A lot of people have trouble understanding what .NET really is and what its goals are. Mostly because Microsoft has done a good job of confusing everybody using terms that are not self-explanatory or with terms that mean more that one thing. This editorial will present my thoughts on .NET, what it really is, what its motivations and goals are, and why it is the next "big thing." Should we embrace it or fear it? Both, I daresay.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
> I don't want to have readers
> who do not know all these things.
Sounds rather patronising, doesn't it? Textbook Eugenia, I would say.
>>while we have the choice in ignoring it
> No, you don't!! That was the point
> of my last paragraph.
What? That is absolute crap, and neither you nor anybody else on this planet knows for sure that .net will succeed. For all its success, it won't be the first time MS failed in a big project. Presenting .net as a fait accompli is putting the cart before the horse, and with editorials like this, any person with half-a-brain will loose confidence in anything you write.
>> And then? Microsoft will
> have taken the market by then.
Same way they took the ISP market, just by having 95% of the desktop, right? Will they write all the code? Don't they need developer support? Think again.
> There is no reason to
> fight OS Wars anymore.
That's what they said about the PC a years ago. In my opinion, this is arguable, and probably false. I love my privacy, and like the pc, personal OSes would be for a looong time.
> Business is a jungle my friend.
> The stronger will survive. And
> in this case, Microsoft is the
> strongest.
Yeah, substitute microsoft with Nortel, or Enron. Nothing is certain my friend. Not even everlasting life for abusive, bulling monopolies.
> If you still think that this
> article was Pro-Microsoft, you
> are more dumb than I thought.
Count me in as another dumb one, typical Eugenia style. If this article is not pro-microsoft, I have no clue what is.
> I don't want to have readers
> who do not know all these things.
Sounds rather patronising, doesn't it? Textbook Eugenia, I would say.
>>while we have the choice in ignoring it
> No, you don't!! That was the point
> of my last paragraph.
What? That is absolute crap, and neither you nor anybody else on this planet knows for sure that .net will succeed. For all its success, it won't be the first time MS failed in a big project. Presenting .net as a fait accompli is putting the cart before the horse, and with editorials like this, any person with half-a-brain will loose confidence in anything you write.
>> And then? Microsoft will
> have taken the market by then.
Same way they took the ISP market, just by having 95% of the desktop, right? Will they write all the code? Don't they need developer support? Think again.
> There is no reason to
> fight OS Wars anymore.
That's what they said about the PC a years ago. In my opinion, this is arguable, and probably false. I love my privacy, and like the pc, personal OSes would be for a looong time.
> Business is a jungle my friend.
> The stronger will survive. And
> in this case, Microsoft is the
> strongest.
Yeah, substitute microsoft with Nortel, or Enron. Nothing is certain my friend. Not even everlasting life for abusive, bulling monopolies.
> If you still think that this
> article was Pro-Microsoft, you
> are more dumb than I thought.
Count me in as another dumb one, typical Eugenia style. If this article is not pro-microsoft, I have no clue what is.