> So the only reason.NET 3.0 isn't a good name is that it IS backwards > compatible (which you shouldn't expect given the major number increase). > For shame, Microsoft?
I am not convinced that major version increments should mean something designed to work on the earlier version should not be able to work on the newer version.
Older versions of Adobe Photoshop can read any file written by any newer version - provided it is saved with compatiblity in mind.
Also, if the software was well planned in what would be in each major release, then it would be easy to provide backwards compatiblity.
The problem is that a certain Redmond based software developer is not capable of this sort of development.
> Given that they're the most powerful platform vendor in the world, with the ability > to force adoption of virtually any programming environment, language or library that > they choose, Microsoft sure does seem to act desperate sometimes.
Micro$oft is crapping itself over the fact that OSS is improving at a speed that M$ can only dream about coming close to - and that includes replacements for.NET, M$ Office, & M$ Windows and all manner of useful programs.
That is because of one main issue - developers are migrating away from the Win32 platform.
The migration curve of developers migrating to the Linux platform is such that before the end of this year (2006) there will be more developers actively writing software for the Linux platform than developers actively writing for the Win32 platform.
The consequence of all this is that current releases of Linux already have user-friendly functionality (without the DRM) that M$ is planning to initially introduce in M$ Windows Vi$ta.
M$ just can't keep up the pace - that is why it's taking to rebranding instead of producing updates.
Slashdot Mirror
> So the only reason .NET 3.0 isn't a good name is that it IS backwards
> compatible (which you shouldn't expect given the major number increase).
> For shame, Microsoft?
I am not convinced that major version increments should mean something designed to work on the earlier version should not be able to work on the newer version.
Older versions of Adobe Photoshop can read any file written by any newer version - provided it is saved with compatiblity in mind.
Also, if the software was well planned in what would be in each major release, then it would be easy to provide backwards compatiblity.
The problem is that a certain Redmond based software developer is not capable of this sort of development.
> Given that they're the most powerful platform vendor in the world, with the ability
.NET, M$ Office, & M$ Windows and all manner of useful programs.
> to force adoption of virtually any programming environment, language or library that
> they choose, Microsoft sure does seem to act desperate sometimes.
Micro$oft is crapping itself over the fact that OSS is improving at a speed that M$ can only dream about coming close to - and that includes replacements for
That is because of one main issue - developers are migrating away from the Win32 platform.
The migration curve of developers migrating to the Linux platform is such that before the end of this year (2006) there will be more developers actively writing software for the Linux platform than developers actively writing for the Win32 platform.
The consequence of all this is that current releases of Linux already have user-friendly functionality (without the DRM) that M$ is planning to initially introduce in M$ Windows Vi$ta.
M$ just can't keep up the pace - that is why it's taking to rebranding instead of producing updates.