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!

Changing Climates for Microsoft and Google

Hemos posted more than 7 years ago | from the a-path-to-the-future dept.

The Internet 393

ReadWriteWeb writes "Weather metaphors abound as this article looks at the evolving software environment — and in particular the competition between Microsoft and Google. Milan says that while Google enjoys relative dominance on the Web platform today, two fissures exist that will force them to move. The first is Microsoft's ability to use the exact same HTML based strategy as Google (like Microsoft's current Live initiative); and secondly Microsoft leapfrogging the current environment by solving rich application installation/un installation and enforcing an acceptable contract regarding what rich apps can do on a user's machine. Unfortunately for Google, Microsoft is a lot closer to solving these two issues than people think. Microsoft has the best virtual machine with .NET, the best development tool with Visual Studio and the best access to developers with their MSDN programs. And they have a notion. Steve Ballmer himself has started touting the exact strategy they need — Click Once and Run."

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

and Google has ... (2, Insightful)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100240)

... respect.

Re:and Google has ... (3, Insightful)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100362)

That they do have respect.

The nice letter to the guy developing the google-map data interface was a great show. And no C&D, just asking nicely.

Im always amazed at companies acting ethically.

google is (2, Insightful)

everphilski (877346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100412)

An advertizing company with a search engine [and other tools] to drive traffic to its advertizements.

Re:google is (2, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100540)

It didn't start off that way, well as far as I remember, but still.. what's not to respect about a company that does its job well, and in an unobtrusive (compared to all the crappy flash ads and banners we have these days) way? Not that I usually look at the google ads either. In fact I think they're being blocked completely now with an ad blocker..

Reductionist (4, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100622)

An advertizing company with a search engine [and other tools] to drive traffic to its advertizements.

Google's goal is to make information available and useful to people. They do so through a variety of means, and currently their profit model is based on advertising. It's tempting to reduce companies down to soundbytes, but it's not really useful for understanding how they operate or what they'll do in the future.

Re:and Google has ... (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100468)

Yes they do, until their applications stop running. People aren't going to blame MSFT for their Google apps not working. They're going to blame Google. "It's Google's responsibility to make sure our stuff works on the MSFT platform. Not the other way around."

People want their computers to run fast and easy. Aside from that, there are very few people that care how that is accomplished. So, if MSFT ensures that their computers are doing just that, they will have happier customers.

MSFT has been known to make sure that certain applications do not run w/o changes on their OS and if you think that they won't do anything in their power to shut Google out, you're sadly mistaken.

Re:and Google has ... (1)

Jim_Maryland (718224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100944)

People aren't going to blame MSFT for their Google apps not working. They're going to blame Google.

This would be true if everyone is upgraded at the same time. If person "A", who recently upgraded hardware/OS to MS Vista, has a problem with a common application, they are very likely to talk to Person "B" about it who may not have upgraded yet. Before long, you'll have a growing populations that think:

1) Application is broken
2) Their new (Microsoft Vista based) computer is broken

It's Google's responsibility to make sure our stuff works on the MSFT platform.

Agree with you on that but given the case above, you can see that the the average user may not see things that way.

No respect? Are you joking? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17100600)

So, there will be lots of flames against MSFT I'm sure. What so boggles my mind is that the usually logical bunch of /.ers on here are all too often so biased and blind to reality that I just can't believe you all hold jobs and live lives that are largely based on clear thought and good old intelligence.

Why is there such automatic hatred of Microsoft, the Justice department, the Bush Administration, SCO, closed source software, etc, etc. Don't you people realize that sometimes you have to step back, look at the facts and then make a decision, not just based on what you want to be true?

Of all these entities you hate, you find one common thread. They have the ability to step back, look at the situation, and carefully think of a strategy that will help them win. And it works for them, while you all get redfaced and irate.

Microsoft has no respect? Let's step back and think.. Look at their market cap, the reconizability of the brand, the domination of the desktop, the desire for college CS students to get hired there, and who doesn't know about Bill Gates' multi-billion dollar charity? That's not anything to be respectful of?

You may not like it, but ignorance like yours dooms any real chance of anyone coming along and beating Microsoft. Mr Brin and the other Googles definately have respect for them, don't doubt that in the least.

Why can't you all do the same? I think we would be much better off if we could look at all these organizations we don't like strategically. We'd maybe have a chance to beat them if you didn't let your fanboi love fests and jerk sessions get in the way.

Good thing YOU aren't in control of anything important.

click once and be pwned (5, Insightful)

ummit (248909) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100260)

Steve Ballmer himself has started touting the exact strategy they need -- "Click Once and Run."

That's just about the worst possible news. Microsoft's strategy of making it all-too-easy to install and run questionably-trustworthy code is why the email virus, web browser malware, and -- worst of all -- botnet problems have become the unsolveable epidemics that they are. Does anyone believe that Microsoft will actually get it right this time, in terms of introducing some practically workable mechanism for allowing only trustworthy code? (Not to mention the difficulty of meaningfully defining "trustworthy" in this context...)

Re:click once and be pwned (3, Insightful)

StrawberryFrog (67065) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100372)

I'm ignoring mod points to reply to this. Do you know anything about code access security in .net? Can you tell me, for instance if .net code off running the internet has permission to read and write arbitrary files? Hint: starts with a "n".

We're not talking about "will get it right ... introducing some practically workable mechanism for allowing only trustworthy code", We're talking talking about a model laid out in .net 1.0 and refined in 2.0 about a year ago.

Do you in fact know anything about what you're talking about?
You can work against MS all you want, but blind ignorance won't help you do that. Know your enemy.

Re:click once and be pwned (1, Troll)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100620)

Do you know anything about code access security in .net? Can you tell me, for instance if .net code off running the internet has permission to read and write arbitrary files? Hint: starts with a "n".

In order to have a successful application, Microsoft will either have to disable that protection, or require users to store their documents on a remote server. Additionally, single click 'installs' will eliminate the 'code running off the internet' problem. Microsoft has to face the classic problem of making their software secure, or remove the protections to make it stupid-simple to use. I know history doesn't always predict future performance and all, but which do you think they'll pick?

Re:click once and be pwned (3, Insightful)

StrawberryFrog (67065) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100780)

In order to have a successful application, Microsoft will either have to disable that protection, or require users to store their documents on a remote server.

Wrong. I said "Arbitrary files" not "any files". Go look up "isolated storage" - it allows a partially trusted app to read and write files, while ensuring that the only app that it is capable of messing with is itself. And what's so bad about remote servers? It works for gmail.
This is yet more argument from ignorance.

Additionally, single click 'installs' will eliminate the 'code running off the internet' problem.

Wrong. Such code runs with partial trust, in the internet zone.

Please, know what you're saying before replying.

OT: re sig (1)

joggle (594025) | more than 7 years ago | (#17101056)

My Karma: ran over your Dogma

Funny you should mention that. I just saw a Thomas Dolby concert last night at the Gothic Theater in Denver. One of his new songs is 'Your Karma Ran Over My Dogma'. Great song, but you can only hear it at a live performance I believe since it hasn't been released on any CDs yet.

Re:click once and be pwned (2)

xra (1021817) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100644)

Knowing their record, isn't only fair to wonder ?

Re:click once and be pwned (2, Interesting)

ummit (248909) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100746)

We're not talking about "will get it right ... introducing some practically workable mechanism for allowing only trustworthy code", We're talking talking about a model laid out in .net 1.0 and refined in 2.0 about a year ago.

Neither of us will convince the other on this point, so I won't try.

If, a year or two from now, .net 2.0 (or whatever version it's up to by then) is stable and secure, I will say, "Shit, I was wrong."

I ask only: if, a year or two from now, there is some undreamt-of new "impossible" attack against or subversion of the idea, such that people are clicking once and getting pwned all the time, you do the same.

Re:click once and be pwned (1)

StrawberryFrog (67065) | more than 7 years ago | (#17101060)

Since you ask, 2.0 is stable now, and 3.0 is likely to arrive within 2 years, but not so to arrive likely within one. I don't know of any internet malware written in .net. For the obvious reasons that would have to first break the Virtual machine's security.

I've seen interesting ways to break the VM presented by Dinis Cruz, so I won't say it's impossible
If in a few years "people are clicking once and getting pwned all the time" by .net code (it would have to do something like executing an escalation of privilege attack on it's VM, or disable code access security checks) then I will agree that one of the following must be true:

1) That Microsoft would have been negligent in patching the bugs in their design.
2) That Microsoft would have been negligent is not setting default security levels high enough.
3) That the whole concept of running secure code from the internet not workable.

Re:click once and be pwned (1)

aliendisaster (1001260) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100406)

How are those M$'s problem? If someone wants a crappy program they don't care if its going to mess up their computer or their network. Most people (yes, most people are stupid) could recieve 900 popups stating "DO NOT INSTALL THIS! IT CONTAINS A VIRUS!" and still install it because they want bunny rabbits on their mouse cursor.

Re:click once and be pwned (0, Offtopic)

orasio (188021) | more than 7 years ago | (#17101048)

OMG bunny rabbits!!! SOOOOO CUUTE

No Shit... (1)

shaneh0 (624603) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100416)

No Shit.. but you're asking a question that was already answered in the summary. You know, that "second problem" they mentioned: <i>"enforcing an acceptable contract regarding what rich apps can do on a user's machine"</i>
<br><br>
Hey, I didn't RTFA either, but at the very least I RTFAS.

Re:click once and be pwned (1)

SantaClaws04 (1029422) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100686)

Steve Ballmer himself has started touting the exact strategy they need -- "Click Once and Run."

Maybe it means just that - click once, and run away in madness because your computer suddenly stopped working.

Re:click once and be pwned (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100736)

Steve Ballmer himself has started touting the exact strategy they need -- "Click Once and Run."

That's just about the worst possible news.


Yup, defending Linux as a viable desktop platform becomes harder and harder.

Strike Three - You're Out! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17100266)

"Microsoft has the best virtual machine with .NET,"

Nope.

"the best development tool with Visual Studio"

Nope.

"and the best access to developers with their MSDN programs."

Nope.

Denial....... (3, Informative)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100314)

You can argue about .NET, and about Visual Studio dude, but there is NOTHING that compares to MSDN, and the resources Microsoft makes available to developers. On this, there is no contest.

Re:Denial....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17100436)

And we all know what Microsoft doesn't make available to the developers : the source code and the ability to fix it/keep it whenever needed...

Re:Denial....... (1)

W2k (540424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100556)

Well, duh. That's the definition of closed-source software and is hardly a Microsoft-specific thing. If you don't like it, use something else. Clearly, most customers are perfectly fine with this.

Re:Denial....... (1)

Explodo (743412) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100518)

I'd have to agree with this statement for sure. Hunting up Linux documentation will certainly hone your randon-related-keyword skills, but that's not all that important to me. Having ALL the documentation in one central location like MSDN sure is nice. It's even quite complete and, unlike man pages, understandable AND CONTAINS EXAMPLES quite frequently.

Re:Denial....... (4, Insightful)

interiot (50685) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100958)

I can't tell you're serious or not. I've always found navigating MSDN to be pretty frustrating, from the 100 copies of documentation for the same function (none of which are the version you want), to the hours I've spent searching for something only to find that it's not documented anywhere, to the same convoluted thinking that brought us VB and batch file syntax. At least with open source apps, I know there's some upper limit to the amount of frustration I have to endure, since you can just look at the code to get your answer if it comes to that.

Re:Strike Three - You're Out! (0, Flamebait)

W2k (540424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100484)

Spoken like a true troll who has used neither .NET, nor Visual Studio or MSDN. All three statements are absolutely true and tens of thousands of architects, developers and testers would back me up on that.

Re:Strike Three - You're Out! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17100726)

How the fuck is this flamebait? It's not parent that's flaimebait, it's grandparent!

Some idiots shouldn't be allowed to mod...

Re:Strike Three - You're Out! (1)

randomErr (172078) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100658)

You make a solid argument for your positions.

Nope.

You've presented good alternatives.

Nope

Look, I agree with some of your sentiments, but at least back up what you say.

Yeap.

Denial (1)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100758)

I have used IDEs from many sources and M$ has the best when it comes to visual studio. It integrates with the OS, is customizable for drivers and tools and beats them all!

MSDN is the best developers tools on the planet.

.NET leaves a lot to be desired.

Google has the best people and a far better working environment that nurtures innovation.

Re:Strike Three - You're Out! (4, Interesting)

hiroller (994761) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100880)

I'll concede on the third allegation which I interpreted as the denial of access to the source code. This is one of the reasons that I have Linux running on my home box since I like to know how things tick on the inside. But I develop with M$ at work and I wanted to point a few things:

"Microsoft has the best virtual machine with .NET,"
Nope.
Actually, I don't know if I could say that it is the best ever but it is a damn good virtual machine! It can run as well or even better of its equivalent JVM http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/compare/Benchmark_re sponse.pdf [gotdotnet.com] .
"the best development tool with Visual Studio"
Nope.
Bar none, VS is the best development tool that I have used. M$ V$ 2005 alone is amazing and while it oversimplifies things, I like it b/c it makes me tremendously more productive which is great b/c now I have more time to read Slashdot at work!

Just b/c it's made by M$ doesn't mean that it is a horrible product. The company itself makes some really shady ethical decisions but there are a lot of developers working for M$ just like us who want to release a great product.

Damn! (1)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100280)

A completely flammable post, before I even commented! Tighten your seatbelts!

Visual Studio (3, Informative)

Explodo (743412) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100298)

I'd have to say that Visual Studio pretty much rocks. I use it for c++ development only, and am very happy with it. If linux had any dev environment that was ANYWHERE NEAR as good as VC++, maybe I wouldn't despise working on it.

Re:Visual Studio (2, Informative)

Shaman (1148) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100392)

Eclipse? KDevelop? Emacs?

Again (3, Insightful)

shaneh0 (624603) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100464)

<quote>Eclipse? KDevelop? Emacs?</quote>

Again.. If linux had any dev environment that was ANYWHERE NEAR as good as VC++, maybe I wouldn't despise working on it.

Re:Again (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100538)

I would suggest that you take a look at Eclipse CDT.
No it still isn't as good as VS but it is multi-platform and developing quickly.

Re:Again (2, Insightful)

Explodo (743412) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100706)

"Development tools"

Let's look at those words:

Development: I'm gonna write some code to get some jobs done
Tools: Things I use to write the code to get some jobs done.

I wouldn't buy a hammer that's still "developing quickly" but not ready for prime time, I'd buy a hammer that's ready to use! In fact, if someone gave me a free hammer, and said, "It may or may not work for now, but in a couple of years it'll work great!" I'd go out and buy myself a hammer that already works in spite of the increased immediate cost to myself.

If development tools slow down the development process, then they aren't good tools.

Re:Again (4, Insightful)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100866)

no, but an IDE isnt a hammer. You are implying that Eclipse wont function as an IDE because it isnt finished yet. That isnt true. It simply hasnt matched every single feature of VS yet.

Put it this way - if someone offered you a moderately featured family sedan for free, would you turn it down because you'd rather buy a formula 1 car that can go 80mph faster?

perhaps you need to go 200mph. most people dont.

its an even more tempting proposition when you factor in the the family sedan maker will automatically upgrade you car every year until eventually it does go as fast a formula 1 car.

Re:Visual Studio (2, Insightful)

everphilski (877346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100522)

Eclipse is buggy as hell in a C++ environment, not to mention sloooow. (even my Java friends who are evangelists for the program will concede it is not worth it for a C++ developer) KDevelop - depends upon what you are building with. There are issues depending on your coding convention (extensionless headers, Qt builds, etc). I refuse to touch Emacs with a 39 and a half foot pole.

That being said I do my linux development under vi. But under windows I use VS. VS excels beyond any open-source replacement to date.

Re:Visual Studio (3, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100690)

I refuse to touch Emacs with a 39 and a half foot pole.

You refuse to use the best application out there for the task at hand, and then you complain that there isn't a good application out there?

What do potential employers think when they see "Intimidated by complex software" on your resume?

Re:Visual Studio (3, Funny)

shaneh0 (624603) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100998)

"I refuse to touch Emacs with a 39 and a half foot pole"

Perhaps, then, my penis would be of some assistance?

Re:Visual Studio (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100804)

Eclipse was a slow piece of crap when we used it at University (though admittedly that was running on a Sun terminal running on a server with quite a few other users..), don't have experience of the second, and isn't Emacs just an editor (excuse my ignorance ;) ) ?

I enjoyed using the Visual C++ 6 IDE, it's one of the few MS applications other than Exchange which I think is worth any money..

Re:Visual Studio (2, Informative)

t0tAl_mElTd0wN (905880) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100426)

I would recommend the Eclipse CDT - it does C and C++, works on Windows with MinGW, Linux or Mac with GCC, and has far more descriptive syntax highlighting than VC++.

Re:Visual Studio (1)

seann (307009) | more than 7 years ago | (#17101030)

syntax highlighting...

does it have anything that comes close to intellisense?

Re:Visual Studio (2, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100786)

"ANYWHERE NEAR as good as VC++, maybe I wouldn't despise working on it."

If you're a half decent programmer you'd be able to code just as well with a text editor as with an IDE. That fact that you imply you can't says more about you than the linux dev enviroment.

Re:Visual Studio (2, Insightful)

Explodo (743412) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100942)

This is the attitude that's holding linux back. IDE's aren't bad things. A good IDE makes life easier for everyone. Both experts and novices can get things done with a good IDE. Using only a text editor and command line interfaces makes it so that only the greatly experienced can get anything done, thereby giving those who've mastered it the feeling of l337-ness that makes them think that anyone who prefers using an IDE is an incompetent fool. Elitist attitudes and awkward tools aren't going to advance linux.

Re:Visual Studio (1)

flooey (695860) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100788)

I'd have to say that Visual Studio pretty much rocks. I use it for c++ development only, and am very happy with it. If linux had any dev environment that was ANYWHERE NEAR as good as VC++, maybe I wouldn't despise working on it.

Interestingly, I had to use VS for working on a C# project last year, and I was somewhat surprised at how it could do so much intricate stuff while at the same time totally screwing up some basic features.

For instance, if you've got a line that's calling some overloaded method and you select it and do "show definition", no matter what, it always points you to the first definition of that method, even if it's not the version you're actually calling. It's incredibly annoying.

It certainly has some nice features, but I'd rather an IDE that does the basic stuff right without a lot of fluff.

Re:Visual Studio (1)

iccaros (811041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100828)

I can't say VS is great for c++, I find it is really bad at anything that is not .NET. for one, code that compiles and runs error free in VS 2003 (c++ code), starts trowing exceptions in VS 2005 projects built on earlyer version of VS c++ will not build correctly on newer version with out tweeking the build files. Visual Studio 2003 does not let you build using Win forms unless your entire project is changed to managed code (2005 lets you build managed GUI with native c++ code for other parts) I perfer codeBlocks and VI for most C++ writing. and lately I have been using Sharpdevelp for .NET and MonoDevelop for Mono apps. and I am starting to appresate using xml files for GUI layout like GTK and QT use, as it becomes much less of a hassel to write cross platform GUI's as your build file just substatutes the correct GUI file for the system your building for, SkyNet is a good example of how to build this way. http://sky-net.sourceforge.net/index.php [sourceforge.net] also until .net has native sound and Video support, and runs on more than one platform, it can't be the best VM

My god.. (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100304)

It was written like a monkey on crack. And damn those "global warming" analogies.

Might as well had the Enzyte "Knock on wood" guy there as well shaking his stick...

today is spammy article day (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17100330)


AdBlock has blocked 19 out of 39 items

so nearly 50% of the page is adverts
sad

Re:today is spammy article day (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100760)

only if the total area of the screen occupied by those 19 hidden items is the nearly the same as the total area taken up by content. it could have blocked 19 64x64 gifs for all you know.

Click once and run? (5, Funny)

stile99 (1004110) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100334)

Run where? Screaming from the room? For the border?

Re:Click once and run? (1)

Draasti (318770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100398)

Run! Run for your life!

click once and run, but run what? (5, Insightful)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100336)

Click once and run, sure, but run what? The program I wanted, or some spyware installing, DRM-adding beast app? Google has a huge competitive advantage in that they don't need to lock people in with that stuff in order to enjoy success. They simply make apps that perform well, and for some reason people continue to use those. Over time, .Net's massive overhead and microsoft's high licensing costs will cripple upstart developers. These developers will turn to OSS alternatives for cost and other benefits, it's only a matter of time. Microsoft may maintain a large market share, but Google will not "lose" because they're doing something different, even if the end result is a similar set (from a stratospherically high-level view) of apps.

Different companies, with different products. (2, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100596)

Google provides software services. You go to Google to get directions, information, maps, images, etc. You use their rich web apps.

MS provides tools for creating rich web apps. Sure, they produce some of their own apps (MSN Search, Live, etc...) to compete with Google. But their tool-set for the most part the best IDE in the industry. This allows any Joe-Schmoe coder to kick out rich web apps. They have an an amazingly robust VM in the .Net framework, which competes excellently against Java. (And that competition will force BOTH VM's to continue to improve!)

So comparing the two companies is slightly irrelevant. Comparing MS's apples to Google's apples, Google wins, no questions asked. Comparing MS's oranges to Google's oranges... well, Google doesn't have much for oranges.

-Rick

Re:Different companies, with different products. (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100824)

From my point of view, google focus is data, with some "sample" programs to access it (but for most, open apis/interfaces/open protocols to access that data in your own way/apps). Its own programs enables more integrated, usually more comfortable, access to that data, but you can still access most of it in other ways (apis for maps/calendars/etc, pop for gmail, jabber for talk, etc)

In the other hand, MS focus programs, and all goes around them. User data, apis, hardware, etc tied to those programs. That ties go in the direction of if you want to use them, you must have MS programs.

Are different? yes. But still Google have the edge on this.

Click Once (5, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100358)

Click Once is the biggest problem with MS software. Already we have zero click and back door click software installs. It is the bane of my daily chores to remove and recover from web based installs and applications. As a system administrator, having to run in a windows environment I struggle daily to remind the users to NOT INSTALL SOFTWARE FROM THE INTERNET.

I hate Google Toolbar, Yahoo Toolbar and all the others not because those two are not useful, because they are, but rather because they condition the user to install EVERY FREAKING "IE Toolbar" out there. No Toolbars, period!

Your average user is a clueless idiot, and will click install all sorts of crap as long as he thinks it is okay. IT IS NOT OKAY! IE7 is the latest and greatest FOOBAR automatic install from Microsoft. Hey Microsoft, having IE7 automatically install with automatic updates is a really stupid idea, fire the asshat who signed off on that one. Not everyone is running PIV with a gig of ram necissary to run IE7.

So, as for the "click once and run" crap, keep it to yourselves!

then the paperclip (1)

micromuncher (171881) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100506)

Click once and an annoying animation comes up asking you what you really wanted to do.

Re:Click Once (1, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100546)

Click Once is the biggest problem with MS software. Already we have zero click and back door click software installs.

Ok, mister, let me know how many clicks make a trojan installer into a non-trojan.

3, 5, 20? Throw in shell commands? Throw in compilation? Throw in configuration, dependencies? And still nothing stops you from installing a trojan this way.

So what stops you? Trusted sources. And when it's truster, one click is just the right amount of clicks for it to be safe.

Also .NET apps running from the browser are running in a sandbox, they're not more dangerous than Flash is (maybe less).

Re:Click Once (1)

bmajik (96670) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100964)

My understanding of clickOnce is that administrators have a large degree of control (via policies) of what an and user can click-once run. Infact, i think you ahve to explicitly trust a clickonce server via a policy installation before C-O from that server can run.

For that matter, IIRC domain admins can set Group Policy appropriately to prevent Browser Addon installations alltogether.

So while I agree that users shouldn't be installing dumb software from the internet, I disagree that your hands are tied and therever no software should be distributed from the internet. What you _want_ is the ability to restrict/control what your users can do to their machines, and ClickOnce should get you closer to that.

yeah right, not from my point of view (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100380)

This article, part one even, outright dismisses Linux. Not even Oracle is doing that... not much more I need to read in that article even if they do have a valid point or two. Google doesn't even have to release its own OS, all it has to do is begin favoring Linux distributions strongly and MS loses that section of the market, how ever big that might be or might not be.

The point is that anyone that outright dismisses Linux is missing the point altogether... anyone can use it and in using it, it is not like starting your own OS to compete with MS.

Re:yeah right, not from my point of view (0)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100474)

This article, part one even, outright dismisses Linux.

Maybe since "click-once-and-run Linux apps" is an oxymoron.

Well no, actually in fact I lied. They have their chance.

With Mono.

By Novell (who are in bed with MS).

Irony supreme.

Re:yeah right, not from my point of view (1, Flamebait)

shaneh0 (624603) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100514)

"Google doesn't even have to release its own OS, all it has to do is begin favoring Linux distributions strongly and MS loses that section of the market"

Are you suggesting that people would leave behind Windows to follow some Google applications?

Maybe, in 5 years, if Google builds a killer-app that is anything CLOSE to Microsoft Office AND Microsoft totally fucks everything up.

An Inconvenient Truth (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17100384)

If this is true we must have a KLOC tax.

Myself, I think the internet has a naturally occurring pattern of variability, but if it turns out the internet is indeed manmade, then a KLOC tax can mitigate the negative externality of global porning.

Microsoft has the best ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17100394)

> Microsoft has the best virtual machine with .NET,
Sorry but the Java Virtual machine is more performant.

> the best development tool with Visual Studio
Sorry but Intellij IDEA is the greatest IDE ;-)

Re:Microsoft has the best ... (0, Offtopic)

W2k (540424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100640)

Which IDE one prefers is a matter of taste alone. Back when I was writing Java, I used IntelliJ and liked it. Yet I find Visual Studio far superior, and C# a language far superior to Java. Now, IntelliJ doesn't do C# and Visual Studio doesn't do Java, so for me the choice is simple.

Now, regarding performance, I'd have to say you're wrong. There are certainly benchmarks that go both ways, but by my purely subjective perception of performance, Java desktop apps (such as Azureus, Eclipse or Zend Development Environment) often feel extremely sluggish, whereas C# apps perform as well as or better than applications written in C++. Furthermore, C# apps often use Windows.Forms for the GUI, which creates a much more seamless integration with other Windows apps.

People who claim Java is faster will usually just look at J2EE web services and ignore everything else.

Re:Microsoft has the best ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17100816)

So based on your entirely subjective opinions .NET is somehow better than Java. You haven't provided any reasons for this assertion so its just an opinion. And in my opinion your smoking crack but hey, that's just an opinion to.

Re:Microsoft has the best ... (1)

W2k (540424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100912)

You're completely right (well, except I don't smoke) except that even if I had provided reasons why I think .NET/C# is better than Java, it'd still just be my subjective opinion.

Weather topics? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17100396)

Hi, I'm Al Gore and I do not approve of this message.

Re:Weather topics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17100704)

Your post is inconveniently true.

Re:Weather topics? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17101046)

No, you are anonymous coward and that would make you cheney or rumsfield.

Acceptable contract? (1)

tomknight (190939) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100410)

" enforcing an acceptable contract regarding what rich apps can do on a user's machine."

I, the undersigned do hereby declare that any fool can install any crap on my machine over the internet and make it run like treacle.

Qualify Best (4, Insightful)

micromuncher (171881) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100414)

[Microsoft has the best virtual machine and IDE.]

Using persuasive language without a qualification comes accross as marketing FUD. Please qualify "best" for us. .NET is a suite of tools, some old, some new. Each has a set of strength and/or weakness depending on your point of view. For example, C# and its ability to sidestep strong typing and security server/client side, VBA client side and its ability to drive a lot of client side integration (Office Automation), complicated by the fact most enterprise make this almost impossible with default desktop security, Studio with a serious bent on good integration with anything Microsoft but not so good with anything else... coupled with documentation that is completely outdated on MSDN (OLE Object Stream initialization for embedded controls). There are some serious architectual flaws in the whole attempt to integrate OLE/OCX with web pages and services (including support of archaec pre-web stuff.) Extended clip board support... Complexity injected via SOAP/XSL...

So please qualify "best". Because its not reduced complexity, increased quality, best reliablity, best scalability, best security, shortest delivery time, easy integration, or fastest performance...

Doesn't Steve Mean.... (4, Funny)

zarthrag (650912) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100430)

"Click Once And Run"...Away?

Re:Doesn't Steve Mean.... (-1, Flamebait)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100476)

SO the muslims will be the most adept?

boooo hissss (BOOOOOOOM the user has been suicide bombed)

ClickOnce (4, Insightful)

outcast36 (696132) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100470)

I agree that Microsoft does have a very nice development approach, but to claim that ClickOnce [microsoft.com] is comparable to todays HTML/Javascript applications is really reaching. Corporate Users will likely have this ability (once the organization deploys .NET 2.0 runtime), but expecting Windows Live or Yahoo to give up on the AJAX binge for ClickOnce deplyoments is not likely. ClickOnce is more like Java Web Start [sun.com] . We've had that technology for years now, but for some reason, these web apps persist.

correction (2)

toetagger1 (795806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100472)

Click Once and Run
Shouldn't that read "Click Once, and Reboot"?

Given, Microsoft has a lot of legacy technology and platforms that give them an edge moving forward. But you cannot ignore the other part of the momentum this technology carries with it. All the bugs, limiting architectures, and requirements for legacy support makes it harder to go into a new direction.

My prediction is that the more the environment changes, the bigger an advantage the newer players gain over the large, legacy companies that build their company on incremental products, like Microsoft does with Windows.

Time to Throwdown (1)

moore.dustin (942289) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100488)

Microsoft has never really had a direct threat it its business that could actually compete at the same level. Sure they have had someone up against them in one way or another, but I think we can all agree that Google is the first real threat to what Microsoft does. Apple never really had much going against Microsoft to threaten them and Microsoft invited competition with the Zune, which is new either way. The XBox is the only real example and many would argue that they are doing very well with that system. They have it in them to do well.

What I am getting at is that we have no real idea what Microsoft can and will do in a now hostile marketplace. While they have always had people nipping at their heels, this marks the first time they have another powerhouse to compete with. Microsoft will have evolve and innovate to stay with and ahead of Google. I for one welcome this change of scenery. Competition is only to yield better products faster from both companies. Look at the price wars between Intel and AMD and tell me that the consumers are not winning in that.

I would make a free market comment here, but I was just talking about Microsoft so that really does not fit now does it :)

What MS Doesn't Have (4, Interesting)

nate nice (672391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100494)

They have .NET which is greta and all, but for the Web they leverage ASP.net which is still a dinosaur of an idea.

Google has GWT, which only about 100 people on Earth get right now. Google has an understanding for the Web, Web applications and how users should interact in the World Wide Web far surpassing MS's "reactive" method of toolkit design.

I see two companies. One which is using old methods, not innovating or developing new ideas and assuming stability in something as fast moving and cutting edge as the WWW. I see another company challenging old ideas (relatively old anyways) and proving the WWW is more than Web Pages and stateless client/server communication.

I see a company that think they get this but only see flashy UI's as the means to the end here. I see another company that understand the UI is just a view to this new idea that the Web is a series of intercommunicating applications users can access from anywhere.

But then, I don't expect many people, especially a monolith who's made their fortunes through brute strength rather than new ideas, to see this until it's apparently obvious. The search for the holy grail of the Web's next "killer app" is right in front of peoples faces.

Re:What MS Doesn't Have (1)

nate nice (672391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100606)

I should note before someone flips out on me that I've worked in ASP.net for way too long. I know it's not "stateless" as it might appear I implied. I understand the "Postback" idea and the Session variable as well as things to help programmers like the View State, etc.

These ideas are, as I implied, dinosaurs.

difference between google and microsoft (5, Interesting)

rjdegraaf (712353) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100508)

You can try for yourself:

on www.google.com search for 'microsoft':
Results 1 - 10 of about 393,000,000

on search.live.com search for 'google':
google page 1 of 751 results

I like my search results 'unbiased', so I choose google.

doesn't mean anything (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100584)

Ever notive how many meaningless pages you get in Google searches? By page 3 or 4 you are down to trash ... ad-ridden meaningless link pages. Search results beyond 100 are mostly meaningless. live.com does a better job of filtering out the garbage, probably because it is less popular and hasn't been 'gamed' as much as google.com has.

Re:doesn't mean anything (1)

Prophet of Nixon (842081) | more than 7 years ago | (#17101090)

Heck, lately most of the search results before 10 have been meaningless too. Its getting to where you can't search common words or strings on Google at all; it has to have something fairly specific, in quotes, that hasn't been "gamed". I think I only come there for mail and maps now.

Not An Accurate Measurement (1)

dylanf (998141) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100950)

You need to search for both Google and Microsoft in both search engines. If you did this you will notice Google returns many more results on both queries, which makes it a bit difficult to deduce that search.live.com is biased.

Re:difference between google and microsoft (5, Interesting)

SashaMan (263632) | more than 7 years ago | (#17101012)

I originally thought your comment was trolly, but it actually turns out to be true, especially if you compare all possible cases:

Google searching "microsoft": 39,500,000 results
Google searching "google": 52,800,000 results
MSN searching "microsoft": 80,139,835 results
MSN searching "google": 648 results

I can understand leaning a little more one way or the other, but 648 versus 52 million? Give me a friggin break.

Click Once (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100576)

and Run For Cover

relative dominance on the Web platform today? (2, Insightful)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100598)

Google enjoys relative dominance on the Web platform today

"Dominance" is easy as long as you don't intend to charge for it. If Google puts a price on Google's free-as-in-beer service offerings, alternatives will start to look more attractive.

(I don't run Google ad/spyware software (e.g., the Google toolbar) here because I don't like other people's software phoning home; I don't think the "advertising on everything" gambit will work on my dev tools either.)

Already solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17100624)

Except that Sun solved all these problems some time ago with Java, which Google is a heavy user of. I'm not sure how you can claim .NET has the best VM (best in what sense) - it only works on Windows which makes it completely useless for anything I want a JVM for (yes I know about MONO but don't care - if I have to re-write my code to have it work on Linux it is of no more use to me than c++). In contrast Java has had Web Start (which is what Click Once does for .NET) for years, and applets, of course, which I've used on a couple of recent corporate projects (one to handle printing duties, the other as a mainframe emulator) quite successfully. And Java already runs on most things, like my Linux box, my mobile phone and my Windows desktop at work, which is nice. It also has the best IDE by miles in IDEA for its re-factoring and code reviewing capabilities alone, and two very good free alternatives in Eclipse and Net Beans. There's not too much trouble finding MSDN like documentation for Java from a variety of sources including Sun [sun.com] either.

I will say the MSDN is a great resource and Visual Studio 6 is the best C++ development environment around

Acceptable contract? Is this ActiveX 2.0? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100632)

enforcing an acceptable contract regarding what rich apps can do on a user's machine.
Acceptable contract? Is this ActiveX? Java's sandbox? IE settings? Something else? (Folks, it's been tried before...)

The best development tool with Visual Studio (4, Informative)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100664)

Have you actually used visual studio? it degrades to a useless piece of rubbish after a few months.

It may be better than Googles offering (nothing) but probably isn't better than eclipse/jbuilder.

And after using both Java and .NET I would say that they are on equal footing, except Java is more mature, open source has things like EJB etc....

Re:The best development tool with Visual Studio (2, Informative)

W2k (540424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100730)

Have you actually used visual studio? it degrades to a useless piece of rubbish after a few months.

This is news to me, since I've been working off the same Visual Studio 2005 installation for almost 10 months now. Only time it got dreadfully slow was when I tried using a refactoring tool called Resharper [jetbrains.com] . Since I uninstalled that, VS has been zippy. Before switching to VS2005, I believe I had a VS2003 installation that was several years old.

Re:The best development tool with Visual Studio (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100822)

Without a doubt, Visual Studio is the least capable - and most frustrating - IDE I've ever used. Intellisense is so buggy as to be almost impossible to work wtih.

Click once and run - soooo 1980s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17100740)

"Click once and run," that sounds like what I used to do on my floppy-based Macs in the 1980s. OK, so it was a double-click, sue me.

The best Virtual Machine? (3, Interesting)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100766)

Microsoft has the best virtual machine with .NET

If it's the best then why doesn't it work on a Mac or Linux?

Re:The best Virtual Machine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17100846)

Because it can only be called "the best" if it runs in Windows. Everything else is marginal and irrelevant.

Already Solved (1)

955301 (209856) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100776)

You mean, like Java Webstart?

*ducks*

Simply the Best (1)

corby (56462) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100808)

Microsoft has the best virtual machine with .NET, the best development tool with Visual Studio and the best access to developers with their MSDN programs.

Presumably, the author means best as in 'best for deploying Google-type web applications.' In that case, he is probably correct that MSDN is the strongest developer support program, but on the other points he is verging on fantasy.

Google's web applications are very successful because it has employed a bunch of really bright back-end/modeling architects, and becuse it deploys onto a highly scalable customized Linux cluster.

The .NET/Visual Studio environment is first-in-class when you are deploying data-aware Web pages onto a Windows-only environment.

When you want to use AOP, dependency injection, advanced ORM and MVC tools, and you want to be able to deploy into arbitrary environments, Microsoft is running way behind Java. I get the sense that Seattle-based John Milan really has very little idea of what goes into making a working Google app.

HTML standard and the new proposed canvas tag (2)

Lothar (9453) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100864)

I really wish they would include the canvas tag in their next version of Internet Explorer. This would make the door wide open for an endless number of thin applications using cool graphics. But alas, there is not yet a standard for browser rendering of pixel graphics. It wouldn't be surprising if Microsoft tried to sabotage the inclusion of the canvas tag in web pages because using such powerful features in the browser would be against their rich client policy.

Have currently been using the canvas tag myself in IE using google's excanvas and it rocks! Please give us Canvas!

logic errors abound (5, Insightful)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 7 years ago | (#17100934)

Microsoft has the best virtual machine with .NET, the best development tool with Visual Studio and the best access to developers with their MSDN programs.

1) The best virtual machine runs on my platform and preferably others. .NET only runs on Windows. Therefore, .NET could not be the best virtual machine for any platform other than Windows.

2) The best development tool runs on my platform and allows me to write applications that run on my platform an preferably others. Visual Studio does not run on anything other than Windows and makes it difficult to write application that will run on any platform other than Windows. Therefore, Visual Studio could not be the best development tool.

3) The developers I look for write software for my platform and preferably others. The majority of developers available through MSDN are focused on developing Windows software using Windows development tools. Therefore, MSDN is not the best way to access developers.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?