While the author makes a good point about MS's.NET strategy, he seems to be so caught up with the idea that ".NET becomes the center of Microsoft" and this is not the case..NET is the way that Microsoft wants user to deploy so that people will buy WIndows. From the lack of Microsoft Office 2000 upgrade to disappointing rate of adoption of Windows 2000, I think it's clear that people think they don't need all that stuff and now Microsoft wants people to buy Windows again. And I think the author hints that Microsoft doesn't tie itself to Windows. I think he's plain WRONG in that regard: Microsoft==Windows. Period. Listen to what Steve Ballmer, BG, and other people at MS said and believe in what they said. The last thing Microsoft will do is writing a Linux version of.NET Visual Studio. Furthermore, the author really doesn't understand why Microsoft needs to develop.NET: It's a way of making money. All they want is to use the subscription services and selling of powerful W2k data center edition to generate new revenue. And.NET provides the incentives..NET is basically Visual Basic for Internet. So you can build highly intereactive and communicate with clients easily without writing Winsock, or DCOM that drive people nuts. But really the question becomes will.NET services talk a common protocol. My answer is a definite no because.NET drives revenue for Win2K, and Win2K is the bread and butter of M$. If Joe and Jane can run a.NET services on a linux box, then BillG is helping everyone making money but himself. Really the point for.NET is to provides services that only "Windows" server can provide so Microsoft can again lock everyone in their wonderful M$ land..NET's stuff might be open-standard, but M$ can treak their services to make it non-openstandard. There's nothing stop them from doing that. Finally, the author seems so ignorant about Microsoft's direction. He thinks that legal battle accerlate Microsoft's determination to develop the.NET platform and this is just WRONG. Microsoft develops.NET platform because of the lack of developer commit to M$ tools and the declining revenue. Nowadays you are lucky to make half of what a java programmer makes if you are writing Visual Basic (I am a Java programmer;-) the deal is that Microsoft understands if their platform is not the platform for Internet, like Solaris or Linux, then basically people really won't care about what kind of friggin ActiveX control you are making. Again, declining revenue comes from the fact that no serious web site runs on Win2k platform (our company tried and nothing but shit happens, we switched back to Sun in 3 days after spending millions of dollars in writing a bunch of useless DCOM services). And Microsoft needs to whip something out so that people will use easy ways to create Internet App.
This is my 2 cents and my latest IE 5.5 128-bit browser is going to crash in a minute. FYI I am running Win2k and I got so many problems it's just scary.
Just did a quick check in Netcraft. Not surprisingly, the site is hosted on an NT/98 server. I am shocked when people acutally use an NT machine to run a web site on the Internet (I guess NT can host a low traffic, zero-security intranet). We have a client want to use NT & IIS as the Server, SQL Server 7.0 as the backend database, and Windows CE as the Terminals. I laughed my a*s off and ask how much incentive Microsoft gave to you. Of course, the project manager told me the software is almost free from Microsoft if they actually get the project done and online. None of these e-commerce site thought about using Linux not because they are ignorant, but because Microsoft did a good job in marketing, I actullay heard a sales from Microsoft said, "If Linux is good, why is it free?" What the fsck he's talking about. Matt
It's true that these hardware vendors now stop shipping Windows along with the PCs.. but.. I don't think we can all assume that Gateway, Dell or Compaq is all going to ship Linux or any *nix instead. The simple reason is because most corporation(like the one I am working now) have their own NT or 95 CD image and they don't want to pay two copies of Windows License. They have already paid for their NT image license and so there's no point for them to have another copy come with the machine.
Slashdot Mirror
While the author makes a good point about MS's .NET strategy, he seems to be so caught up with the idea that ".NET becomes the center of Microsoft" and this is not the case. .NET is the way that Microsoft wants user to deploy so that people will buy WIndows. From the lack of Microsoft Office 2000 upgrade to disappointing rate of adoption of Windows 2000, I think it's clear that people think they don't need all that stuff and now Microsoft wants people to buy Windows again. And I think the author hints that Microsoft doesn't tie itself to Windows. I think he's plain WRONG in that regard: Microsoft==Windows. Period. Listen to what Steve Ballmer, BG, and other people at MS said and believe in what they said. The last thing Microsoft will do is writing a Linux version of .NET Visual Studio. Furthermore, the author really doesn't understand why Microsoft needs to develop .NET: It's a way of making money. All they want is to use the subscription services and selling of powerful W2k data center edition to generate new revenue. And .NET provides the incentives. .NET is basically Visual Basic for Internet. So you can build highly intereactive and communicate with clients easily without writing Winsock, or DCOM that drive people nuts. But really the question becomes will .NET services talk a common protocol. My answer is a definite no because .NET drives revenue for Win2K, and Win2K is the bread and butter of M$. If Joe and Jane can run a .NET services on a linux box, then BillG is helping everyone making money but himself. Really the point for .NET is to provides services that only "Windows" server can provide so Microsoft can again lock everyone in their wonderful M$ land. .NET's stuff might be open-standard, but M$ can treak their services to make it non-openstandard. There's nothing stop them from doing that. Finally, the author seems so ignorant about Microsoft's direction. He thinks that legal battle accerlate Microsoft's determination to develop the .NET platform and this is just WRONG. Microsoft develops .NET platform because of the lack of developer commit to M$ tools and the declining revenue. Nowadays you are lucky to make half of what a java programmer makes if you are writing Visual Basic (I am a Java programmer ;-) the deal is that Microsoft understands if their platform is not the platform for Internet, like Solaris or Linux, then basically people really won't care about what kind of friggin ActiveX control you are making. Again, declining revenue comes from the fact that no serious web site runs on Win2k platform (our company tried and nothing but shit happens, we switched back to Sun in 3 days after spending millions of dollars in writing a bunch of useless DCOM services). And Microsoft needs to whip something out so that people will use easy ways to create Internet App.
This is my 2 cents and my latest IE 5.5 128-bit browser is going to crash in a minute. FYI I am running Win2k and I got so many problems it's just scary.
Just did a quick check in Netcraft. Not surprisingly, the site is hosted on an NT/98 server. I am shocked when people acutally use an NT machine to run a web site on the Internet (I guess NT can host a low traffic, zero-security intranet). We have a client want to use NT & IIS as the Server, SQL Server 7.0 as the backend database, and Windows CE as the Terminals. I laughed my a*s off and ask how much incentive Microsoft gave to you. Of course, the project manager told me the software is almost free from Microsoft if they actually get the project done and online. None of these e-commerce site thought about using Linux not because they are ignorant, but because Microsoft did a good job in marketing, I actullay heard a sales from Microsoft said, "If Linux is good, why is it free?" What the fsck he's talking about. Matt
It's true that these hardware vendors now stop shipping Windows along with the PCs.. but.. I don't think we can all assume that Gateway, Dell or Compaq is all going to ship Linux or any *nix instead. The simple reason is because most corporation(like the one I am working now) have their own NT or 95 CD image and they don't want to pay two copies of Windows License. They have already paid for their NT image license and so there's no point for them to have another copy come with the machine.