Microsoft, claiming everyone should use.NET to be able to use web services (WSDL) just announced their first web service (mappoint)
but google beats them. Plus, google shows you don't need.NET but can just as well use Java to make use of XML web services. MSFT must be quite pissed because of this, google stealing the web services show for now.
Apart from that I think it is a pity that noone comes up with a Corba-over-HTTP standard. As an API, Corba IDL is nicer and more compact than WSDL, and all tool support is already there. WSDL offers no advantages over Corba. The only difference is the use of XML instead of (easy) IDL, and using HTTP as transport mechanism. Corba is transport mechanism independant; current implementations mostly use IIOP, but one could just as well implement Corba using HTTP as transport. Hell, you could even use some XML-over-HTTP as transport, to satisfy all XML freaks that think any machine-to-machine data nowadays should be human readable.
The only justification for XML web services is that MSFT hates Corba (because of their Not Invented Here syndrome they invented COM+ to compete, also helping vendor lock in) thus they had to come up with something else; switching to Corba would mean they loose their face.
So what, apparently it is you who is on crack (or paid my MSFT to spread disinformation here). As the auther you replied to mentioned,.NET is much more than just C#. Having a C# compiler and CLR does NOT make.NET cross-platform.
Any software written with.NET shall make heavy use of MSFT only libraries. Those libraries have not been submitted to ECMA, they are non-portable (relying on underlying WIN32). Therefore these ports of C# and CLR are no more but propaganda to spread the false impression that.NET does not mean lock in to MSFT.
Who says sacrifice, you mean they cannot win any MSFT customers? I think that the short term "easy" gains shall hurt all UNIX companies, including Redhat, in the longer term.
I don't claim that Redhat should not try to gain any customer, but by only focussing on easier targets of those that currently use a system of the same family, they are NOT serving their own longer term interests.
Please don't exaggerate. Not everyone buying SUN boxes is doing so only out of habit or because they have too much money or don't think. This is a very simplistic thought.
It is not as if Sun being taken over by anyone is inevitable.
Of course "UNIX" (whatever that is, Solaris, AIX, FreeBSD?) is an easier target than Windows. Still I think it is wrong to focus on the 'easy' targets; in the end it does not help Linux (including Redhat) if UNIX as a whole (including Linux) looses marketshare. The outside (Windows) is what we must gain from.
An internal healthy competition in the Unix camp is not necessarily bad, but if the UNIX camp is primarily focussing on getting each other, all will die soon. The only long term hope for survival is to withstand or push back the outside (non-unix).
Its usual tactics being leveraging their dominance in one area (desktop operating system) to conquer other markets.
For general purpose software, there exists the "network effect": the need for compatability between operating system, computer hardware and applications makes that he who sets a (de facto) standard in one area (the operating system in this case) can easily dictate other areas as well.
Game consoles are different (even more different than PDA's that still have to interface with general purpose computers): they are 'closed' boxes. A game console just plays the game, the console may have to talk to other consoles of the same brand (to enable network play) but no more. The user is not interested in what software is inside; all 'applications' are written specifically for the console and compatability to the rest of the world plays no role.
Therefore, MSFT cannot play its usual game here. This makes me think that, even with massive investments, MSFT shall have a hard time to make a dent in this market. Why do so many people claim that with version 2 or 3 they get it right?
MSFT just had luck in the operating system market but I have no reason to believe they can repeat they luck in a completely different market.
Since software producers more and more are skipping the middle tier (stores, distributors) and sell software directly over the internet (requiring you to download the whole CD).
And the music and video industry, though slow and backwards, also begins experimenting in this direction.
Those plans would be seriously hurt when metered access is introduced (depending on the cost per gigabyte of course), which would be a pity.
Anyway, contrary to your statement, there are legitimate uses for large downloads and according to current plans this shall only increase (download a DVD instead of renting one). The bandwidth cost should be lower than sending the CD/DVD by mail, otherwise a lot of future appeal of the Internet is lost.
Too bad I don't have the source code of Opera. I don't care using closed software, but then it has to be 100% perfect (since I can't modify it to improve).
These are just usual rumours to get the people buy now, and not postpone. We've seen such manipulation over and over again (e.g. with memory prices, causing huge price fluctuations; there is always a group earning lots of money on price fluctuations).
Over time PC prices shall come down inevitably, there is no fundamental reason why progress of technology (enabling more power for same price or equal power for lower price) should stop any time soon.
Example: LCD prices are bound to fall sharply in the second half of the year. New production capacity comes available in big quantities in july/august (new generation plants, higher efficiency, less shortages etc). I guess some stakeholders want to push people into buying now (out of fear for price increases) to get rid of their old inventories.
Corba isn't dead. It is being used a lot inside large corporations (I know the two biggest banks in the world use it extensively; I work in one of them).
For internet use, Corba-over-HTTP(S) might be a good idea. After all, Corba was designed to be used over any transport layer. Corba is an API spec, not a transport spec (that is IIOP, but you can well use Corba without IIOP).
One of the advantages of Soap is proclaimed to be that it runs over HTTP (available everywhere) and also it is buzz-work compliant (XML).
One could also run Corba over HTTP. Corba can use any transport medium. IIOP was only intended to be one of many possible, and if firewalls etc are really the problem, then why not run Corba over HTTP?
I don't see any other 'advantages' from Soap over Corba. WSDL is an XML format describing the service. Why should it be better than IDL? Both can be parsed by machines and read by humans. With DII (dynamic invocation interface) one can build in generic Corba-over-HTTP client functionality in any program (such as a webbrowser).
Really, what's new? What's wrong with Corba? Implementing a Corba service in a language such as Java (which takes care of memory management issues and integrates very well with IDL) is trivial. Writing clients even more so.
As a long time FreeBSD user (and I keep running it on my "server") I can say that Gentoo is the best Linux distribution I know of today. I've been using Slackware occasionally (even before FreeBSD existed, back in 0.98 kernel times) and until recently, but now for my desktop I have installed Gentoo.
I would have installed FreeBSD if vmware3 would exist for it though. But as far as the ports/package system is concerned, portage surely is the most advanced available today (including all Linux package systems and FreeBSD-ports).
In my experience, porting between any UNIX variant IS easy, except for porting from/to Linux.
No "unix" variant is so deviant from the rest of the UNIX world than Linux.
I've ported a lot of software between AIX, Solaris, BSD, HPUX (a bit more deviant) and Linux. Other UNIX programs tend to be easily portable to Linux, but programs written for Linux are more difficult to port to other UNIX variants than anything else.
That is where I was referring to when I wrote "should be portable".
Where did you get this idea from that older UNIX versions tied you to a vendor? Not whatsoever (unlike all other operating systems).
Open source or not (such as Solaris, AIX) the only thing that matters is that all UNIX systems are very much alike (including Linux). Porting software between them is trivial (should be, at least).
In that sense, UNIX is open and always has been open. It conforms to a published spec (API's such as Posix) enabling you to write software making good use of any UNIX platform. That is the big difference with closed systems like Windows (with it's backdoor API's and tricks).
Linux must watch out from becoming too arrogant or selfcentered, and not throw away being a good member of the UNIX family (i.e. not go its own way using proprietary API's and standards but stick to general UNIX principles).
It really hurts when I see that Linux gains marketshare from other UNIX variants; it should be gaining from Windows, not from its brethren. This may endanger the viability of UNIX as a whole (investemnts made by companies like Sun, HP, IBM) and is not good news.
Please don't put yourself as representative for "everyone". Lots of people care about network transparency. I think the only ones that don't are the "windows converts" that simply don't know better.
In many companies (including the one I work in) we have NT desktops with X-window emulator to access our UNIX servers (Solaris, AIX, Linux etc). Without X the Unix servers would be a much less nice platform to develop for (imagine having to develop and/or manage them via telnet, ugh).
At home, I have a windows desktop (so that I can play UT at any time, and I HATE dual booting) also with an X-window emulator to access my FreeBSD server. Most of the time, my windows desktop is a glorified x-window terminal:).
Heh, Nethack cost me a year of my life
on
Nethack 3.4.0
·
· Score: 2
In 1985 (while 'studying' physics) I spent a whole university year playing nethack in the computer rooms. I should hate this game, but I cannot help to still occasionally play a game and love it.
Even though after all that time I have not once played the game until completion:(
Re:I'll tell you what I would really like on an iP
on
Apple @ MacWorld Tokyo
·
· Score: 2
If you store uncompressed albums, your iPOD will also be battery-draining.
These HDD based MP3 players usually spin the HDD once in a few minutes to buffer something like 5 minutes into RAM. Using uncompressed sound, your HDD will be continuously running, shortening the battery life a lot.
Of course it is very comfortable to think (fool yourself) that no abnormal heating is happending, and that we can happily continue our wasteful lifestile without grave consequences.
But, how can you be so sure? Many experts claim the heating is caused by human actions. Some experts claim it has nothing to do with that (or that it is not even sure yet that there is global warming).
I too tend to be sceptical on very strong claims ("evidence") for human induced global warming. And I hope it is not true.
But also, it is very hard to rule it out, there is at least a non-neglectible chance that burning all fossile fuel that has been built up over many millions of years within a few decennia has bad effects on the earths climate. Given the serious consequences if it were true, I think caution is necessary.
Fooling yourselves because you don't want to give up your own egoistic lifestyle (at the expense of the rest of the world and of future generations) is not going to help. Even without global warming, is it right to use (waste) all fuel in a few decennia, leaving nothing for future generations? Is it right for some parts of the world to use 100 times more energy and resources per person than the rest of the world?
I keep hoping that this temperature fluctuation is normal and nothing to worry about. But alone the possibility that it might not, should suffice to cause a drastic change of behavior and lifestyle.
No, not government controlled and directed research, but (free) academic research, as used to exist until the 1980s, and as partly still exists.
More and more however, the universities get budget cuts and are forced to revert to contract research and to serving commercial interests instead of scientific interests.
Noone would forbid corporations to do research or development. And they can use others research for free and develop interesting products; because of less investiments necessary, those products can be cheaper.
For thousands of years, human civilisation has built upon knowledge of others, thus advancing general knowledge, science and culture. How come that in this time people call that "stealing of ideas" or "freeriding"? IMO this is a horrible perversion to look at things. It is a scandal, destructive, inefficient and disgraceful.
What incentive did michelangelo have to create, or Newton, or Pascal, Einstein? Do you really need patents for that?
Edison by the way, stole ideas from someone else, then patented them and got rich through that.
Re:Not impressed
on
Patent Nonsense
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Who? R&D should be done where it belongs: at universities and independant research institutions. These should be funded only by tax money, so they can remain independant (no contract research serving commercial interests of small groups, but objective research for the benefit of all).
Where does the tax money come from? By no longer recognizing patents, the price of many products (such as medicines) shall drop massively. The people save large amounts of money, which can be spent on taxes instead, to fund R&D. The companies are "freed" of doing fundamental R&D (they still need to develop an efficient production process of course, but without expensive R&D they can survive much lower product prices) and the outcome of all R&D is open and free to use for everyone.
Maybe this sounds like utopia, but it sure would be interesting to try; I am convinced it would work, but alas companies with vested interests are blocking this, and bribe politicians/governments to prevent a change.
This is the way science has developed in Europe during the renaissance and later, free exchange of information and knowledge. I cannot believe that blocking free exchange of knowledge in the end can be good for the advance of mankind.
The current state of affairs makes me really sad and depressed. It is a disgrace for our generation that information that can benefit many (such as how to produce cheap medicines that can save many lives) is hidden only because of a supposed need to protect the current economic system.
Smuggling such illegal goods shall be declared an act of terrorism. You'll get live imprisonment if caught. Who will take such a risk?
If money gets its way (i.e. corporate lobby groups) I fear laws and punishment may get so draconian that the "free world" ends up being a nightmare to live in.
In Switzerland most shops officially sell them region free (mostly with a pre-installed unlocking device).
I don't think this will change any time soon. Switzerland doesn't even want to be a UN member fearing to loose its sovereignty, let alone to adapt its laws for foreign lobby groups such as the MPAA.
Should the government do such things, I'm sure a referendum shall be initiated to abolish such laws.
The non-sterilized (genetically engineered is something entirely different) flies chance to find each other to mate amongst massive number of sterilized flies is drastically reduced. Thus also the amount of offspring.
Moreover, if only 2 flies were left on, say, 100 square kilometer, what do you think the chance is that they meet?
Re:Was that so complicated?
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 2
Look, I may read slashdot (just like you), but that doesn't mean that I am prejudiced.
I have read quite a bit on.net and have tried the beta-2. Indeed microsoft threw lots of resources at.NET, enabling them to start with 4 compilers (1 day old is nonsense, it has been in development for 1.5 years). Sun posed Java/JVM as something new and didn't feel like it had to provide migration paths by supporting many languages. Java is the language of choice on JVM, just as C# is on.NET.
The point is, both use a VM with languages on top of them, one (.net) puts more emphasis on multiple language but that does not make a fundamental difference. If you think it is, you have been brainwashed by MSFT.
Slashdot Mirror
Apart from that I think it is a pity that noone comes up with a Corba-over-HTTP standard. As an API, Corba IDL is nicer and more compact than WSDL, and all tool support is already there. WSDL offers no advantages over Corba. The only difference is the use of XML instead of (easy) IDL, and using HTTP as transport mechanism. Corba is transport mechanism independant; current implementations mostly use IIOP, but one could just as well implement Corba using HTTP as transport. Hell, you could even use some XML-over-HTTP as transport, to satisfy all XML freaks that think any machine-to-machine data nowadays should be human readable.
The only justification for XML web services is that MSFT hates Corba (because of their Not Invented Here syndrome they invented COM+ to compete, also helping vendor lock in) thus they had to come up with something else; switching to Corba would mean they loose their face.
So what, apparently it is you who is on crack (or paid my MSFT to spread disinformation here). As the auther you replied to mentioned, .NET is much more than just C#. Having a C# compiler and CLR does NOT make .NET cross-platform.
.NET shall make heavy use of MSFT only libraries. Those libraries have not been submitted to ECMA, they are non-portable (relying on underlying WIN32). Therefore these ports of C# and CLR are no more but propaganda to spread the false impression that .NET does not mean lock in to MSFT.
Any software written with
Who says sacrifice, you mean they cannot win any MSFT customers? I think that the short term "easy" gains shall hurt all UNIX companies, including Redhat, in the longer term.
I don't claim that Redhat should not try to gain any customer, but by only focussing on easier targets of those that currently use a system of the same family, they are NOT serving their own longer term interests.
Please don't exaggerate. Not everyone buying SUN boxes is doing so only out of habit or because they have too much money or don't think. This is a very simplistic thought.
It is not as if Sun being taken over by anyone is inevitable.
Of course "UNIX" (whatever that is, Solaris, AIX, FreeBSD?) is an easier target than Windows. Still I think it is wrong to focus on the 'easy' targets; in the end it does not help Linux (including Redhat) if UNIX as a whole (including Linux) looses marketshare. The outside (Windows) is what we must gain from.
An internal healthy competition in the Unix camp is not necessarily bad, but if the UNIX camp is primarily focussing on getting each other, all will die soon. The only long term hope for survival is to withstand or push back the outside (non-unix).
Its usual tactics being leveraging their dominance in one area (desktop operating system) to conquer other markets.
For general purpose software, there exists the "network effect": the need for compatability between operating system, computer hardware and applications makes that he who sets a (de facto) standard in one area (the operating system in this case) can easily dictate other areas as well.
Game consoles are different (even more different than PDA's that still have to interface with general purpose computers): they are 'closed' boxes. A game console just plays the game, the console may have to talk to other consoles of the same brand (to enable network play) but no more. The user is not interested in what software is inside; all 'applications' are written specifically for the console and compatability to the rest of the world plays no role.
Therefore, MSFT cannot play its usual game here. This makes me think that, even with massive investments, MSFT shall have a hard time to make a dent in this market. Why do so many people claim that with version 2 or 3 they get it right?
MSFT just had luck in the operating system market but I have no reason to believe they can repeat they luck in a completely different market.
Since software producers more and more are skipping the middle tier (stores, distributors) and sell software directly over the internet (requiring you to download the whole CD).
And the music and video industry, though slow and backwards, also begins experimenting in this direction.
Those plans would be seriously hurt when metered access is introduced (depending on the cost per gigabyte of course), which would be a pity.
Anyway, contrary to your statement, there are legitimate uses for large downloads and according to current plans this shall only increase (download a DVD instead of renting one). The bandwidth cost should be lower than sending the CD/DVD by mail, otherwise a lot of future appeal of the Internet is lost.
Too bad I don't have the source code of Opera.
I don't care using closed software, but then it has to be 100% perfect (since I can't modify it to improve).
These are just usual rumours to get the people buy now, and not postpone. We've seen such manipulation over and over again (e.g. with memory prices, causing huge price fluctuations; there is always a group earning lots of money on price fluctuations).
Over time PC prices shall come down inevitably, there is no fundamental reason why progress of technology (enabling more power for same price or equal power for lower price) should stop any time soon.
Example: LCD prices are bound to fall sharply in the second half of the year. New production capacity comes available in big quantities in july/august (new generation plants, higher efficiency, less shortages etc). I guess some stakeholders want to push people into buying now (out of fear for price increases) to get rid of their old inventories.
Corba isn't dead. It is being used a lot inside large corporations (I know the two biggest banks in the world use it extensively; I work in one of them).
For internet use, Corba-over-HTTP(S) might be a good idea. After all, Corba was designed to be used over any transport layer. Corba is an API spec, not a transport spec (that is IIOP, but you can well use Corba without IIOP).
One of the advantages of Soap is proclaimed to be that it runs over HTTP (available everywhere) and also it is buzz-work compliant (XML).
One could also run Corba over HTTP. Corba can use any transport medium. IIOP was only intended to be one of many possible, and if firewalls etc are really the problem, then why not run Corba over HTTP?
I don't see any other 'advantages' from Soap over Corba. WSDL is an XML format describing the service. Why should it be better than IDL? Both can be parsed by machines and read by humans. With DII (dynamic invocation interface) one can build in generic Corba-over-HTTP client functionality in any program (such as a webbrowser).
Really, what's new? What's wrong with Corba? Implementing a Corba service in a language such as Java (which takes care of memory management issues and integrates very well with IDL) is trivial. Writing clients even more so.
As a long time FreeBSD user (and I keep running it on my "server") I can say that Gentoo is the best Linux distribution I know of today. I've been using Slackware occasionally (even before FreeBSD existed, back in 0.98 kernel times) and until recently, but now for my desktop I have installed Gentoo.
I would have installed FreeBSD if vmware3 would exist for it though. But as far as the ports/package system is concerned, portage surely is the most advanced available today (including all Linux package systems and FreeBSD-ports).
In my experience, porting between any UNIX variant IS easy, except for porting from/to Linux.
No "unix" variant is so deviant from the rest of the UNIX world than Linux.
I've ported a lot of software between AIX, Solaris, BSD, HPUX (a bit more deviant) and Linux. Other UNIX programs tend to be easily portable to Linux, but programs written for Linux are more difficult to port to other UNIX variants than anything else.
That is where I was referring to when I wrote "should be portable".
Where did you get this idea from that older UNIX versions tied you to a vendor? Not whatsoever (unlike all other operating systems).
Open source or not (such as Solaris, AIX) the only thing that matters is that all UNIX systems are very much alike (including Linux). Porting software between them is trivial (should be, at least).
In that sense, UNIX is open and always has been open. It conforms to a published spec (API's such as Posix) enabling you to write software making good use of any UNIX platform. That is the big difference with closed systems like Windows (with it's backdoor API's and tricks).
Linux must watch out from becoming too arrogant or selfcentered, and not throw away being a good member of the UNIX family (i.e. not go its own way using proprietary API's and standards but stick to general UNIX principles).
It really hurts when I see that Linux gains marketshare from other UNIX variants; it should be gaining from Windows, not from its brethren. This may endanger the viability of UNIX as a whole (investemnts made by companies like Sun, HP, IBM) and is not good news.
Please don't put yourself as representative for "everyone". Lots of people care about network transparency. I think the only ones that don't are the "windows converts" that simply don't know better.
:).
In many companies (including the one I work in) we have NT desktops with X-window emulator to access our UNIX servers (Solaris, AIX, Linux etc). Without X the Unix servers would be a much less nice platform to develop for (imagine having to develop and/or manage them via telnet, ugh).
At home, I have a windows desktop (so that I can play UT at any time, and I HATE dual booting) also with an X-window emulator to access my FreeBSD server. Most of the time, my windows desktop is a glorified x-window terminal
In 1985 (while 'studying' physics) I spent a whole university year playing nethack in the computer rooms. I should hate this game, but I cannot help to still occasionally play a game and love it.
:(
Even though after all that time I have not once played the game until completion
If you store uncompressed albums, your iPOD will also be battery-draining.
These HDD based MP3 players usually spin the HDD once in a few minutes to buffer something like 5 minutes into RAM. Using uncompressed sound, your HDD will be continuously running, shortening the battery life a lot.
Of course it is very comfortable to think (fool yourself) that no abnormal heating is happending, and that we can happily continue our wasteful lifestile without grave consequences.
But, how can you be so sure? Many experts claim the heating is caused by human actions. Some experts claim it has nothing to do with that (or that it is not even sure yet that there is global warming).
I too tend to be sceptical on very strong claims ("evidence") for human induced global warming. And I hope it is not true.
But also, it is very hard to rule it out, there is at least a non-neglectible chance that burning all fossile fuel that has been built up over many millions of years within a few decennia has bad effects on the earths climate. Given the serious consequences if it were true, I think caution is necessary.
Fooling yourselves because you don't want to give up your own egoistic lifestyle (at the expense of the rest of the world and of future generations) is not going to help. Even without global warming, is it right to use (waste) all fuel in a few decennia, leaving nothing for future generations? Is it right for some parts of the world to use 100 times more energy and resources per person than the rest of the world?
I keep hoping that this temperature fluctuation is normal and nothing to worry about. But alone the possibility that it might not, should suffice to cause a drastic change of behavior and lifestyle.
No, not government controlled and directed research, but (free) academic research, as used to exist until the 1980s, and as partly still exists.
More and more however, the universities get budget cuts and are forced to revert to contract research and to serving commercial interests instead of scientific interests.
Noone would forbid corporations to do research or development. And they can use others research for free and develop interesting products; because of less investiments necessary, those products can be cheaper.
For thousands of years, human civilisation has built upon knowledge of others, thus advancing general knowledge, science and culture. How come that in this time people call that "stealing of ideas" or "freeriding"? IMO this is a horrible perversion to look at things. It is a scandal, destructive, inefficient and disgraceful.
What incentive did michelangelo have to create, or Newton, or Pascal, Einstein? Do you really need patents for that?
Edison by the way, stole ideas from someone else, then patented them and got rich through that.
Who? R&D should be done where it belongs: at universities and independant research institutions. These should be funded only by tax money, so they can remain independant (no contract research serving commercial interests of small groups, but objective research for the benefit of all).
Where does the tax money come from? By no longer recognizing patents, the price of many products (such as medicines) shall drop massively. The people save large amounts of money, which can be spent on taxes instead, to fund R&D. The companies are "freed" of doing fundamental R&D (they still need to develop an efficient production process of course, but without expensive R&D they can survive much lower product prices) and the outcome of all R&D is open and free to use for everyone.
Maybe this sounds like utopia, but it sure would be interesting to try; I am convinced it would work, but alas companies with vested interests are blocking this, and bribe politicians/governments to prevent a change.
This is the way science has developed in Europe during the renaissance and later, free exchange of information and knowledge. I cannot believe that blocking free exchange of knowledge in the end can be good for the advance of mankind.
The current state of affairs makes me really sad and depressed. It is a disgrace for our generation that information that can benefit many (such as how to produce cheap medicines that can save many lives) is hidden only because of a supposed need to protect the current economic system.
Watch out, you are already making a thought crime.
Soon you'll get life only for thinking such subversive thoughts.
Smuggling such illegal goods shall be declared an act of terrorism. You'll get live imprisonment if caught.
Who will take such a risk?
If money gets its way (i.e. corporate lobby groups) I fear laws and punishment may get so draconian that the "free world" ends up being a nightmare to live in.
You have to ask? Really?
In Switzerland most shops officially sell them region free (mostly with a pre-installed unlocking device).
I don't think this will change any time soon. Switzerland doesn't even want to be a UN member fearing to loose its sovereignty, let alone to adapt its laws for foreign lobby groups such as the MPAA.
Should the government do such things, I'm sure a referendum shall be initiated to abolish such laws.
The non-sterilized (genetically engineered is something entirely different) flies chance to find each other to mate amongst massive number of sterilized flies is drastically reduced. Thus also the amount of offspring.
Moreover, if only 2 flies were left on, say, 100 square kilometer, what do you think the chance is that they meet?
Look, I may read slashdot (just like you), but that doesn't mean that I am prejudiced.
.net and have tried the beta-2. Indeed microsoft threw lots of resources at .NET, enabling them to start with 4 compilers (1 day old is nonsense, it has been in development for 1.5 years). Sun posed Java/JVM as something new and didn't feel like it had to provide migration paths by supporting many languages. Java is the language of choice on JVM, just as C# is on .NET.
I have read quite a bit on
The point is, both use a VM with languages on top of them, one (.net) puts more emphasis on multiple language but that does not make a fundamental difference. If you think it is, you have been brainwashed by MSFT.