The ignorance of this news item astounds me. Thin-client/server architecture is nothing new; it's been in use for well over a decade. Such architecture allocates presentation to the end-user on the client side, and application processing and data management on the server side. This is essentially what the article is talking about. However, I find the fact that the author believes Microsoft to be completely adverse to distributed computing and remoting of applications to be somewhat offensive. The author clearly lacks a solid background on subject.
Sure, Microsoft certainly may not have been involved with the industry push towards distributed computing initially. But over the last decade, they caught onto it. They became involved with the OMG (Object Management Group) and the introduction of CORBA (Common Object Request Brokerage Architecture). Later, they created DCOM (Distributed Component Object Model). As web-services and standards like XML and SOAP began to surface, they two became supported (albeit, perhaps reluctantly at first).
The.NET Framework (of which the framework/base class library is a subset of the new WinFX API, which replaces Win32, and will be the defacto API for Window Longhorn) has integrated support for object-level remoting built directly into the language runtime. Standards like XML and SOAP are put at the forefront. Web-services aren't something just tacked on as an afterthought, they're given importance in the.NET world. And I think that Microsoft is finally learning not to twist such standards, they realize the impact it can have on developers.
Of course, only the future can tell whether or not Microsoft's Windows family of operating systems will survive the impending ubiquity of thin-clients. Or whether thin client/server architecture will be embraced by the masses.
Regardless, I don't believe Microsoft is fearful of bandwidth. I think they're embracing it. And as far as I know, GNU/Linux isn't any further ahead of Microsoft, in terms of technology, when it comes to this type of architecture.
So what about all of those GNU/Linux savvy developers who refuse to try out what Microsoft offers?
Too many times have I seen people saying that emacs or vi/vim are excellent source code editors, and then they say that the latest versions of MS Visual Studio suck. When asked if they have ever used it, the reply is "no, why would ever use micro$hlop products?" Naturally, I have hard time holding back my laughter.
The fact of the matter is that this dogheaded policy of ignoring competitors products is practiced by both camps.
And besides, do you think that the CTI and his department is responsible for deciding what direction that Microsoft products are going to take? Probably not as much as the development and technology/research departments.
Slashdot Mirror
The ignorance of this news item astounds me. Thin-client/server architecture is nothing new; it's been in use for well over a decade. Such architecture allocates presentation to the end-user on the client side, and application processing and data management on the server side. This is essentially what the article is talking about. However, I find the fact that the author believes Microsoft to be completely adverse to distributed computing and remoting of applications to be somewhat offensive. The author clearly lacks a solid background on subject.
.NET Framework (of which the framework/base class library is a subset of the new WinFX API, which replaces Win32, and will be the defacto API for Window Longhorn) has integrated support for object-level remoting built directly into the language runtime. Standards like XML and SOAP are put at the forefront. Web-services aren't something just tacked on as an afterthought, they're given importance in the .NET world. And I think that Microsoft is finally learning not to twist such standards, they realize the impact it can have on developers.
Sure, Microsoft certainly may not have been involved with the industry push towards distributed computing initially. But over the last decade, they caught onto it. They became involved with the OMG (Object Management Group) and the introduction of CORBA (Common Object Request Brokerage Architecture). Later, they created DCOM (Distributed Component Object Model). As web-services and standards like XML and SOAP began to surface, they two became supported (albeit, perhaps reluctantly at first).
The
Of course, only the future can tell whether or not Microsoft's Windows family of operating systems will survive the impending ubiquity of thin-clients. Or whether thin client/server architecture will be embraced by the masses.
Regardless, I don't believe Microsoft is fearful of bandwidth. I think they're embracing it. And as far as I know, GNU/Linux isn't any further ahead of Microsoft, in terms of technology, when it comes to this type of architecture.
So what about all of those GNU/Linux savvy developers who refuse to try out what Microsoft offers? Too many times have I seen people saying that emacs or vi/vim are excellent source code editors, and then they say that the latest versions of MS Visual Studio suck. When asked if they have ever used it, the reply is "no, why would ever use micro$hlop products?" Naturally, I have hard time holding back my laughter. The fact of the matter is that this dogheaded policy of ignoring competitors products is practiced by both camps. And besides, do you think that the CTI and his department is responsible for deciding what direction that Microsoft products are going to take? Probably not as much as the development and technology/research departments.