As for Expression being a toy.... it's actually got two distinct parts, the Microsoft Expression Graphic Designer and Microsoft Expression Interactive Designer. The graphic designer is Microsofts Photoshop killer app, it produces, GIF, JPEG, PNG etc etc... HTML and XAML. Unless you classify Adobe Photoshop as a toy it's very much a serious app and is already released. The Interactive designer produces XAML and yes until Vista is released and Win FX is shipped through windows update to XP and 2000 systems, you could say it's a "toy".
Have a read of this article I just found on sourceforge it might help you convince you, it pretty much repeats and re-affirms everything I said in my original comment.
Make no mistake about it, Microsoft has had a bias towards ASP.NET developers, and has been very successful in hooking alot of people into this technology for web development. XAML, WinFX and Vista are some major signs that Microsoft is beginning to shift their focus from web development back towards windows development.
Too bad I don't have metamoderator points at the moment, I'd definitely mod you up....
I think you're right on the money here.... whether Vista ships now or a year from now has no bearing on whether it will be succesful or not. None of Microsoft's competitors are even in the ball park on this one. I think it'll take at least a year or two after Vista's release for people to comprehend what Microsoft has done with it and where they're heading on this one.
Microsoft is currently developing Microsoft Office on .NET. Vista's whole UI runs off Direct-X....
.NET I think everything you could once say about Microsoft technically had to be thrown out the window. Microsoft has delivered on .NET, they have dilivered on SQL Server, Microsoft Expression, development tools specifically for XAML and Vista have already been released. I think you're in denial here.
Vista is real.... there are beta's of it. Since the release of
Actually..... I'd personally love to get a copy for christmas....
But I'm a little freaky...
You obviously don't quite understand how big a release this is....
This product is an order of complexity greater than an IPOD or any freeware product out there....
Unlike freeware Microsoft users will not put up with the odd crappy build or two... downtime = lost revenue = class action suit against Microsoft.
And again you have to understand the target audience... it's not a bunch of tech savvy geeks... its going out to people who have troubles figuring out how to operate their toaster.
Sure they're probably not going to capture the imagination of the likes of you... but I really don't think that's a high priority for them on this one.
I'll go further and say Vista is even more relevant than Windows XP, and Windows 2000.
.NET will know that Vista is the part of a larger design. Vista is the first OS release that is part of Microsoft's .NET initiative, which is to evolve the internet into a transport for technologies designed and/or inspired by Microsoft. Vista's support of XAML is a very major feature to be released with Vista, many have overlooked it and do not understand it's ramifications.
.NET framework behind it.
It will offer a very seductive and compelling experience for users. It will also seduce those wanting to deliver content to the net with Microsoft's Expression suite of products, enabling graphical artists to work seemlessly with developers.
Microsoft has had 10 very long years to think about the internet. Vista is what they've come up with as a result of it. Developer's of
Many will scoff at this but, we are approaching the end of HTML's reign over the internet. HTML is simply not a rich enough medium to deliver the complex user experience people want. AJAX is a symptom of this, it's just yet another attempt to hack out a solution to the many architectural flaws of HTML as an application development platform. HTML was never designed to be used for what people do with it today, it's evolved organically, and like most things which have been designed organically it's simply not an elegant solution.
Many things have been developed to superceed it.... Macromedia Flash, W3C's SVG, Mozilla's XUL. All these technologies offer similar features to Microsoft's XAML, slick, vectorised graphical interfaces, designed to scale up/down for tomorrow's display devices. What these technologies don't have which XAML does is the full power of direct-x and all the resources and security features packed into the Microsoft
XAML downloads in a browser, it's somewhere between a web form and a windows form. If all Microsoft's dreams come true, decades from now much of the content you'll see on the net will be in XAML. Vista is the first step to realising this dream.
Exactly....
If it has issues in the hands of professionals, you'll have no hope with the oldies....
Oddly, even though they are citing the need for more time to tweak security, business editions will available to volume licensing customers before the close of the year
When a product is ready to be shipped Microsoft releases it immediately through MSDN subscriptions. It's products are always available for download to registered customers a month or more before it ends up on the shelves. Round that time of year I doubt they would be wanting to go to the expense of pushing it to the stores round Christmas.... I mean it's not like anyone out there is going to buy a copy of Vista to fill a christmas stocking.
This doesn't surprise me at all. A staged release of a system like Vista is only sensible. I'd want to know about every little possible glitch or issue on installation of the system before, mum, dad, grandma and grandpa start installing the thing.
My former employer still cannot get ASP.NET working the way they want it to.
I think that'd have more to do with your former workmates understanding of HTML, javascript and ASP.NET than the architecture of ASP.NET. ASP.NET allows you to render HTML in a number of ways, if you want to you can completely customise the way HTML is rendered. Basically if you can hand write the HTML you want ASP.NET to generate you, you shouldn't have too much trouble with ASP.NET. However if you don't know how to write cross browser compliant HTML, then there's a strong likelihood you won't be able to get ASP.NET to do it for you either.
Downloading Java is not that hard, http://www.java.com/ click on the automatic install button, wait
A while back my mother lost about 3 months worth of work out of Excel because the system crashed, it turned out she hadn't shut down the computer, closed Excel, or even saved during that whole period. Each day she just turned off the monitor.....
You like most slashdot readers really over estimate the average user's ability by an extremely large magnitude.
When I made the Java suggestion it was 2001
Round that time I was at a company using JSP (very similiar to ASP.NET) to generate HTML for a web application, they had explored client side java quite seriously, having developed an application in it from 1996-1998. They dropped client side java in 1998 after that project for a whole number of reasons, such as performance, memory requirements, Suns inability to standardise the language, the kludginess of swing, plus the end result looked ugly, it looked like a step backwards from windows not forwards.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion. A tip for you, in a professional situation, making statements like yours is pretty unwise, because you end up looking like twice the schmuck if/when the day comes that you're given your chance to proove your argument, and it ends up being just as problematic or even more so than the original system you slagged off. In that situation it won't matter what the cause of the problems might be, people will have their knives out for you, and will be more than keen to return the favour you did them.
Well... I don't know where you're buying your PC's from... Here in Australia I've never seen a PC pre-loaded with any of the software you've listed other than MS Works.... and even that is optional.
In any case... JRE... swing... it's so cludgy... Java is a dated, proprietry architecture. ASP.NET produces simple HTML and Javascript. No-one coding ASP.NET uses client side vb script unless they're building an intranet application for a company running on MS Windows. Therefore ASP.NET is more compliant with open standards than client side Java.
For someone to boast about what a poor decision it is to choose ASP.NET over client side Java, is pretty ridiculous, at best it's a pretty grey area, I know many people who would laugh at such a proposition. What I was getting at here, is that it's pretty easy to slag off someones architecture, its a lot lot harder to come up with your own.
My solution was to use Java, instead of client-side scripting in Javascript and VBScript. Then any browser that supports Java can run a Java servlet and it can be programmed to be easy to use. Just make sure that their JRE version matches the one we use to develop the web applications for and everything should work out
Just make sure the JRE matches..... Thats a pretty big just. You do realise that as of Windows XP, windows doesn't even ship with Java ?
Your solution would have resulted in half your users having to download and install Java, and the other half calling your support hotline... I really don't think there would be that many people out there seriously considering client side Java on a new project for the web, if I were one of your managers I might be thinking you were going out on a bit of a architectural limb here too (depending on the target market for your application).
I think every solution out there has it's draw backs. ASP.NET is just a server side technology for outputting HTML. HTML is HTML no matter what technology you use to generate it... Anyhow ASP.NET works, tens of thousands of companies out there use it. I know many sites which use it and get thousands of hits a day, with no down time.
Using any technology to create a major web site that creates a good user experience is not easy, no matter what technology you use, not everyone can do it. However creating a solution that works on your PC with a single user hitting is pretty easy and creating hypothetical solutions that are never implemented, is even easier, pretty much anyone anyone can do this.
It's far from a perfect solution but Start->Programs->Accessories->System Tools->System Restore (or %SystemRoot%\System32\restore\rstrui.exe) in windows does do a pretty good job of uninstalling Malware....
It creates a journal of changes to the registry, files added and deleted, and uses this information to roll back changes made to your system since a particular date.
It's bad points are....
* It rolls back every change, and I do mean every change, so if you downloaded some pictures off your camera since the last restore point... bye bye piccies.
* Because it's a roll back feature it really works best when you restore sooner than later....
* If your system becomes infected you can end up with viruses in the restore archive if a new restore point is created following the point of infection. Restore points are created periodically and on every install.
* The OS does provide some security protection the restore files and system restores program files, but I'm sure some hacker out has or could create something to attack this feature.
I personally rely on Ghost and a well organised hard disk partitioning.
I don't think you understand what exactly I was getting at. I don't disagree with your assessment as to how an OS should be constructed, I disagreed with your assumption that Microsoft had overlooked this approach simply because they have not utlised .NET in implementing its kernel for Vista. My point was that I don't think .NET would be suitable in it's current form. If I were Microsoft and I were wishing to write a kernel using a VM like .NET, I would actually take .NET and customise it specifically for the job of building the OS. I would not write it on .NET out of the box, in particular the evidence based security in .NET out of the box simply would not facilitate what you'd need to do in constructing a kernel.
I think your comment and this whole topic has just revealed what a petty silly little website slashdot is, it's really lost it's credibility with me as a serious source of technical discussion.
You do OS development.... yet you've not used C++ in 10 years ?
.... What are you developing in ?
I'm curious
I've not heard of an OS out there that's not implemented in C++ or C.
When is the plan9 version slated for release ?
;)
Anyhow it looks like the boys at Mono are on the job so why don't you ask them ?
.NET as a crossplatform framework when Microsoft releases their version Office built on .NET (which is also currently in development). At this point there will be some tangible incentives for Microsoft to supply a version of .NET running on Mac and Linux. Till then I think you'll have to content with the efforts groups such as the Mono group to provide support for non-Microsoft platforms.
Why don't you tell us... Perhaps you can start the implementation for Plan9....
XAML and Vista are a while off, but it's definitely coming within the next year, when it's ready Microsoft will submit it as an open standard. I think you will see more movement on
There are thousands of libraries out there that specifically deal with either mitgating the risk over buffer overflows or detecting them such as this one and this one . Anyhow my point was that you can accomplish adequet protection against buffer overflow in C++ with the right code, and a consistent approach. Buffer overflows needn't be a factor in your choice of development language. I'm sure those architecting Vista are well aware of these issues and would have some very sophisticated C++ libraries and tools that do the job alot better than any freeware product you'll find on the net.
.NET Code Access Security to deal with your least privilege mantra. As I have been repeatedly trying to say with little success, I understand it quite well, and NO IT DOES NOT FIT NICELY at all.... It's evidence based security that MS talks about is specifically designed to deal with the problem of how to allow untrusted applications loaded FROM A LOCATION OTHER THAN YOUR LOCAL COMPUTER, to run in a partially trusted context. It simply doesn't do what you imagine it might do.... it has no constructs that could be utilised to accomplish what you're talking about, which is the segmentation of an OS's internal components.
.NET then....
....its part of a larger strategy which aims to see a decline of a html based applications on the internet, in favour of Microsoft .NET applications, which is probably quite similiar to Sun's vision of client side Java, and Macromedia's vision of flash. I think it's only a few years away and you'll come across web sites which may at first glance look like like old school html with a bit of flash, but are in fact XAML... a windows application.
.NET to some is going to increasingly become more cross platform, it's been designed that way from the outset. But at the end of the day you can bet it will always be more fully functioned on Windows than it will ever be on Linux or Mac or some other OS. For Microsoft I think they'll be hoping this will lead to a continuing dominance the desktop market.
My original point was that you actually have no clue as to the architectural choices that have been made, and the approach taken by the developers of Vista and that your original post was based on complete speculation.
This would fit fairly nicely with the "Evidence based security" that MS is talking about, and it would include not giving evidence of higher trust than is absolutely needed for each piece.
As for your imaginings about the suitability of using
I will pre-empt your reply, which most undoubtedly will be... oh well then... what a hopeless job of security they've done in
It is simplistic for a very good reason, it's purpose is singular and that is to quote my original comment...
I can hear you all saying... but Java and Flash are cross platform. Like Java and Flash,
So basically you should really avoid critizing someone for not using a tool that you have no understanding of to tackle an objective within an architecture that no-one except those who would be bound by non-disclosure agreements would have an authority to talk about.
In short... cut the crap.
I think Java is all but buried as a client side technology, and Microsoft is currently handing out the spades to bury flash.
And I say bring it on... I've always hated flash and always will.... Microsoft's Expression suite will totally kick ass over flash, hooking in the power of Direct-X and C#, into an idiot proof suite of tools.
as I've fairly much ignored .NET due to time constraints
.NET, it is for application development. It exposes the OS resources and services in a sandboxed environment, to allow untrusted applications to run without full trust and full access to the operating system. Basically it's the gateway / conduit for applications running on windows to the outside world.
OK so you admit you don't know what you're talking about.
Well I can tell you didn't read my comment, so I'll repeat some of it for you.... I know
Also, "garbage collection and memory management" has little to do with this - the issue close to this in C++ etc is the naked pointer support, and the ease of creating various forms of security errors (buffer overflows) using that.
*Cough* Ummm you smoking crack or something ? What else does garbage collection and memory management have to do with other than eliminating the use of naked pointers, and eliminating buffer overflows ? Anyhow my point was that people have been working with C++ libraries out that do garbage collection and memory management in C++ for years specifically to remove the use of naked pointrs and buffer overflows from their code. I would actually bet that Microsoft is actually doing this in their C++ development..... Any C++ developer out their with half a clue knows about this stuff.
I second your shenanigans, and expand it to half the comments posted here. I've read alot of them, it's been quite a while since I've seen such an eruption of bull$#!^ as I've witnessed in this slashdot discussion... George Bush should probably be recruiting from here.... there's some real talent in the disinformation department here.....
So guys.... maybe it would be better if you stuck to commenting about what you know, rather than just making stuff up.
You haven't ever developed applications using .NET have you ?
.NET is astoundingly bug free, it's well documented, things actually work the way they say they'll work, even the Beta's were pretty good, I was astounded to begin with. Anyhow .NET 2.0 has been out since december, I've only heard good things about the framework. Also I know for a fact .NET 2.0 was never linked to Vista in any way. .NET 3.0 will be released shortly after vista which shall incorporate many things into the framework that are currently seperate SDK's (on .NET 2.0)...
1.0
Anyhow yet another completely ignorant, highly modded comment on Slashdot...
Why doesn't MS port their non-OS apps to .Net? MS wants their customers to always port software to the latest and greatest MS language/environment of the year, so why doesn't MS do the same?
.NET...
.NET show where one of the developers confirmed this.
Office has been and will be for some time to come their #1 cash cow... I'd say that's commitment enough.
.Net is the "soup of the day" at MS. .Net will be replaced in 3-5 years with something else that will require MS customers to re-purchase their development tool chain.
.NET being replaced in a few years... I really doubt that, a few years from now .NET 3.0 is going to be released, I know this as I was in a meeting where they were presenting the new features that are going to be added to it. I can also say as a MS.NET developer, that Microsoft .NET is hugely popular and well liked by anyone who has spent time on it. I've yet to meet anyone who was negative on this architecture who has actually used it. There's nothing wrong with it, architecturely it's very well thought out. So I think basically you're talking totally on emotional grounds here with little or nothing to back it up.
Well... They're currently implementing Office using
I've also seen a MSDN
As it looks to me,
As for
I'm really quite amazed how highly such a stupid comment can be modded here simply because it's anti-Microsoft.
Security is all about layers....
.NET or some other VM is an absolute necessity in the world of distributed applications, which lays beyond HTML and AJAX.
If you want to secure an OS, you don't allow non-secure applications to run on it directly, you do it through a VM.
Basically what you're saying is... I should be able to connect my network to the internet without a firewall. But the reality is that everyone has a firewall to restrict communication between the world and their network. Likewise you have a VM to regulate the api that can be called by applications. Microsoft
Well you really are speculating here. Garbage collection and memory mangement are entirely possible to implement in C++, what do you think .NET is developed in ? Or perhaps they have another VM (not .NET) on which they are developing Vista.... There are very few people around who could talk on this subject with absolute authority, and they would be architects working for Microsoft on vista.
.NET is totally inappropriate for the task of implementing components within an OS. If you think otherwise you really don't understand it, or the strategy behind it...
Try reading my other comment in this discussion.... That's my take on it.
Anyhow... Microsoft