Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

.Net:... 3 Years Later

CmdrTaco posted more than 11 years ago | from the where-do-we-go-from-here dept.

Microsoft 906

Ashcrow writes "EWeek has posted an article on Microsoft's .NET initiative. It's been three years since we were first introduced to .NET and virtually none of the promised advantages have come true. Is it time for Microsoft to move on?"

cancel ×

906 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What about .VOMIT? (-1)

I VOMIT ON TODDLERS! (642865) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390093)

For the toddlers!

YOU NAILED IT! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390281)

I think you are doing a remarkable job! I wish others would learn from your example.

Yes (3, Interesting)

mrmez (585359) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390098)

I'm quite pleased to have been able to move from ASP to PHP in the past three years - although at least .Net seems better than the options which preceeded it.

Re:Yes (4, Interesting)

xThinkx (680615) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390168)

I agree, as a Penn State Student I have worked with both .NET and Unix/PHP/Perl/Apache environments. Without a doubt, the latter of the two was far superior in every aspect, INCLUDING EASE OF USE. PHP has got to be the easiest freakin language ever, and Apache trumps IIS with the ability to do the majority of configuring with one file, instead of having to browse through a maze of tabbed windows with options, checkboxes, pop-up boxes, etc.

Without a doubt, the only reasons to use .NET would be if (a), you already have a Microsoft solution and for some reason you want to keep it, or (b), you fall to marketing hype.

Oh yeah, did I forget to mention STABILITY and SECURITY...

.Net was never clearly defined (5, Insightful)

cait56 (677299) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390237)

Three years in and I believe it is fair to say that most people do not understand exactly what .Net is -- other than a vague "trust me" monolithic solution.

Which I believe is the core of its problem. While there are some fools who will buy anything that fill in the name of their favorite supplier offers, more of the market wants to make decisions for themelves.

From the little I've had time to study .Net, there were a few aspects of it that were indeed superior to what had proceeded it on the market. But the information to make a cohesive strategy was just missing. What if I liked the characteristics of the run-time engine, but needed to stick with CORBA interfacing?

The most telling flaw in the strategy, for me, was that you could find entire racks of books on .Net. But absolutely none that explained the basic wire protocols used. They were all "How to Program a .Net application inside one box using language Y".

When I'm designing a system, the language used on each box is the last detail that I consider. I want to understand the interactions of the remote systems, how dependent they are on each other, how they evolve seperately, how the failure of one will affect the others, etc.

Re:.Net was never clearly defined (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390261)

Why not buy a book on .NET Remoting, then? Or Web Services, if that's a better solution for you? Or use your old COM libraries to interface to CORBA if you really must? All this stuff is simple to do and there are many many books on it.

Re:.Net was never clearly defined (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390289)

Good idea but it'd never work. Your solution would require the anti-MS zealots to actually learn something about that which they bash so often.

So much... (2, Interesting)

BigumD (219816) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390099)

... for "betting the company" on .Net. I mean, they're still here, right?

Re:So much... (4, Funny)

mgs1000 (583340) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390236)

"Double or nuthin'?" - Steve Balmer

nah... (5, Funny)

wza (635250) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390103)

Is it time for Microsoft to move on?

nah, it's time Microsoft to move over...

Re:nah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390114)

nah, it's time Microsoft to move over...

I second the motion.

Re:nah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390139)

third

Re:nah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390175)

microsoft's operating system business has begun to die.
2004 will be the year where they suffer the most.
by 2010, the majority of desktop computers will run off a non-ms operating system.

Re:nah... (1)

ShadeARG (306487) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390292)

With so many AC's posting, it's surprising /. hasn't implemented a visible hash to tell them apart..

Well... (2, Insightful)

Bob McCown (8411) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390112)

Is it time for Microsoft to move on?

Yes, its time for them to move on. But they won't. They have an idea, and will force it down everyone's throat until they get their way.

Re:Well... - you forgot one huge point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390136)

> They have an idea, and will force it down everyone's throat until they get their way.

AND it'll cost ya!

Re:Well... (0, Flamebait)

ClubStew (113954) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390215)

You mean like linux junkies that try to cram linux down everyone's throat as the be-all, end-all solution to everything? Sorry, people aren't buying it.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390219)

that image on those t-shirts was not created by you and therefore you do not own the copyright. i am contacting cafepress immediatly and hopefully your account will be terminated by this afternoon.

just a powerful windows scripting environment (0, Funny)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390117)

as well as a new API for compiled applications. big deal. all I can say is...woo hoo they finaly found something that can replace Basic!!!

Seems to me (2, Interesting)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390118)

that most of the .Net technology is still there in some shape of form but its the Marketing strategy that has failed miserably

Re:Seems to me (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390169)

" that most of the .Net technology is still there in some shape of form but its the Marketing strategy that has failed miserably"

You've got is backwards. .Net is a marketing strategy - they're still figuring it out. The technology will happen if they do figure it out. Else, it'll die out like Hailstorm.

Reality is quite nice though (4, Insightful)

mccalli (323026) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390123)

The marketing hype surrounding .Net evaporated, true. However as a means of developing for Windows in virtual machine which supports multiple languages, the actually technology is still going strong.

And so it should - it's better than the alternatives which preceded it. It's just important to divorce the .Net marketing cloud from the actual technology on the ground.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Reality is quite nice though (0, Troll)

metamatic (202216) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390222)

And you would want to develop for Windows using a virtual machine because...?

Let's see... worse performance, no improved security because we're talking Microsoft here, no cross-platform capability... yup, sounds like a winner.

Re:Reality is quite nice though (1, Flamebait)

ClubStew (113954) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390267)

See, you linux junkies don't really know crap about MS, do you? In most cases, the CLR out-performs native Win32 because of better heap management, caching, and other little things here and there. And there will be cross-platform compatibility once linux developers finish Mono.

If anything that runs on a VM is slow - it's Java. It has to JIT everything before running it while the CLR JITs on demand and it even does that faster!

Only 3 years... (2, Insightful)

sc00ch (254070) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390125)

I'm not pro .net at all and i don't really know much about it to be honest.<br>
But i think its crazy to judge something is big as .net in this way.<br>
If something doesn't 'take off' in 3 years time it's now a failure? Lets not be silly...

Re:Only 3 years... (1)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390225)

Just how long do you expect the world to wait?

Re:Only 3 years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390269)

How long is the world supposed to wait for Linux to take off?

In Soviet Russia... (4, Funny)

gowen (141411) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390127)

it's called .nyet

Re:In Soviet Russia... (3, Funny)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390258)

You've had that one waiting in the wings for months now haven't you?

Heh. Dr Pepper tastes funny after going through your nose. Yuck.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390304)

that would be njet, not nyet

You are kidding, right? (2, Funny)

PhysicsGenius (565228) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390128)

If you use Linux you obviously won't see the benefits of .NET, maybe that's why you guys haven't seen it. But the improvements have been manifold, let me give you some examples from my own network, which is .NETified:

1) We have single-source logons for all users, even if they migrate workstations.

2) Users can access their apps and data from anywhere on the network, even offsite.

3) Ping times have halved.

4) You wouldn't believe our uptime, sometimes we go for weeks without rebooting.

5) The TCO is 1/10th of what it was and we've been able to reduce our IT staff (maybe this is the real reason the /. readership hates .NET?).

Your trolling is getting pretty stale, PG. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390158)

I'd stick with trolling the physics stuff at least.

I don't see how the parent is a troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390181)

He's giving real world data, these are indisputable facts.

I know K5 is down and all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390212)

so I'd hope that D..., er, PG's trolling would be better since he has more time to focus on what he posts here. Just a thought. I just hoped for better quality than that (and your troll is much the lamer).

IHNBT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390253)

Who is this? (Also, I'm working. Which means IHBT after all.)

It should be patently obvious that I am (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390274)

rusty. Truth be told, I spilled some monocle polish on the MySQL server. I'd clean it up now but I got yacht lessons later today. K5 will be back then.

Troll explained (4, Informative)

metamatic (202216) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390248)

1, 2 and 4 are things UNIX has been able to offer for years.

3 is highly dubious. What's the connection between SOAP, virtual machines, and ping times?

5 is pure Microsoft marketing--look at their ads. Fact is, time after time independent analysis shows that TCO is lower for non-Microsoft solutions, both closed and open source.

Re:Troll explained (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390295)

1,2, and 4 have existed in Windows since NT 4. To analyze his post point by point is a waste. He is a troll plain and simple. A moderator how wasn't smoking crack would see right through it.

Re:You are kidding, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390177)

you jokeing... right??

Re:You are kidding, right? (0, Troll)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390254)

Most people that have poo-poohed the stability of Microsoft's platform haven't:
  • Tried a professional or better version; there's a reason they cost more even if they don't run that CGA poker game you copied off of someone else in high school
  • Gone through the training necessary (i.e., read a book) to install and maintain Windows in a work or enterprise environment
  • Used the stable of tools designed to ease and enhance deployment of Windows technologies -- Windows Terminal Server, Norton Ghost, etc
The fact is, one can choose between the compatibility offered by many Free operating systems and the tuned performance of Windows much as one can choose between a SUV and a racecar -- but if you can't operate a racecar it's probably better to go with the SUV.

Re:You are kidding, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390207)

"We go for WEEKS without rebooting". Hahaha. Weeks, impressive. Try uptimes of about 700 days or better, that is what you should compare against !

Re:You are kidding, right? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390209)

Obviously moderators have no clue what .NET even is because it has nothing to do with what he is talking about. The only part of .NET that exists now is the programming framework. I highly doubt that his "ping" times have been halved because he use C#. Even a moderator with a slight knowledge of computers will realize that ping time has nothing to do with the OS.

Re:You are kidding, right? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390259)

Even a moderator with a slight knowledge of computers will realize that ping time has nothing to do with the OS.

Depends... ping time is usually measured from just before you call send() until you complete your recv() to receive your ping back. Factors such as poor TCP/IP stacks, kernel design, and load on your system can effect the timings (as far as internal factors).

Re:You are kidding, right? (2, Informative)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390263)

PhysicsGenius is known for these sorts of posts. He posts brilliant, well-written trolls. But they're still trolls. Read his posting history sometime.

Re:You are kidding, right? (3, Insightful)

linuxci (3530) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390226)

Sounds like MS Marketing BS, but 1 and 2 are possible on most UNIX systems, Linux and pre-.net versions of Windows, so that's not new.

Why would .net affect ping times? If it did, was this compared to older versions of Windows, Linux or Solaris?

A few weeks uptime is nothing to brag about [netcraft.com] .

As for total cost of ownership, it's always a case of your mileage will vary, it depends on where your staff has most skills. Personally I consider maintaining unix systems a lot easier and a lot less effort so that would cut down the TCO in that case. Get a bunch of McSE's and the results would be different, as would getting someone with an equal balanced knowledge in windows and unix.

Re:You are kidding, right? (1)

youaredan (668702) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390232)

*a dark figure glides across the void, and stops behind a tree... He tilts up his cap slightly, and the light of a nearby street-lamp glint in his eyes devilishly.* And another figure shows up with a big ass suitcase and pays him off. I wonder if there is truth to the reality that people can feel compelled to support thier corporate masters while employed... If you would normally use BSD/Linux - but are bound and gagged in the Win32 closet, why then stand up for it? I've worked for many companies. and the Unix staff has _always_ been at least a quarter the size of the Windows staff... even in companies using unix desktops across half the company! Why would the typical /. reader care if Win32 layoffs are due to .NET? Take that flag to the ZDNet/PCWorld pole. Your shackles must ache.

Re:You are kidding, right? (2, Informative)

AshPattern (152048) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390239)

Huh. Sounds like 1) yp, 2) xwindows, 3) lack of outlook viruses, 4) linux or bsd, and 5) open source

Good thing to know MS technology is on the forefront of innovation.

Re:You are kidding, right? (0)

xThinkx (680615) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390242)

1) We have single-source logons for all users, even if they migrate workstations. 2) Users can access their apps and data from anywhere on the network, even offsite. 3) Ping times have halved. 4) You wouldn't believe our uptime, sometimes we go for weeks without rebooting.

On my linux network I have all those things, except my ping times are still half of what they are on my m$ network (yes I have 2 networks, one MS, one *ix), and you can replace weeks with months or possibly years (for my simple fileserver) for reboot times.

Really and truthfully, a well-managed .NET network will of course outperform that of a previous m$ network. However, a the same effort put into a unix/linux network will produce far better results, Microsoft just doesn't have it where it counts (efficiency) for servers

Re:You are kidding, right? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390243)

1) We have single-source logons for all users, even if they migrate workstations.

2) Users can access their apps and data from anywhere on the network, even offsite.

3) Ping times have halved.

4) You wouldn't believe our uptime, sometimes we go for weeks without rebooting.


Funny we dont have .net and we have most of this...

1 - Windows has had this for decades... it's call domain login model.

2 - Roming profiles... had that cince NT 4.0 here..

3 - we cut ping times to .01 by simply upgrading the crap networking equipment and beating the hell out of users that listen to streaming radio station audio of stations that ARE IN THE AREA and can be recieved on a $5.00 clock radio!

4 - NT4 and W2K on decent hardware maintained by competent IT will go 2 years on a server and at least 2-3 months on a workstation...

so what did you gain by .NET? we don't have .NET and have better than thou.

Re:You are kidding, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390246)

Umm how the hell did .Net reduce your ping times?

Re:You are kidding, right? (1)

Cassius105 (623098) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390255)

"4) You wouldn't believe our uptime, sometimes we go for weeks without rebooting."

hehe
is that surposed to be impressive? :P

Re:You are kidding, right? (2, Funny)

mgs1000 (583340) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390256)

I would love to have a .net enabled ping utility!

Re:You are kidding, right? (5, Insightful)

Michael Hunt (585391) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390265)

You, Sir, are a troll :)

Albeit, a very good troll in that you ALMOST had me going until I read point 4. Upon rereading your other points:

1) 'Single-source logons' are a function of AD/Kerberos under 2000/2003. In a corporate environment, they give you all the benefits you're claiming that .net does. The '.net passport' stuff hasn't really taken off (is anybody apart from hotmail and msn using it?)

2) How does this have anything to do with .net? Remote access is a function of authentication (AD/KDC as above in a 2000/3 environment) and security (leased line or 'VPN'.) .net has nothing to do with the latter part of the equation.

3) Since the various .net RPC mechanisms use a more verbose protocol than traditional MS/DCE RPC calls, I fail to see how this could be the case, unless you're using the 9/10 of your TCO saved in (5) to buy bigger pipes.

4) My windows 2000 servers at work usually only get a reboot when someone installs a hotfix. Since the patch lifecycle is test->uat->production, we have ample warning for this. Uptime, on average, is around 5-6 months. These machines are everything from AD controllers supporting thousands of users, to RDP/MS TS boxes with 50-odd users each.

5) correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't .net more expensive, being subscription based? I realise that this isn't the whole of the TCO equation, but windows servers are windows servers, and no amount of point and click window dressing is going to reduce the amount of manpower required to run systems well.

I'm no Windows apologist (check my posting history,) but surely your argument is bunk :P

IHBT. IHL. HAND.

Re:You are kidding, right? (2, Interesting)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390266)

1) We have single-source logons for all users, even if they migrate workstations.

Then you don't have AS400s, Legacy applications or Unix then ? .NET is certainly improving the Windows world, but this is a limited part of the .NET vision.

2) Users can access their apps and data from anywhere on the network, even offsite.

All their apps ? Or just the PIM ones in Outlook and the new development. Is that offsite access transactionally secure (i.e. not using Web Services)

3) Ping times have halved

This one confuses me. Are you telling me that the network traffic has been REDUCED by using .NET ? This is strange as .NET is more network intensive. Or do you mean response times ?

You wouldn't believe our uptime, sometimes we go for weeks without rebooting

Oh hang on its a troll isn't it by a Linux dude... I mean come on, anyone who can't keep a Windows box with a mean-time between failure of over a month is a cretin.

5) The TCO is 1/10th of what it was and we've been able to reduce our IT staff (maybe this is the real reason the /. readership hates .NET?).

Then they should REALLY hate AS400s and OS/390s and Sun's N1 architecture which have a support cost several hundred times as good at a fraction of the price. .Net DOES have some great features, and DOES have some points to recommend it. The Mobility area is one part that MS have clearly thought about.

But in comparison with J2EE it suffers on several levels, the biggest of which is that J2EE is a standard adopted by all of the other big guys, and is the one that most enterprise vendors are moving towards, SAP for instance. .NET is an expansion of the Outlook/Exchange model that has served MS so well (as an aside, the thing that MS probably fear most is a really good open source version of Exchange). .NET is not crap, but the reasons you have given are not the reasons.

Re:You are kidding, right? (1)

elodan (601886) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390288)

No no no.
You've been misled - you've actually installed Linux....

Why is it that MS is only now catching up with what's been available in UN*X-based (and other) systems for many years?

I can do all this stuff on a Linux network, without paying onerous annual dues to Microsoft. To us, these aren't benefits, they're what we're used to. Why pay more (TM)?

Re:You are kidding, right? (1)

jalet (36114) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390307)

1 - Was already the case before with NT
2 - Web apps ? What is new with this ?
3 - You are joking. Nothing to do with .Net or thing s like that. It only depends on the TCP/IP (ICMP) protocol implementation, not on what is "above" the kernel
4 - Whoohoo !
5 - Any link to a report with real numbers ?

New MS project announced! (4, Funny)

Dark Lord Seth (584963) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390129)

It's called "Microsoft Passport"! I thought it sounded familiar but when I asked, they waved their hands at me and said "This project is new..." so it has to be! Can you imagine the advantages? Logging into hotmail automagically using MS Passport, using Passport as some sort of all-round login system... Heck, you can even use MS Passport as an instant messenging system! Wow!

Yesterday's news (2, Interesting)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390134)

MS already is moving on - note "Windows Server 2003" (no .NET), and the broader term "web services" has taken over...

Re:Yesterday's news (1)

botzi (673768) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390217)

Yeah right.....and if you have read the article or any of the statements made by MS regarding this "renaming", you'd have seen that what you wrote is nothing more than:

Linux already is moving on - note "Mandrake Linux" (no GNU)....

Whatever....Not naming it .NET is simply a move by MS, insisting on the fact that the platfomr is already so "deeply"(their words) integrated that there's no need to mention it...

Time to move on? (3, Funny)

bgarcia (33222) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390135)

Is it time for Microsoft to move on?"
Yes. After 3 years, they should be coming up with some new innovative idea that they will bet the company on <rolls eyes>.

Hey, at least they are consistent - give them that (1, Troll)

youaredan (668702) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390137)

Awwww... give big huge microsoft a breaky-waky... im just like 10, i can't really be relied on... my balls haven't even dropped yet... sheesh.

Emperor's New Clothes test... (2, Funny)

jkrise (535370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390142)

Kid: But there's nothing on .Net!!!
Joe ServicePack: I think only wise folks can u'stand .Net
MCSE: .Net rocks
GNUist: .Net? .Not..
Microsoft: We're betting our ass.
IBM: Your ass is grass.
Sun: Java's the way.

Re:Emperor's New Clothes test... (0, Flamebait)

Lord_Slepnir (585350) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390298)

Microsoft: We're betting our ass.

Unlike a lot of companies out there, Microsoft doesn't bet everything on one product. Even if .net were to suddenly evaporate, Microsoft still has a lot going for it. A fairly stable OS that will run on a majority of hardware (I have yet to find a distro of linux that won't mess up on my IBM laptop after about 2 weeks of running or will recognize all of my USB stuff on my desktop properly on install).

I might have read you wrongly. However, I can tell you that the land around Redmond, Washington is very bad for Donkey grazing, so I doubt they have an ass to bet.

You also forgot the following:
SCO: .Net is infringing on our unix patent by providing a 'user' a way to 'logon'. We demand 11 bizilliondy dollars. Cash.
Slashdot reader: .NET IS HOW BILLGAT~1 IS GOING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!1111 IT SUX0RZ NE WAY!!!!11

NO tolerance for standards wars (4, Insightful)

mekkab (133181) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390145)

GM's Scott issued a strong warning to Microsoft, Sun and the other players in the Web services industry, that enterprises will not tolerate the standards wars of the past. "We have no appetite for it," he said

Exactly, so he and everybody else is sitting back and waiting for a clear winner with mature functionality to materialize.
In other words, he's saying "Screw .net, let some other schmuck take the cost of developing it. WE got screwed on ISO networking and Token ring! Twice bitten, 3 times shy!"

What? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390146)

virtually none of the promised advantages have come true
What nonsense. I use .NET every day and it has delivered all of its promised advantages.

whats to see? (2, Funny)

chef_raekwon (411401) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390147)

Is it time for Microsoft to move on?"

move along...nothing to see here.....

It takes insight to notice these things take time. (5, Insightful)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390161)

Very few of today's Internet standards were recognized even within three years as standards. Usenet took seven before it became ubiquitous, IRC took at least four (with DCC still not part of the spec), and even the WWW took six. Remember, it was fundamentally a revision of Gopher technologies, which in turn were an iteration of something else (Archie?)

Most of .NET was puffery, to be sure (I read a piece on MSDN more or less admitting this), but that's largely because it was a working title given to a number of next-generation technologies that may or may not pan out, many of which haven't been released. You can't really consider C# or Hailstorm to have been around and competing for three years, can you?

fun with fud. (5, Insightful)

x0n (120596) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390163)

Woe betides us once more: brace yourselves for another flood of misinformed, biased and downright incorrect assertions from both sides of the fence. Please, no "c# is java", ".net is slower than java" or other such empty statements. If you've worked with .NET for 6 months plus (remoting/asp.net/interop/ado.net), great. We welcome your comments. Perl monkeys need not apply.

Likewise for you "java" programmers out there who in actuality have only ever compiled one applet, and it was a recompilation of a decompiled shareware scroller that you removed the copyright notice from. Well done. On the other hand, if you've solid experience developing beans, rmi and other such projects, we also welcome your comments.

The rest of you shut up and learn.

Rant over.

- Oisin

Hyperlinking frenzy (4, Funny)

palad1 (571416) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390164)

Hi,
I am all for html [w3.org] hyperlinks but I think I can find Eweek's website [eweek.com] , as well as microsoft's [microsoft.com] website and its dot net [microsoft.com] section, especially after three years.

Of course I know, I wouldn't be bothered if I didn't try to read the article [eweek.com] . Who reads the articles on slashdot [slashdot.org] anyways?

What about Linux (4, Insightful)

fudgefactor7 (581449) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390171)

All the Linux vendors out there pretty much said that they were going to take over about 3 years ago too...is it time for them to move on as well?

Re:What about Linux (2)

wza (635250) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390268)

I think it's safe to say that Linux has been doing a very good job in taking over considering the fact that it went from a joke to a threat for the Redmonds during the last three years...

hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390174)

"...none of the promised advantages have come true..."

surprise !

all about the Benjamins (5, Insightful)

AssFace (118098) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390178)

say the words "dot net" and you get to add so much to the cost of projects that it immediately makes it worth it to switch over.

that is the only reason I could see why .NET might ever catch on.
I'm not saying it is a useless bit of technology, I'm just personally partial to using any number of existing technologies that do the same thing and are cheaper to implement.

my current employer is retarded when it comes to computers and they paid someone to do a very basic web project in "dot net" because there was a general misunderstanding in the difference between the domain and the programming structures.

In the end it cost them a ton and now it is costing them more to maintain. I am trying to get them to port it all over to a much lighter system (php on linux or freebsd), but they are currently not interested.

's GOOD (3, Insightful)

joynt (686645) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390180)

I'm not afraid to admit it, I like .net. My job has become a whole lot easier, taking projects that could have taken weeks and turning them into days. ADO .net was my best friend last month and c# was my mistress. My company is re-doing just about everything as a web service and .net is making it that much easier. The fact that Visual Studio makes everything so easy just takes the load off of our extremely tiny R&D group which is relied on for every single technical question/project/advice. Maybe .net isnt all that it could have been, but it is great tool for any developer... unless you dont have windows, then I guess your just screwed.

they have ZERO chance (-1, Troll)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390187)

everyone else has been ther and are doing it their way and better.

php4 blows microsofts lame .NET (rebranded visual basic) for site scripting so far out of the water it absolutely stinks. you can code in php4 faster and better than VB.NET and the learning curve for php4 is shorter. as well as having tons more online resources.

Microsoft has no chance... why should I pay big $$$ for their solution when I can save tens of thousands and get a better solution for free and recieve better support??

Re:they have ZERO chance (1)

Sinjun (176671) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390290)

So very many things wrong with this statement.

First, .NET is NOT "rebranded VB". .NET isn't even a program language, rather a development platform.

Also, there is no cost to use .NET, only to use the development tools Microsoft produces. Hell, use the sdk that they give out for free.

I can't personally comment with complete confidence on php, as I have only used it sparingly. But from what I've seen, at least in terms of development time, any .NET web dev technology would be far faster to develop any decent sized site.

You might want to use the .NET technologies, and get a better understanding of what it is, before you start making comments.

Re:they have ZERO chance (3, Informative)

Malc (1751) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390305)

Have you actually developed ASP.Net pages? It doesn't sound like it. It's certainly not restricted to rebranded Visual Basic. It's language neutral. I've worked with some developed with C#. Visual Studio .Net is an excellent tool too... it's fantastic for debugging multiple binary and scripting processes, and stepping almost transparently straight in to database stored procedures and then back out to the web page. PHP4 might be good, but the current ASP.Net and its supporting tools are pretty good too. You have to pick the right tools for the right job, and sometimes that means ASP.Net rather than PHP4.

morons trying to get some of their monIE back (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390188)

gooed lock on that won.

lookout bullow. the daze of the Godless payper liesense stock markup execrable, is WANing into coolapps.

consult with/trust yOUR creator. vote with yOUR wallet. that's the spirit.

.Net a complete success (5, Insightful)

tanguyr (468371) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390191)

.Net was (and still is) a marketing ploy to counter the sudden gains in mindspace being made first by Sun with J2EE and later by "web services" in general. Judging from the fact that most PHBs have heard about it it seems to have worked quite well - the fact that they (or, it seems, almost anybody) have no idea what it does it besides the point. As long as MS is still getting column inches ("comparing .Net to Crack Cocaine" or whatever) then it's working for them just fine, thanks. This isn't anything new - MS practically invented the word "vapourware" back in the 90's. I'm not saying .Net does nothing, i'm saying that the engineers got there after the marketing department and the advertising budget.

/t

What did you expect? (2, Interesting)

Advocadus Diaboli (323784) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390193)

I mean, did in all the years of Microsoft history ever a promise come true?

Microsofts business model is based on not fulfilling the promises they make, otherwise nobody would ever need to buy a new product. And of course its much easier to have a vision than to make this vision become reality.

And is there anybody that really remembers the promises they made 3 years ago? People are so used to get screwed by Microsoft that they don't even memorize the things that will never come true. All I personally remember of that .net thing is that even 3 years ago people were saying that this is just a big vapoware thing.

It can do most of what they say... (2, Insightful)

ClubStew (113954) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390195)

The only problem is that they've made the damn IDE too simple and now every Tom, Dick, and Sally thinks they can program. Writing code and actually developing applications are vastly different.

With XML Web Services (granted, not MS proprietary) and Remoting, .NET make remote procedure calls somewhat easier.

If Mono ever finishes, the platform-specific CLR can run most code. Even though Java's done it for a long time, you're tied to one language: Java. The .NET class library can be used by any language that targets the CLR - and that's quite a few; so any developer can write for .NET.

If the industry could actually start hiring good developers again instead of brain-dead code monkeys who's jobs at McD's got too tedious and their sole purpose for coding is more money, the field of .NET - not to mention a lot of other projects on any platform - would be much better. Who's to blame is all those middle managers out there that hire two code monkeys for the price of one good developer. At least they get what they pay for.

Re:It can do most of what they say... (1)

BigGerman (541312) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390276)

don't forget C# - it is a dumbed-down Java but sure is nice to program.
The way C# handles XML (for example, serializing Objects to XML and "resurrecting" them later) is very good. This is not easy in Java (Castor is only thing that comes close).
Same for Web Services.
I did not do any ASPX but I have heard it is much nicer than JSP (even with Struts).
With C# being an international standard and Mono well on the way, I think .Net is a good thing and will be moderately successfull.

Re:It can do most of what they say... (4, Funny)

GrantZ (607419) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390282)

Absolutely!

I am a software engineer and have written apps in Java, VB, and PERL. I have a friend who has been an M$ developer for about 5 years, and just called me a month or 2 ago to let me know that there is this thing called "design patterns" ... just for .Net. There is some M$ website that apparently broke the lid open on the concept of patterns this year (don't know URL). Of course, so did Christopher Alexander in the late 70's, and over 100 others since then... but M$ didn't endorse them until this year. My friend is cool and all, but the general software engineering ignorance was staggering.

.Net (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390196)

At least it's doing slightly better than GNU/Hurd.

Question (5, Funny)

pubjames (468013) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390198)


Has anybody worked out what it is yet?

Re:Question (2, Funny)

__past__ (542467) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390277)

A cheap trick to get around the limitation that there are only 17576 TLAs.

.NET was a success, Microsoft-style (3, Interesting)

shoppa (464619) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390200)

By announcing .NET as vaporware, Microsoft prevented any other vendors from doing anything similar. Not only that, but because ".NET" was going to be The Next Big Thing, they prevented other software houses from making any sales of existing working software while everyone waited for .NET to come along.

This is hardly a new strategy for Microsoft. And in the .NET case they succeeded on a collosal scale.

Advantages only for MS. (1)

grub (11606) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390220)


...virtually none of the promised advantages have come true

.NET was announced when it was still just an idea to counter the growing Java threat. Announce then design; that's MS' way of countering a perceived combatant.. err.. competitor. The world holds back on the competition as the Might MS FUD Machine has announced something that will cure cancer, clean your windows and leave your breath minty fresh.

Speaking for myself (5, Insightful)

m00nun1t (588082) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390230)

As a pretty experienced web developer, I've worked at some level (some more than others) with most of the popular platforms: ASP, PHP, Cold Fusion, JSP and ASP.NET (very little perl, which I've always regretted if just for completeness).

From that perspective, ASP.NET just totally rocks my world. I can debug more easily. Performance is better. It encourages good architectural practices. And my productivity has gone through the roof - I haven't done any formal tests but based on personal experience I'd say I can develop at *least* 30% faster with ASP.NET compared to any other platform, possibly more. The difference is most pronounced in more complex systems where it really shines. For less than, say, a thousand lines of code it probably doesn't save as much time, but I rarely work on that anyway.

So, maybe .NET has "failed" and maybe not, but for me, ASP.NET has improved my working world radically. Don't knock it till you've tried it.

Re:Speaking for myself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390310)

and you are astroturfing. we all know it.

Yes. (1)

Kai_MH (632216) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390247)

It's time to move on. Microsoft needs to concentrate more on their operating system's security rather than a stupid internet framework that never took off. Sure, it's interwoven with some of their later OSes, but it's crap. Move on.

Move On? Hardly (1, Interesting)

grennis (344262) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390249)

Look at the job postings on Monster [monster.com] or ComputerJobs [computerjobs.com] .

Roughly half the jobs listed in Windows want at least some .NET or C# experience. The majority of the others are J2EE/Java.

This article is just more FUD. There is no doubt that .NET, and ASP.NET in particular (aspx pages) is the future of software development on Windows - on Linux also, if you believe Mono [go-mono.com] ...

From "Great" to old ideas (1)

Gads (566341) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390251)

I was in the audience of one of the .Net Presentation some months ago... I must admit I was quite impressed by Web Services, OO, Program Once/Run Anywhere, etc... But, Web Services are absolutely not related to .Net, even if it's marketed as such (J2EE Business in the target... say hello!! :) ). C# is interesting but too much inspired by Java... nothing so new or useful at this time. This f*****g CLR is not portable, because old .COM is included in! And finally ASP.NET is lol! It could be great, if you keep your eyes closed , and whisper... but it sucks.

It's like neocons and Clinton (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390279)

Don't you guys think it time to move on? .Net is not the everything that Microsoft wanted it to be and that's fine. Passport sucks but the Net environment kicks ass for development. I think the haters need to move on.

That's what they said about Windows CE (2, Insightful)

cloudscout (104011) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390285)

Remember when Windows CE had been out for a couple of years and everyone was declaring it a failed technology? Look what happened after that...

Now, I'm not saying that .NET is still bound to be a success, but it's still too early to count 'em out. We're not talking about BOB here.

java (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390299)

It's been ten years since we were first introduced to java and virtually none of the promised advantages have come true. Is it time for Sun to move on?

Good Intentions (0)

klupo (515382) | more than 11 years ago | (#6390303)

Microsoft's intentions were good -- get everybody using the same runtime environment and libraries, but their execution was poor, .net was surrounded by a cloud of "what is it?" and "how does it work?". They should have spent more time explaining what it is and how it works and less on "look it's like magic".

.NET = Windows API 2.0 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6390308)

.NET has little to do with anything .NET. It's a new Windows API designed to turn Windows into a virtual machine like Java so it can be architecture independent. That's what CLR and C# and all the rest of that stuff is about. It's about MS getting off x86-32 and into a larger world of ia64, amd64, and maybe even ppc64. CLR is the new Windows runtime. Once the move is complete, Windows will be able to run on anything and apps will not have to be recompiled at all. This will make Windows more portable than *nix.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>