Despite Microsoft’s claims that its .Net platform is sprouting its own ecosystem and is undergoing substantial adoption in the industry, some say the adoption of open-source opportunities appear to outpace .Net.
Despite Microsoft’s claims that its .Net platform is sprouting its own ecosystem and is undergoing substantial adoption in the industry, some say the adoption of open-source opportunities appear to outpace .Net.
Well, regarding ecosystems. . .
I think people sometimes focus too much on the short-term.
As far as I can tell from my humble, work-a-day view, the .Net framework and associated techs. are going to be a good thing for the MS platform.
Now, I luv my Linux, OS X, etc. but for those few(ahem) MS shops out there there is a lot to like in .Net stack. And yes, broader adoption via mono etc is also possible but for MS environments it is almost certainly a Good Thing.
Just a Sunday Morning ramble
One more “article” from eweek… These days to get traffic to your site you just need to write articles bashing MS or questioning their future success. Even if they are proven wrong in the future, it doesn’t matter because the zealots will get there, see the ads and sometimes even click it. That’s how you make money these days. Write stuff the zealots want to read. It doesn’t need to make any scence. Just get it out and they’ll come.
“some say the adoption of open-source opportunities appear to outpace .Net.”
A very simple collective “DUH!” should be the response to this. Open source is the future. M$ should just go 100% open source, extend and embrace the communal spirit of the FOSS movement and sell support, while moving on to other things like their game (xbox) systems.
Of course, that would make too much sense.
For one thing, the two sets overlap. Think #Develop.
Second, comparing companies building with .Net and companies building with FOSS, is like comparing software written in Python to software with an EULA. Nobody invests in companies using Python, compared to companies using EULA’s.
And last, this whole “venture capital staying away from .Net” is a little suspect to me. It’s not the language or the platform that makes a company attractive to investors, it’s the products or (ugh) the “vision”. It’s whether or not they’ve thought up something and are going to ship something that sells and makes money. It could be in COBOL.Net, but if it looks and runs like (formerly) Keyhole, it might be worth getting into.
VC companies don’t care about .net vs open source. they care about capturing emerging markets, innovation, quick development, and execution.
The end goal is to make money….
.NET needs time to become a platform of choice among ventures. This is not unexpected: just think about how many years Java took to become de facto standard for big corps.
Cops needs time. First of all, you have to consider if they’re already into MS ecosystem or not. If not, they won’t easily convert their infrastructure in a year or two (consider that .NET is an option since 2003… when Windows 2003 has been released). They want to check if .NET is a mature platform, if it gets enough support from other big companies and even if it gets support from lower-end developers.
All in all, most expert developer now have 2 or 3 years .NET experience (which is usually far below what big corps consider a “senior” developer).
That’s why MS needs MONO too. It needs to build a large community around .NET, just like it did around ASP, which wasn’t technically as good as .NET is.
If you check .NET projects, many of them are ports from Java world but there are also many which are .NET native. MS needs to forster adoption among universities, where many innovative projects get a life (most of them are now using Java).
I don’t know if MS expected more at this point, but I didn’t. But I think .NET is gaining much influence and how much more it will attract is a matter of Java too and if Java will be able to introduce new features which will make people stay with Java.
I think MS did quite good. They released a platform which is a good base as for stability and performance (Windows2003 + .NET); they allowed .NET to shape into MONO and they’re attracting developers both from MS and Unix world; they are delivering innovations with 2nd version of this platform. What they now need is to have a large community of developers (lower-end, mostly) who are able to produce .NET projects to a rate which is comparable to Java platform. Not only that would allow to deeply test the whole framework in real-world applications, but that will forster trust into people who need to spend big money.
However, I don’t expect .NET acceptance to be at same level of Java until you have senior developers who can claim something like 5-6-7 years of .NET experience.
the bigger question is whether Microsoft still drawing venture capital? Or are they and their subsequent products all in the economic world of a solid monopoly.
Us smart zealots use Ad-block extension for firefox, so no ad revenue from us.
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=10
Java has failed on the desktop, so there’s really no other place to go on windows other than .NET. In the open source space, java is non-existent on the desktop while Mono continues to draw more and more developers.
I could care less about making random companies rich, like the article seemed to fret about.
“MINNEAPOLIS – Microsoft Corp. will further expand its software offerings for small businesses, even though that will turn many of its current partners into competitors, CEO Steve Ballmer said on Sunday.”
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050710/ap_on_bi_ge/mi…
The Microsoft ecosystem has become more and more static. There is little opportunity for new business. Microsoft steals ideas, technology and markets from their so-called partners.
If you are a Microsoft-centric company, unless you are one of the few companies that gets bought by Microsoft, your destiny is to become M$ roadkill.
However, In the open source world, capitalism is alive and well. There are many vibrant companies participating many new diverse ecosystems. It is a place where investment, risk-based ventures, makes sense.
Thus it is no wonder that VC’s are shying away from .NET and Microsoft-centric investments is general. The ecosystem is falling apart and the likelihood of a payoff is low.
Thus it is no wonder that VC’s are shying away from .NET and Microsoft-centric investments is general. The ecosystem is falling apart and the likelihood of a payoff is low.
Well, this is very questionable. First of all, investing into technologies which are spread to 90% of desktop systems and perhaps 30% of server systems (and raising) doesn’t seem a very bad action to me. I don’t know where “payoff” could be if it isn’t into Windows.
Second, entering an ecosystem where many products are provided for free (and if not, someone could easily try to implement a look-alike of your product for free, even when your product it’s free as well — check Java) doesn’t assure much “payoff”.
Third, well, saying that MS is falling apart is a bit “optimistic” (let’s say so ;-).
Adopting proprietary frameworks for software development is so 1980s. Seriously. With so many other frameworks to choose from from Perl to Python to Ruby to Java, it is very hard to understand why a “Microsoft shop” would even continue to exist with it’s higher costs, vendor lock-in, and generally higher long-term risk (yes, even Microsoft is being eaten by Linux/BSD/OpenSolaris/GNOME/KDE/etc).
Also, Java is 100% functional on Linux, from J2SE up to J2EE. Mono is not. I don’t think Mono could be, unless Microsoft somehow has either pledged full support for Mono or will be releasing a complete .NET framework for Linux/FOSS, like Sun did with Java.
While there are many who pledge their support for .NET, here’s me pledging that Microsoft’s days are numbered–there’s two sides to every story, at least.
“Adopting proprietary frameworks for software development is so 1980s. Seriously. With so many other frameworks to choose from from Perl to Python to Ruby to Java, it is very hard to understand why a “Microsoft shop” would even continue to exist with it’s higher costs, vendor lock-in, and generally higher long-term risk (yes, even Microsoft is being eaten by Linux/BSD/OpenSolaris/GNOME/KDE/etc).
Also, Java is 100% functional on Linux, from J2SE up to J2EE. Mono is not. I don’t think Mono could be, unless Microsoft somehow has either pledged full support for Mono or will be releasing a complete .NET framework for Linux/FOSS, like Sun did with Java.
While there are many who pledge their support for .NET, here’s me pledging that Microsoft’s days are numbered–there’s two sides to every story, at least.”
Perl, Ruby, Java, Python are all languages, not Frameworks!
Proprietary Framework assures big corps that what they invest today will still work tomorrow, and that they will receive support for when things get more tricky.
“First of all, investing into technologies which are spread to 90% of desktop systems and perhaps 30% of server systems (and raising) doesn’t seem a very bad action to me.”
Nowhere to go but down for Microsoft.
The server space is going to be eaten by Linux and Solaris. Both are free and both are better than Windows, except in the lamest point-and-drool sense. That doesn’t stop the vast majority of servers from running some form of UNIX, though, and UNIX is gaining point-and-drool points, too.
On the desktop, Microsoft faces Apple on the high end and UNIX everywhere else. Current Linux/Solaris desktops are very impressive, especially for corporate use. No licensing shenanigans to deal with, huge cost savings, genuine open standards to work with, and a genuine competitive marketplace (due to genuine open standards).
Add that people are very apprehensive about Longhorn (sloughing off features, potential monitor/video DRM, little value-add over XP), and that 90% on the desktop for Microsoft is a peak, not a plateau.
BTW, Firefox gained even more share last month at IE’s expense.
Nowhere to go but down for Microsoft.
Except you are wrong, Microsoft’s share of server space is rising at the expense of Unix.
The server space is going to be eaten by Linux and Solaris. Both are free and both are better than Windows, except in the lamest point-and-drool sense.
Except you are wrong again. Look at the numbers. Just because you wish something doesn’t mean its true.
On the desktop, Microsoft faces Apple on the high end and UNIX everywhere else. Current Linux/Solaris desktops are very impressive, especially for corporate use.
OSX is a bigger threat to linux on the desktop than to Microsoft. Both Linux and OSX have miniscule desktop market share. Sorry to burst your bubble, but most people don’t want Unix on the desktop.
Add that people are very apprehensive about Longhorn (sloughing off features, potential monitor/video DRM, little value-add over XP), and that 90% on the desktop for Microsoft is a peak, not a plateau.
People aren’t apprehensive about Longhorn, but I’ll agree that people are pretty happy with XP since its stable and does the job that people want it to do. And yeah, when you’re at 93-95% of the desktop market its hard to grow substantially, since you can’t get more than 100% of the market.
Except you are wrong again. Look at the numbers. Just because you wish something doesn’t mean its true.
Last time I looked at the numbers, Microsoft increased their market share more than Linux in terms of money. In terms of shipped units Linux increased more than MS. The numbers of shipped units was calculated from sold units. I.e. all free downloads was not counted.
Except you are wrong again. Look at the numbers. Just because you wish something doesn’t mean its true.
Last time I looked at the numbers, Microsoft increased their market share more than Linux in terms of money. In terms of shipped units Linux increased more than MS. The numbers of shipped units was calculated from sold units. I.e. all free downloads was not counted.
You are both wrong. The facts are this – MS’s is increasing its server shipments in both units and money but this is less than the growth of the market. It is actually losing market share by a small amount. Proprietary Unix is losing market significantly. Linux is the only major operating system showing server market share increases (in both unit and money terms). On current trends it will not be untill 2012 that Linux exceeds Wimdows in terms of money (Servers from the major hardware companies shipping Linux preloaded). That’s my reading of the latest IDC report on server trends.
“Sorry to burst your bubble, but most people don’t want Unix on the desktop.”
Right. Most people don’t know what they want. Most people don’t even know what unix is. The reason that Windows has such a large share of the pie is because of the fact that it comes preinstalled on most computers, remember. Not because it is such a great OS.
And certainly not because ‘most people don’t want unix on the desktop’. That’s the most silly statement I’ve read in weeks.
>>>RE – Sorry to burst your bubble, but most people don’t want Unix on the desktop.
Actually it’s you who doesn’t want unix on the desktop because as a user who is pretending to be a techie you know you’re bluff will be called when faced with a unix system.
Remember – if you can’t control a computer from a console session then you are a user not a techie.
The reality is that people want a PC which Just Works and isn’t a bloated infected mess with a couple of months.
Remember – if you can’t control a computer from a console session then you are a user not a techie
Remember – if you have to control a computer from the console you’re using an OS stuck in the 70s.
>> Remember – if you have to control a computer from the console you’re using an OS stuck in the 70s.
what a sad statement.
unix actually runs most of the serious stuff in the world today – in the 21st century – most of the internet as well. certainly its far in advance of any MS OS – MS is only now trying to add features (decent command line, security, stability etc etc) which unix has had for years.
deep down you think that this unix is too hard for you – so you stick with your friendly users GUI interface – and sadly/frantically try to defend it.
we know – and now you know – that this is true.
you could – be brave – bite the bullet and sign up to learn unix.
remember –
‘Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.’ — Henry Spencer
deep down you think that this unix is too hard for you – so you stick with your friendly users GUI interface – and sadly/frantically try to defend it.
Unix isn’t too hard. It’s a waste of time.
There’s no excuse today, or for the last ten years, for the lack of a good, consistent GUI on Unix.
The CLI is outdated and unnecessarily complex. You’re fighting the same fight Apple II users fought when the Macintosh arrived and DOS users fought when Windows arrived. They lost, and for good reason. A GUI does provide many benefits for all users, including sysadmins.
Unix proponents face a choice. Move Unix into this century with a modern, flexible GUI or become increasingly irrelevant fighting for the CLI.
>>deep down you think that this unix is too hard for you – so you stick with your friendly users GUI interface – and sadly/frantically try to defend it.
>Unix isn’t too hard. It’s a waste of time.
how can learning most crucial OS in the world today be a waste of time?
and unix isn’t too hard for me cos i’m a techie – but it *is* too hard for users – a problem we have is too many users saying that they are techies – when in fact they are confused users floundering around in the windows GUI all day instead of learning how a computer actually works.
then they actually have the nerve to go on to technical newsgroups and try to defend windows!
us techies can give you users a solid desktop which you can use for browsing, email, office stuff – check out linspire, xandros, ubuntu etc.
but as i say – if you do not understand unix you are a *user* – so just *use* the PC and don’t waste your time trying to maintain or alter it.
>There’s no excuse today, or for the last ten years, for the lack of a good, consistent GUI on Unix.
gnome, kdm, icewm, blackbox, take your pick.
personally i use gnome – it has multiple desktops (you won’t know what that is) tons of applets, configurable toolbars, also, if a program does crash you can just kill its window and the desktop carries on as normal for the next few months.
– oh, and is doesn’t need rebooting for months at a time – so a spreadsheet i was working on 12 weeks ago will still be open on desktop 7.
this will be dificult for you to understand – get to a trade show and see for yourself.
one more thing – effectively immune from viruses and worms. users would appreciate that one at least.
>The CLI is outdated and unnecessarily complex. You’re fighting the same fight Apple II users fought when the Macintosh arrived and DOS users fought when Windows arrived. They lost, and for good reason. A GUI does provide many benefits for all users, including sysadmins.
the CLI is beautiful and elegant – the GUI of windows is what is unnecessarily complex.
i mean – i can install debian and it will need 60MB of disk space and can run on a 386 – windows now needs a 1 gig chip and half a gig of ram just to do nothing! you tell me which is overly complex.
again – the CLI seems overly complex to you because you are a *user* – only techies can use the CLI – that’s my main point – we have *users* thinking that they are techies.
oh and by the way – MS has announced that the command line is due to get a major upgrade in longhorn – you see – the command line is underneath everything – including the GUI – so you have to know the CLI to truly know the OS. even MS realise that their CLI has been rubbish for years.
i mean – i noticed the other day that windows 2003 CLI now has tab completion (you won’t know what that is) – ‘tab completion’ – wooow – i’m almost impressed – i mean bash had that in what? 1970.
>Unix proponents face a choice. Move Unix into this century with a modern, flexible GUI or become increasingly irrelevant fighting for the CLI.
again – the users will be fine with ubuntu, xandros, linspire etc – us techies will be making sure that it ‘Just works’.
“Move Unix into this century with a modern, flexible GUI or become increasingly irrelevant fighting for the CLI.”
You are not a sysadmin, are you?
Just one example: let’s say you want to delete all files older than 15 days in a folder, using UNIX, it’s dead simple:
find /path/of/directory -type f -mtime +15 -exec rm -f {} ;
Using windows… well i’d say it’s much longer using the GUI. Using explorer, go in the folder, sort by date, find files older than 15 days (you have to know the date 15 days ago), select them all, then shift+delete, then OK.
Now, let’s say you want to do this all sundays at 10. In UNIX add this line to the crontab like this:
crontab -l > cron.tmp
echo ’00 10 * * 0 find /path/of/directory -type f -mtime +15 -exec rm -f {} ;’ >> cron.tmp
crontab cron.tmp
Next sunday, you’ll have an e-mail in your mailbox, containing the command’s output.
Simple, isn’t it? That is the power of UNIX. That OS is incredibly sysadmin friendly.
By the way:
# uptime
15:59pm up 157 days, 21:04, 36 users, load average: 2.25, 2.27, 2.65
Up 157 days… That’s every windows sysadmin’s dream.
Yeah it’s ironic that Mono is attracting more people to .NET. I know I wouldn’t give .NET a half second’s thought if it weren’t for mono.
And actually it’s a bit ironic that Sun, the company that is much closer to the open source ideals than Microsoft, perhaps hurts the popularity of open source java clones because it is a fuzzier line which Sun still does not cross completely. Whereas Microsoft, which is so active in doing stuff to discourage open source, like making sure nobody copies their future technogies Avalon & Indigo (http://www.redmonk.com/sogrady/archives/000786.html) may in fact have the opposite effect and push more people to Mono and open source, hurting their own and Java’s success (java works on mono though, see ikvm).
Of course if Sun were to open source java, and Microsoft were to actually embrace and encourage Mono, this would be moot.
These are very good points, but I have some clarifications.
Apple is a form of UNIX now, since it adopted DarwinBSD as its base. So this would make Windows the only major non-Unix based desktop/server OS.
Longhorn you say? Well as far as I can tell all it’s features already have competitors that are making it to market on time. Eye-candy in Longhorn you say? Hmm there’s OSX with it’s quartz, Gnome with it’s Glitz and Cairo and E17 (I’m running it right now and it’s very usable).
This is a reoccuring problem people keep noticing. If M$ dosn’t full something out of their arse right now thats truely revolutionary, they are toast in the next 10-20 years. They are quickly becoming another boring old monopoly like the phone company.
I know of only one all .NET software company and they just went out of business last week. I’m not trying to troll either, that’s the truth. The owner of that business was just telling me last year how .NET was better than sliced bread and how it was going to let his programmers develop mountains of code and be so productive.
I think MS really screwed up here. They didn’t get all the VB6 developers addicted to .NET, and when they killed support for VB6, a lot of those developers started to look elsewhere and found OSS tools.
Not only that OSS is not a business model, it’s a development model and suits programmers. Compare the friendly “lets don’t keep reinventing the wheel” ecology of OSS vs the “mine mine mine” ecology of business and it’s not hard to see the attraction.
I know of only one all .NET software company and they just went out of business last week. I’m not trying to troll either, that’s the truth.
Well, you can’t measure success of a technology this way. Businesses can die just because they are’t good.
By the way, I suspect that if you were to measure all businesses who die because they fall into GPL trap, I think that single .NET company could become not worth mentioning.
However, as I said, I agree you can’t say .NET is leading, of course. All I can say is .NET is a good technology. Now it’s up to MS to turn it into a successfull one.
BTW, my company is successfully exploiting .NET for its business goals and .NET is perhaps the most important reasons why we’re staying away from Solaris and Java though we try to allow Java where it’s ok for our goals.
“One more “article” from eweek… These days to get traffic to your site you just need to write articles bashing MS or questioning their future success…”
Interesting to see that eweek runs their server on Windows 2000/IIS while doing all the M$ bashing!
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://eweek.com
Do yourself a favour and switch to Apache/Linux .
eweek relies on readership to make money. They’ll bash who ever they like if they think it’ll bring readers, k? Tomorrow they could be bashing Linux. Or Paint. Or the coffee machine.
It isn’t really bashing; it’s more like innuendo spreading. It’s a staple of pseudo-journalism and propaganda. It’s certainly easier to write than informative writing, doesn’t require any technical expertise, and in times of little actual news allows one to exploit the same desire to argue/gossip that tabloids live comfortable lives off of.
How much is .net worth to us? It is probably at least worth $500,000 per year. Probably a lot mroe considering without it, we will be out of business. That is because without .Net, we would have to hire about 10 extra developers. .Net is trully awesome. Web projects that used to take months, take a few days. We are able to create Rich, robust, smart clients utlizing web services and deploy these to all our different branches for ultimate productivity. We are doing things 10 times better, 10 times faster, and 10 times cheaper than what we were able to do before. We are in business today because Microsoft came out with .Net. The world is a different place today than it was years ago. Small companies need technology to survive. .Net makes it possible.
I hate the pipe as much as the next guy, but those smoky hallucinations of .NET grandeur really brought a tear to my eye.
Alas, it sounds like your business is fated. If you partner with Microsoft, you WILL be out of business. If you don’t use .NET, you claim you will be out of business. So either with .NET or without it, unfortunately, you are screwed.
Small companies need as little technology as possible. That really is the secret. Technology simply doesn’t work worth a darn. The term “ROI” doesn’t even make sense when it comes to technology. With the Microsoft monopoly, personal computers may not be truly simple for companies for another 50 years. So small business is basically screwed because of Microsoft.
Small companies need as little technology as possible. That really is the secret. Technology simply doesn’t work worth a darn. The term “ROI” doesn’t even make sense when it comes to technology.
Well, actually this is first time I hear small business don’t need technology and instead they need as few as possible. 😉
I find this highly questionable. If I’m allowed to tell my experience (are you speaking about your experience or just about your thoughts?), I agree with that guy about .NET. We were able to finish off projects in fractions of them time we used to.
And it’s not that we haven’t checked Java, of course…
The quotes the author obtains express no views on the readiness to invest in companies that adopt .NET, except to say that if a good opportunity for investment arises that they will take it. Further only one investment party is interviewed, and no statistics are provided (except for those called into question for being cited by Microsoft) for the reader to see any market trends with respect to adoption or investment.
How are we to know if the thesis of the article is true or false? Find out for ourselves? Further is the point of the article to determine if .NET-using startups can obtain investment capital, or whether .NET is really being adopted?
And why exactly would using .NET make investors worry more about being extinguished by Microsoft? If you developed a product or service that Microsoft really felt the need to compete with, since when have they shown any concern about its development platform? If Microsoft wants your market, it wants your market. You might have a better chance of just being purchased if your assets are better suited to Microsoft’s vision, than not.
Maybe for their next article, the authors can help me know if .NET is failing to draw venture capital.
What makes the article interesting is that the VC they interviewed was Brad Silverberg, who was a very senior product-side executive at Microsoft in the ’90s. He and his fellow ex-Microsofties are still wired into Microsoft and know tons about its people, projects and systems that other VCs don’t.
More to the point, as the authors suggest, they know how Microsoft likes to compete vertically with its own developers, especially anything that threatens to establish any sort of horizontal platform (with plugins, scripting languages and SDKs) on top of the OS. Web browsers, streaming media players, office productivity suites, and bytecode virtual machines were examples of markets that Microsoft moved in to take for itself, often using arguably illegal marketing techniques such as bundling with the OS, well after they were successfully established by others.
Another angle is to look at the spaces where .NET is playing: desktop, server, and embedded/mobile, and to analyze them separately. The authors suggest that the desktop space is a tough nut to crack for startups (this goes for Java and Win32 as well). And Java has a cross-platform, multi-vendor story on the server side, which is something that .NET lacks. Is .NET on the server going to be all about Microsoft?
Yes, this is just a snapshot in time. It could be that Ignition Partners will find a bunch of .NET-oriented startups worthy of investment in the next few months. Then again, they might not.
Paul G
It doesn’t matter who they interviewed, because it’s a single data point and no statistically-meaningful conclusion can be made from it. Further, the comments he makes are a matter of technological indifference. Do we know if VCs care either way about .NET? No.
Microsoft’s competition into the web client sphere had nothing to do with Netscape’s usage of Microsoft’s platform, and merely that institutions such as Wired projected Netscape as becoming the platform. The point is that there’s no a priori reason to think that not using .NET will change Microsoft’s stance toward taking market share from you. Microsoft will move into any market its think that it can make money from, either directly, or through protecting their stranglehold on existing markets.
The remainder of your comment doesn’t correlate with anything in the article. You’ve apparently read a much different article than I have.
Yes, so why would you pick a platform that locks you into a high fixed costs as you grow? That’s not a a rational approach for a startup. You just worked your ass off to the the money. Now you have to give a huge chunk of it to MS? No way.
Since .net is comporable only to java, let’s compare those technologies for say.. web development.
Let’s face it: It’s is easier to create a full blown website in .net than in java (jsp), atleast for the smaller developer. Is there on the java side something similar to Visual Studio? Is there a comprehensive help system available comparable to msdn? It seems furthermore, that asp.net is more “supported” on the internet than jsp. There is the often visited asp.net site, the heavy frequented newsgroups on msdn, many asp.net related websites from third parties (123aspx.com, 4 guys from rolla, 15 seconds, aspalliance and so on) j2ee support compared to that help is a bit.. empty. And I feel this gap will go wider, when .net 2.0 will be released.
Additionaly, with .net, there is just Microsoft. This can be good or bad, but mostly it isn’t bad. You don’t have to chose tomcat or jboss, or this or that, just .net and it’s essentialy only one product and one framework.
You’re arguing that .NET is better than J2EE simply because you have not used J2EE. It is clear that you haven’t used J2EE because you compare JSP, a presentation-tier templating technology, to the entire web component framework of ASP.NET. A more apt comparison would be against JSF+JSP. http://www.javalobby.org/articles/jsf-asp/
Similarly, you argue that the documentation is better for .NET merely because you haven’t visited J2EE websites. There are hundreds of free libraries for Java that contain javadoc documentation as well as tutorials, just as the Java standards themselves have plenty of api documentation and tutorials.
The fact of the matter is that many startups in the Bay Area are run by people who left large Bay Area companies (like Oracle and Sun) that hate Microsoft. They will use J2EE and continue to use J2EE.
Even java zealots admit that J2EE is a clusterfsck that no one likes.
You obviously haven’t used J2EE either. Most of the complaining in the J2EE world is about the EJB entity bean specification. You won’t hear much complaining about JCA, JTA, JMS, EJB Message Driven Beans, EJB Session Beans, JAAS, etc. Usually, people use third-party replacements (some options are open source) to replace EJB entity beans for ORM. Now that the EJB 3 specification has been released, that problem is fixed in the standard.
Have you used Eclipse? If you haven’t, please take a look at it, and then rewrite your comment. It seems your scope regarding development tools is quite limited.
I use visual studio daily but while its ok in some points in terms of code editing its miles behind eclipse .. If only someone would write a plugin of th quality of the jdt for .net in eclipse
Lately I’ve been losing interest in OSNews.com altogether but the obvious anti-microsoft focus as of very recently has just become annoying (as a reader.)
The Anti-Microsoft Anti-Capitalist crowd (and mentality) is simply ignorant and I’m so incredibly tired of hearing about it.
You’ve lost a long-time reader.
I would like more information on this so-called anti-Microsoft bias. I’ll do everything I can to rectify the problem. Of course, partisans on every side accuse OSNews of being biased against their platform, you know.
In your warped little mind you figure that anti-Microsoft and anti-capitalist are inseparable and yet you accuse others of being ignorant?
Oh.. ok
We’ll miss you man…
hehe.
VC firms typically don’t invest in a company on the sole basis of the implementation. The exception would be firms that are developing things targeting developers, of course.
That said, .Net is definitely the technology of choice for those explicitly and solely targeting the Microsoft environment. This is, in part, because MS support for anything but is waning.
It’s also true that fewer and fewer companies are hedging their bets on being able to only support Windows… So the notion of writing directly for Windows directly is also starting to decline, along with the idea that keeping two separate forks for product for different platforms is cost-effective.
Personally, I work in the biotech industry, which has long been plagued by instrumentation vendors providing bad closed-source software with undocumented file formats and no published APIs — typically cobbled together using VB and deployed under Windows. These systems cannot be managed like the typical desktop PC pool by IT because of the fussiness of the instrumentation, drivers, etc. AS a result, the perception (and reality) has always been that Windows and apps for it are the hallmark of low-quality in this domain. There’s been a huge shift away from anything VB or Windows-based for many vendors and companies like ours most certainly makes a negative impression. So, I suppose in the biotech and pharmaceutical domain, presenting a platform that was based on .Net/Windows (particularly involving controling instrumentation or for analysis of scientific data) would be a liability if you wanted to attract funding.
That said, .Net is definitely the technology of choice for those explicitly and solely targeting the Microsoft environment. This is, in part, because MS support for anything but is waning.
Wrong!
My 10-year-old Java code still compiles and runs anywhere, no problem.
My 10 year-old Win32-MFC-blablablah code is garbage.
If you build to last, DotNet is definitely not the way to go…
I can’t speak on the technical merits of .Net. I do consulting (on other issues) for several VCs in an around Palo Alto, CA. .Net has been labeled a nightmare from enough startups that it has now become a red flag. I haven’t come across one single startup using .Net that hasn’t had to go through the painful process of migrating off of .Net at the expense of pissing off or losing potential VCs do to lack of apparent product development during that transition.
Microsoft doesn’t get it. People wrote applications in things like VB6 cause it was fast: That means they have no time. When you do things like VB.net and ask them to rewrite chunks of their application you’re asking them to do something against their whole goal they had in mind when they picked your technology.
Microsoft used to understand this phenonenon: The, “I like writing applications once and making small updates not reworking the framework, but my preference is just never even recompiling it” ideology.
I believe many refer to this as the shift from Raymond Chen to MSDN Magazine or something like that.
.Net is very cool; but that doesn’t mean you’re gonna rewrite your applications. So hopefully, you wrote them in c++ or some other unchanged language in .Net and you can just slowly take advantage of it! But in the end, Windows systems aren’t required to run the .net update (huge mistake guys) and my understanding is that there is no static link equivalent in .net; so you can’t distribute part of it only the whole thing.
Linux/BSD users on the other hand aren’t too stupid to install a library (thanks for not talking down to us guys). Which brings a quote to mind about reinventing unix poorly, but anyway. This is why Mono can gain popularity: Linux/BSD users will install mono+mono-liba+mono-libB+mono-libq+mono-wastedspacelib1 just to get “Image Viewer X.” But they’re generically a more involved crowd of people. Even if their helping consists of complaining (complaints are helpful if you can read the critique and ignore the incredible lack of respect).
Microsoft does get compatability, which is why their interop services are so much more convenient than Java’s. Hypothetically you don’t need to rewrite all of a VB6 program to play with code written in .NET.
Heh. As for the matter of libraries and users on unix platforms; I only wish that were true. A world sans complaining about not being able to get various combinations of packages and libraries to work together would be quite pleasant. Unfortunately a lot of people that transition to Linux aren’t especially technically self-sufficient, they just think that they are.
Claims of .NET supporters and info from that guy from Palo Alto aren’t fighting with each other.
The fact that ventures doesn’t trust .NET it’s simply true. But in the high-end, of course, Java still rules. The bet MS is doing is just that: being able to get some shares from that Java market. Of course, you cannot expect that you provide a NEW technology and everyone jumps in. You need time to prove that your platform is reliable and it works.
Most of all, they need to start from lower-end. But don’t make the mistake to compare Java beginnings with .NET ones because the market changed.
When Java started (or at least, when Java became quite powerful) everybody jumped in because there wasn’t a comparable tecnology which addressed all those requirements. Now, Java exists so .NET will not have an easy life.
But I think .NET is good enough to quickly gain shares. Proof of this is Sun and Goslin quickly decided to introduce new things in Java (as a language) that .NET had not to allow .NET to gain ground on easyness level.
I’ve been told (and I read that many times), for example, that .NET is miles easier than Java when creating Web Services.
.NET has advantage to be new (an thus incorporating easily new concepts) but the reverse face of this is a few people trust it when we talk about big bucks.
Java has years of reputation but reverse side is it cannot evolve so easily as .NET did.
Best thing for .NET is people who invested into Windows now have something good not to change the whole package. Sure, you’re gonna need to convert your infrastructure, but this is not like converting to Unix+Java.
Java is only relevant in server space and is already feeling the pressure from agile frameworks and dynamic languages. There will come a time when Java will only make sense for very high-volume, massive enterprise systems as dynamic, agile frameworks take the low and middle-end. And in the high-end, Java will have stiff competition with .Net. .NET/ASP.NET will always have the advantage over Java of cohesive solutions because Microsoft is in charge from the bottom up.
It’s not that Java is going away anytime soon, but its basically relegated itself to being the COBOL of the 21st century.
On the desktop, .NET is the only option because Sun failed to address the failings of Swing for so many years and now it’s too late.
Java has a good position on the server side and Microsoft has a hard time trying to enter it, but (!)
Swing hasn’t failed. That’s true that Sun didn’t address it untill java 1.4, but at least it’s the same stable API wich getting better and better.
Microsoft has nothing to offer here!!! What you suppose to use for Net GUI? Win Forms are obsolete wrapper over old win32 gui – No MVC it’s the same MFC only for c# which Microsoft had done when they had nothing to put inside Net. Avalon? Where is it? Are we are talking about “how .Net will be cool someday…”? By the time .NET has Avalon, Java will have Mustang with Avalon Look and Feel
AND YOU CAN START PROGRAMMING NOW!!!
More… with Java Commertial Licence you will be able to COMPILE your application to Windows or Linux using Excelsior Jet only for 150$ for the commertial compiler…
>It’s not that Java is going away anytime soon,
> but its basically relegated itself to being
> the COBOL of the 21st century.
Actually, the COBOL of at least this first 10 years is going to be JavaSCRIPT. Not Java.
In any case, I think Java and .NET will both be successful. Java in that it’s a language people like to use. .NET in that it’s it provides C# and the CLR. The APIs will change over time, but with the Java SDK and .NET Framework both available on the CLR, it’s just a matter of preference what language to use.
I’ve seen more public applications writed on Mono than in .NET.
Microsoft and capitalism are diametrically opposed concepts.
Never in their history has Microsoft believed in capitalism much less the rule of law required to make capitalism work.
Microsoft has skirted every law, every control, every moral, that defines capitalism in a society.
Indeed, with Microsoft’s mantra of “big business aligned with government”, they might as well rename the company “Mussosoft”.
All this is to say is IF OSNews is actually anti-Microsoft, then OSNews is actually being pro-capitalism. And for many people in the world, that is a good thing.
The fact you can equate Microsoft to Mussolini on OSNews AND get scored up says something about the bias of the OSNews readership.
Funny it´s the same thing I think about .net
>Is there on the java side something similar to Visual Studio…
No. It’s so pathetic, that I fail to find something comparable… Notepad?
Have you ever heared about Eclipse, Idea, Netbeans, JBuilder, JDeveloper… talking about WEB – Java Studio Creator?
By the way, could VS even create html 4.0 compatible pages? NO!
Compare ASP.NET to JSP isn’t fair – compare it to struts or, better, to jsf.
The documentation… It’s about the taste – I’d like the javadoc documentation. And don’t tell me there are more books about .NET than about J2EE. (Again .Net has no concept about the ‘server’ all you have is old iis with some module serving pages).
You say .NET has more comunity than Java????????????
>Additionaly, with .net, there is just Microsoft…
.Net doesn’t exist. It’s a fancy word to describe a bunch of different windows technologies. Microsoft put there all from SQL Server to Passport (where is it?) and win32 wrapper (Net Forms). Before anyone started even consider these ‘technologies’ they come with a new NET 2.0…
You don’t wanto to choose between FREE Tomcat and JBoss? Actually I don’t understand the problem – need only web container choose Tomcat (or Jetty or…). Need full J2EE stack choose JBoss (with Tomcat or Jetty :-).
Have money? – choose Weblogic or Websphere or…
.Net still needs many years to reach the java.
Who is willing to pay for these years? 😉
Regards
Not exactly. I have found that eweek articles and opinions generally have a tilt towards OSS & Mac while
trying to show MS in bad light.
Just read a few opinions by Steven Vaughan Nichols and it will be clear to you. Such as this one,
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1836385,00.asp
Anyway, I dont have a problem with this, since I am pro-Linux and definitely anti-M$.
.NET’s interop services are more convenient because they only work with .NET.
You gain 1oz of convenience and you give up 16oz of flexibility.
And everyone knows VB6 does not work worth shit with .NET. Even Microsoft won’t tell you too many more lies about that. Not with a bunch of companies considering a lawsuit against Microsoft to keep VB6 supported. Because Visual Bastard.NET is not even the same language as VB6.
Sure, Java is still hellish to get up to speed — square one is needlessly painful. But .NET makes square one easy and then squares 2+ are where you pay. .NET is a tiny closed universe compared to Java.
Microsoft should be ashamed of themselves on how little support they have given .NET. Just so Microsoft can get their .NET apps out first and take over the entire market, never giving anyone else a chance.
Just hit the Reply link under the posts.
Your comment about .NET’s interop is strange. You can use and provide COM services. You can trivially bind native libraries. The virtual machine is capable of running unsafe operations needed for porting legacy code. It’s definitely not less flexible.
VB.NET being a different language doesn’t matter. You can interoperate using COM from both sides. It’s not convenient, but it really can’t be made more convenient.
The rest of your comment makes no sense to me and doesn’t have anything to do with what I said. Personally I have no interest in .NET, nor your religion.
pravda sounds awfully angry.
.NET is definately catching on. It’s a little slowly, but I wouldn’t say OpenSource outpaces it. Many people are still happy with VB6, and their apps STILL work, so they dont need to change. But when people start writing new applications as years go own, itl’ll likely be in .NET. It really is a great technology and everyone I’ve talked to that has learned, loves it.
The reason .NET seems to be going nowhere is that it really only makes sense for internal applications, which are largely invisible outside the company that uses them. I’m not aware of a single mass market app using it, though there must be a few.
My coworkers (MS fanboys to a man) constantly push for a project in C#. So far I’ve always stopped it by pointing out that we sell a lot of software by download, and that .NET requires a 20+MB download to run on all current OS’s. We could do it on CD’s (at the cost of an extra install step, extra disk space, etc), but why? End users would see nothing different except that their new program would take a lot longer to start (unacceptably long, for the few small programs I wrote before losing interest.)
Writing internal software for an enterprise shop, in a controlled configuration, the (claimed) productivity gains from switching to .NET might make sense, and from what I hear that’s where most of the action is. It would work serverside, for anyone clueless enough to still run IIS.
Even if Longhorn does finally ship the .NET framework w/ the OS (and is much more successful in the marketplace than XP, which doesn’t look likely), it will be years before there is enough base to drop the earlier platforms, and until we can, regular old native code will still make the most sense.
“It would work serverside, for anyone clueless enough to still run IIS.”
This is one area where frameworks on top of Apache is a stonghold of web development.
It’s hard for Microsoft to really get into a market dominated by Apache, MySQL/PostgreSQL, Perl/PHP/JSP…all of which is available for zero cost and under open source licenses…and which pretty much every college grad has at least tried. The mindshare of these tools is enormous.
“Even if Longhorn does finally ship the .NET framework w/ the OS (and is much more successful in the marketplace than XP, which doesn’t look likely), it will be years before there is enough base to drop the earlier platforms…”
If Longhorn ships in volume by the end of 2006, we’re looking at at least 2009 or 2010 before it sees levels of deployment anywhere close to Java on desktops. And people are still complaining about Java in 2005.
By 2010, I’m sure Sun will have followed through with Java under the CDDL (hints keep flying about them OSS-ing all their software), which will make deploying Java even on Windows a no-brainer. That would put a bigger drag on .NET on Microsoft’s own OS!
One big thing that Java and other portable frameworks (Python, etc.) has brought to the table for software developers is that we no longer need to depend on the OS vendor to provide development tools (Visual Studio, UNIX compilers, etc.). Why use .NET, when we can use the same development framework on both Windows and Linux? Why take on the sheer overhead of learning two very similar frameworks?
then you would find that the hottest investments are in companies like “Black Duck Software”. Which means that you should avoid GPL software like the plague.
I’ve downgraded my web-apps from .aspx to .asp
How long will it take others to realize .NEt was and is pure hype?
Suckers
We should have real stories about how companies wasted and lost a lot of money with the .NEt hype
>I’ve downgraded my web-apps from .aspx to .asp
>How long will it take others to realize .NEt was and is >pure hype?
>Suckers
>We should have real stories about how companies wasted >and lost a lot of money with the .NEt hype
I don’t know how you can say that because I now write almost all my applications using .NET, it’s just so much productive. It seems that some people are successful with it while others for some reason are not. How can something be hype when it actually exists?
As a jobbing programmer who has had to work with FLOSS and MS tech I would say that at first I was impressed with .NET but two problems have killed my enthusiasm.
1. Its not cross-browser compatible. A key feature called ‘Smart NAvigation’ means that on long pages the web application only acts like an application on IE. Postbacks on other browsers result in the user being taken back to the top of the page.
There are some horrid workarounds but from experience these will add time and go wrong anyway. Any elegance is destroyed.
2. You *have* to have Visual Studio for anything other than basic apps.
The client I currently work for has dragged their heels over getting VS – it’s not worth it for me to spend over $1000 because my .NET work is a small proportion of my work. I would find it difficult to pass on the cost to the clients in the form of a large jump in the hourly cost.
They really need it for their internal guys to maintain/enhance the app after I’ve finished – but then they’d need more than one copy – which is a very large expense – so nothing happens.
It means I have taken much longer on the app – certain functions (editing AD entried) are not feasible to implement without VS. This means its difficult to keep the client happy.
Although this client wants to stay MS only (the IT dept only has the usual untrained non-techies who’ve only seen MS stuff) – my points about vast savings from developing in FLOSS will surely become more attractive soon.
forget .NET
mono should forge ahead and should not worry about .NET compatibility – leave it behind.
MS don’t want to play with the rest of us and they’re crap at software anyway.
but having 2 competing platforms is a ‘Good Thing’
think KDE vs Gnome, Postgresql vs MySql, RPM vs Apt, Python vs PHP, BSD vs Gnu/Linux, Hurd vs Linux kernel.
> The facts are this – MS’s is increasing its server shipments in both units and money but this is less than the growth of the market. It is actually losing market share by a small amount. Proprietary Unix is losing market significantly.
Err, wrong, Unix market share actually grew in both revenue and unit shipments. Don’t trust M$ propaganda, the only picture they paint is Windows is growing and the rest is withering away, which is complete BS. Check the following URL:
http://www.itjungle.com/tug/tug052605-story02.html
My experience taught me that every product should have a GUI AND a CLI. How can you automate mouse clicks?
If you HAVE to use GUI to control a computer then you cannot automate stuff… And your OS is not 100% functional.
Ideally, there should only be a CLI. The GUI as a hand-made tool is obsolete and should be auto-generated on-the-fly by personal software agents.
In this way, a GUI could adapt to the users personality and preferences.
What bullshit. If a second system is to make the first obsolete, the second system would have to actually exist. There is no working GUI “auto-generated on-the-fly by personal software agents.”
There’s also a contradiction there. First you state there should only be a CLI. Then you state there should be a GUI generated by futuristic “personal software agents”
“Perl, Ruby, Java, Python are all languages, not Frameworks!
Proprietary Framework assures big corps that what they invest today will still work tomorrow, and that they will receive support for when things get more tricky.”
I consider them frameworks instead of just languages, because they are pretty useless without the provided APIs and other tools. They provide support for things like internationalization, networking, etc., which is what makes the languages productive. Doing abstract work with classes and arithmetic gets boring fast outside of a university.
It is also important to note that even J2EE is not a proprietary framework. Multiple companies implement it (BEA, IBM, etc.) and there are even OSS implementations (JBOSS, tomcat servlets, etc.).
In the past, truly proprietary frameworks do not last. How much are companies paying to support 1980s tech today (more than they would admit). How about even supporting 1990s Microsoft tech (MFC, COM, etc. etc. etc.), again, I don’t think people really want to admit it.
Will .NET (a propietary framework) even be around in 10 years? My bet is Microsoft will replace it with yet another better-than-sliced-bread fashion show by 2011.
In 2011, Java will have revved a couple times, but it’ll still be going strong. Sun has been a two platform company, Java and UNIX, and before Java they were just UNIX. Microsoft has at least Win9x/ME, WinNT/2000/XP/Longhorn, .NET, all their prior APIs, etc. UNIX code from twenty years ago will probably compile and run today, with at worst a couple tweaks, while a prior poster above admitted that even 10 year old Windows code is busted.
IMHO the biggest advantage of .NET is the coherent framework. Java is use many bigger and little FOSS technology: Hybernate, Struts, etc. You can’t do anything with java without any external stuff. And the future of this technologies are not too certain: there are many discontinued FOSS project. And under .NET you can develop both web based and ritch client with one framework without any external stuff.
The other things is the developer tools. Yes, Eclipse, Netbeans are free, but if you want a simple Web Matrix level tool for JSF you can’t find it for free, and the first useable stuff will more expensive then M$ Visual Studio.
1) If Sun went bankrupt tomorrow, Java would continue to exist. Lots of companies participate in the JCP, and there are competing implementations of the Java components. Java also works on Linux, Solaris, Mac OS, and others, in addition to Windows.
2) If Microsoft went bankrupt tomorrow, their platform would evaporate. It’s Windows only, it’s Microsoft only, it’s bound up by patents and trademark outside of C#.
If people think that Microsoft is some unshakable monster that will never die, well, Enron happened, WorldCom happened, etc. (meaning big companies can disappear _fast_ without warning). It doesn’t help that their credibility is wavering, Longhorn is suspect, they really have minimal diversification outside of software, Firefox is gaining traction, Linux is gaining traction, Mac OS is gaining traction, Sun and IBM seem to be pushing UNIX/Linux really hard, whole national governments are using Linux against Microsoft’s pricing models, OpenOffice.org is always improving, they can’t topple Google and Yahoo on the web, they can’t topple Sony in games, etc.
Even without going bankrupt, Microsoft’s relevance in the coming years is waning.
“If people think that Microsoft is some unshakable monster that will never die, well, Enron happened, WorldCom happened, etc. (meaning big companies can disappear _fast_ without warning). ”
This is a ridiculous comparison. Microsoft uses extremely conservative accounting and always have. They have %38 billion in cash. They could buy SUNW outright for cash three times over. They generate $10 billion in cash every year. MSFT has about the best financials of any company in the world.
Lots of wishful thinking going on here….
As I said it before, follow the money — and you will find out that the hottest venture capital investments are in black duck software type of companies — where they hunt down any offending gpl code in your proprietary software development.
If you follow the money — then it tells you that open source is dead.
My previous job was as a Systems Architect for one of the three largest oil companies in the world. I was responsible for all J2EE and .NET architectures. i now work for one of the three largest banks in the world with a similar responsibility. .NET is nowhere near what Microsoft said it would be at this point in either adoption or capabilities. It scales poorly, cannot handle large volume transactions, and is heavily tied to Microsoft OS’. Microsoft really blew their wad on this one because noone wants to be tied into one vendor anymore. The company I now work for does very, very high volume transactions and requires flexibility, scalability, and reliaiblity. .NET and Microsoft in general are a joke in this environment. Linux and Open source tools are not and are workng very well for us.
1. It is true. Java will survive without SUN. But the java class libraries are not enought to create useable application – you need other things, like hibernate, struts, etc. In the java classes you can’t find data-bound widgets in Swing or Swt, if you want this functionality you also need external stuff. The .NET IMHO more complete, all neccessary things in the framework, with integrated documentation, coherent class structure.
2. If M$ went bankrupt tomorrow, the .NET and Windows will survive. The 95% of client computers and at least 30% are uses windows. And this is not changed in the last 10 years. IMHO linux never will replace windows, but I can imagine the inverse: with the .NET the windows can kill linux on the server side. IMHO the windows always will be a good business.
Completely wrong!
It’s .NET that has no coherence.
SQL Serrver is .NET?
What the database server has to do with it?
In .net 1.0 there was only one server support – SQL Server
In .net 1.1 they added Oracle support…
Now guess what? You can’t make the application that works with both without a change of code!!! In one book there where an exampe how to do it:
if (server == oracle)
else // M$
:-))
Web container???
What IIS has to do with .net??? It’s a windows web server. Does it implemented in .net???
Security – Adios Passport…
Transaction – future .NET 2.0 … bright microsoft future…
Distributed protocol… .Net remoting which has no ANY security without IIS (using http 🙂
COM+ – hell, it’s a windows component system what has it to do with .net?
Visual Studio… Old visual studio… pathetic.
There is no technology calling .NET.
There is a big trademark for a bunch of Windows incoherent windows technologies.
Cheers.
I used Firebird with it’s .NET provider under .NET 1.1 and 2.0 beta without any problem.
>What IIS has to do with .net??? It’s a windows web server. Does it implemented in .net???
And it is a problem ? At this moment a native web server is faster then JVM or CLR based. It can change in the future, but at this moment IMHO it is more powerful.
>Visual Studio… Old visual studio… pathetic.
The NEW wisual studio IMHO the one of the best development environment.
>I used Firebird with it’s .NET provider under .NET 1.1 and 2.0 beta without any problem
OK. But can you change it to oracle without changing the code?
>At this moment a native web server is faster then JVM or CLR based
Have no idea if there is any CLR web servers, but there are Java web servers those actually faster than apache and IIS…
The question is: Once you have web server (iis) outside the VM you have a lot of communications between iis and jvm and those not cheap. Having the server running in the same VM as a framework (ASP.NET or Java) is more safe/robust/fast…
>The NEW wisual studio IMHO the one of the best development environment.
The NEW visual studio is still beta… Taking in account that Microsoft used to call beta – release we can talk about 2006/7 as a year of RELEASE and not 2005 🙂 Note that there are still plenty of bugs in VS 2003 .
Again taking in account that VS is a c++ development (mostly) you can expect that for every VS version cycle there are 3 versions for Netbeans/Eclipse/Idea… just because of using java.
Microsoft should have been starting c# visual studio several years ago to compete (eating it’s proper shit), now it’s to late.
I’m sure mutual pushing of big quantity of money could lead to not-so-bad .NET technology (finally it’s a rip of java), the only question how lon Microsoft can sell windows to oems before they migrate to linux (I’m not saying linux is better for home user, but 100$ when you sell PC for 500$ is MONEY and you can always ‘borrow’ the cd from your friend ;-).
Once Microsoft has a cut from Win/Office sells .NET is dead.
Regards
>OK. But can you change it to oracle without
>changing the code?
I can create database-independent code in .NET if I want. But because the relative big part of business logic coded to stored procedure in my applications the database-independency is not too important for me. Porting the firebird stored proc to oracle or M$ SQL is not a simple task…
>Have no idea if there is any CLR web servers,
There is a little ASP.NET server in written in C#.
>but there are Java web servers those actually faster than apache and IIS…
It is a little bit surprise for me, because IMHO the unmanaged C/C++ is faster then any existing JIT.
>Once you have web server (iis) outside the VM you have a lot of communications between iis and jvm and those not cheap.
IMHO it is depend on implementation.
>The NEW visual studio is still beta
Yes, but relative stable, at least for me.
>Again taking in account that VS is a c++ development
>(mostly) you can expect that for every VS version
>cycle there are 3 versions for
>Netbeans/Eclipse/Idea… just because of using java.
And because this tools are a little bit simpler things then VS (no visual editor for JSF, etc).
And IMHO the VS2k5 mostly written in managed code. It is good, but IMHO it is slower then 2k3 (but not slower then any javas based stuff, like Eclipse).
>the only question how lon Microsoft can sell
>windows to oems before they migrate to linux
Migrating to linux is not a simple thing. Most of users are uses windows and they don’t want to change. I develop a platform-independent business application. It is available for bot linux and windows (based on Kylix / Delphi7 CLX) and the most of users are uses windows.
>I’m not saying linux is better for home user,
>but 100$ when you sell PC for 500$ is MONEY and
>you can always ‘borrow’ the cd from your friend ;-).
Until you can download the security patches for the “borrowed” version ;-). And the D3D-based games aren’t run too good under linux. Wine is a relative good stuff, but a little bit unstable. And the biggest piece of cake the business user, the porting of existing applications, and writing competitive new apps without .NET and VS is not a simple thing.
>It is a little bit surprise for me, because IMHO the unmanaged C/C++ is faster then any existing JIT.
>IMHO it is depend on implementation.
Agree with both…
By now java is slower ~20% than WELL written c++ code (it could change soon, once jit implements all c++ optimisations like escape analysis).
The second problem, as you said, is implementation. I see many c++ programmers that have no time to optimise. From one point of view they claim c++ is faster, but then they have to reach timeline. The problem is that manager asks them to work at the speed of java programmer and in this conditions the code usually slower (IMHO).
>I can create database-independent code in .NET if I want.
Well, luck for you – I failed…
(And stored procedures is “not java way” 🙂
>… but relative stable, at least for me.
I haven’t worked with 2005 too much, but 2003 crashed 2 times a day everadge. Working 3 years with IDEA it had crashed once and I still think it was my fault.
>And because this tools are a little bit simpler things then VS (no visual editor for JSF, etc).
I can’t agree… If you mean a lot of bullshit (like VB, Managed C++ and so on) – maybe. But if we are talking about really necessary things like CVS (VSS is suxx at least in 2003. I read ‘the evel empire’ has a new version – hope so coz I’m SUFFER) what am I about… IDEA – I never seen better cvs integration (maybe eclipse :-)!!! And now they have RC1 with subversion!!! Visual editor – Netbeans has a good one (anyway better than VS). JSF – Visual creator and oracle is getting close (as well as many other like nitro). Here the problem is that JSF is more complicated – VS only has to map one ASP page to one c# class and… fails to do it!!! if I add some custom css it can …reformat(remove) it just after reopening the project. Again it generates the html for IE and Firefox is >10% here in Europe.
>It is good, but IMHO it is slower then 2k3 (but not slower then any javas based stuff, like Eclipse).
Any doesn’t mean Eclipse 🙂
When Swing was slow like a snail IBM have chosen SWT instead of helping SUN with it. Now java community pays for it… :-(((
I tried IDEA 5 (beta) and it super fast!!! IMHO Idea 4.5 is faste than VS 2003
Swing promises to be 30% faster in Mustang so…
>Until you can download the security patches for the “borrowed” version 😉
I this case I have Fedora4 🙂
>Migrating to linux is not a simple thing.
Agree. I’m migrating 7 years 🙂
>…and writing competitive new apps without .NET and VS is not a simple thing.
I bet for Mustang + Exelsior Jet
Best Regards