I am in agreement that we actually do agree on quite a bit. Just a few more comments.
One of the things I like that a friend of mine turned me on to about the 2.0 release of.NET is that they are going to take some cues from the Webstart paradigm. Assemblies build using 2.0 will be able to include a "mount point" of sorts allowing new assemblies to be downloaded automatically by the CLR. This will prove to be huge - the one advantage here is that capability will be built into the OS as opposed to people having to install and Configure Webstart - I think that will give.NET a slight advantage.
As far as the different versions of Windows - you do have a point. People for sure have older versions of Windows lying around. I would hope by the time Longhorn comes out people at least have migrated to a Win2K or later version of the MSFT OS.
This of course requires installing the.NET framework (if the OS is pre-XP) to allow.NET apps to execute but I think that it is worth it in order to reap the JIT and other benefits provided by the CLR.
I really believe in the end, just the competition that is created.NET as an alternative to JAVA will be healthy. It will definately be interesting to see how this agreement between MSFT and SUN affects both development paths in the future. I think the two wildcards longterm will be IBM and Novell - both of which have their own Linux/JAVA/MONO/etc. initiatives.
I think what one must keep in mind from a business standpoint is what your end customers need.
Everyone is so hyped on the J2EE cross platform support that JAVA gives. Okay - I can see that, and no I don't believe MONO or Rotor are the answer in the.NET world (from an Enterprise standpoint). I think those firmly planted in the JAVA camp should start really coming up with more solid arguments for JAVA than cross-platform support.
For certain customers, I don't really believe the cross-platform argument holds. They may be a Microsoft shop already - let's say they made the decision not to spend the $$$ to hire a good UNIX administrator and instead recruited a Win32 sys admin off the street.
From a GUI development perspective,.NET blows away the current version of JAVA. Please don't try to argue SWING even begins to compete. Sure, you don't necessarily have cross platform support - but again for many customers (as mentioned above) this is not a big deal.
To be realistic, from a UI perspective, I would venture to say 95% of the US population has a Win32 box at work (assuming they use a computer at work). For those of us who work on a X-Win environment, on a non-Win32 OS, we can always remember how lucky we are.
Now cost. Saying "I just want to warn people what they are getting in to before they spend their hard earned money" - I'm not sure if you've priced out an Oracle vs. SQL Server enterprise solution.
If you manage to catch an Oracle sales rep at the end of their quarter and they take pity on you so they can make their quota for the quarter, you might be able to get a quote that is 4-5 times more expensive than MSFT.
I've used Oracle since version 6, and will agree, that from an enterprise standpoint it is the DB of choice. It scales better (right now), definately has the market share, and obviously has cross platform support. But those that discount SQL Server (or other DB solutions - DB2, etc.) right off the bat are doing their customers a dis-service from both an initial license cost and long term maintenance cost (try hiring a GOOD Oracle DBA - aya carumba) perspective.
I also don't want to seem like I'm totally in the MSFT camp either. They have screwed over SUN and others in the past and I'm sure won't hesitate to continue that pattern of behavior in the future. But I think this time with.NET the developers at MSFT have made a significant step forward. Let's hope if nothing else it spurs some additional friendly (or unfriendly) competition.
Slashdot Mirror
I am in agreement that we actually do agree on quite a bit. Just a few more comments.
.NET is that they are going to take some cues from the Webstart paradigm. Assemblies build using 2.0 will be able to include a "mount point" of sorts allowing new assemblies to be downloaded automatically by the CLR. This will prove to be huge - the one advantage here is that capability will be built into the OS as opposed to people having to install and Configure Webstart - I think that will give .NET a slight advantage.
.NET framework (if the OS is pre-XP) to allow .NET apps to execute but I think that it is worth it in order to reap the JIT and other benefits provided by the CLR.
.NET as an alternative to JAVA will be healthy. It will definately be interesting to see how this agreement between MSFT and SUN affects both development paths in the future. I think the two wildcards longterm will be IBM and Novell - both of which have their own Linux/JAVA/MONO/etc. initiatives.
One of the things I like that a friend of mine turned me on to about the 2.0 release of
As far as the different versions of Windows - you do have a point. People for sure have older versions of Windows lying around. I would hope by the time Longhorn comes out people at least have migrated to a Win2K or later version of the MSFT OS.
This of course requires installing the
I really believe in the end, just the competition that is created
I think what one must keep in mind from a business standpoint is what your end customers need. Everyone is so hyped on the J2EE cross platform support that JAVA gives. Okay - I can see that, and no I don't believe MONO or Rotor are the answer in the .NET world (from an Enterprise standpoint). I think those firmly planted in the JAVA camp should start really coming up with more solid arguments for JAVA than cross-platform support.
For certain customers, I don't really believe the cross-platform argument holds. They may be a Microsoft shop already - let's say they made the decision not to spend the $$$ to hire a good UNIX administrator and instead recruited a Win32 sys admin off the street.
From a GUI development perspective, .NET blows away the current version of JAVA. Please don't try to argue SWING even begins to compete. Sure, you don't necessarily have cross platform support - but again for many customers (as mentioned above) this is not a big deal.
To be realistic, from a UI perspective, I would venture to say 95% of the US population has a Win32 box at work (assuming they use a computer at work). For those of us who work on a X-Win environment, on a non-Win32 OS, we can always remember how lucky we are.
Now cost. Saying "I just want to warn people what they are getting in to before they spend their hard earned money" - I'm not sure if you've priced out an Oracle vs. SQL Server enterprise solution.
If you manage to catch an Oracle sales rep at the end of their quarter and they take pity on you so they can make their quota for the quarter, you might be able to get a quote that is 4-5 times more expensive than MSFT.
I've used Oracle since version 6, and will agree, that from an enterprise standpoint it is the DB of choice. It scales better (right now), definately has the market share, and obviously has cross platform support. But those that discount SQL Server (or other DB solutions - DB2, etc.) right off the bat are doing their customers a dis-service from both an initial license cost and long term maintenance cost (try hiring a GOOD Oracle DBA - aya carumba) perspective.
I also don't want to seem like I'm totally in the MSFT camp either. They have screwed over SUN and others in the past and I'm sure won't hesitate to continue that pattern of behavior in the future. But I think this time with .NET the developers at MSFT have made a significant step forward. Let's hope if nothing else it spurs some additional friendly (or unfriendly) competition.