Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portable

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the write-once-run-everywhere-that-is-windows dept.

Microsoft 293

Michelle Meyers writes "Just days before Microsoft claimed to be making parts of the .NET CLR "available" to other platforms, NeoSmart Technologies had published an article bemoaning and blasting Microsoft's abuse of it's developers by pretending .NET was a true cross-platform framework when they're doing everything in their power to stop it from being just that. Of interest is NeoSmart's analysis of how Microsoft has no problem making certain portions of .NET available to Mac users — just so long as its distributed under an "open source" license that forbids any and all use of the code except for educational purposes — yet are terrified of the very thought of .NET being available to *nix users, even if that's to the benefit of .NET developers everywhere. Even more interesting is one of the comments on that article linking to legal documents in which Microsoft employees discuss the (im)possibility of creating a cross-platform code and UI framework, years before the .NET project even started!"

cancel ×

293 comments

Re: Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Port (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18956275)

Because nobody who doesn't use Windows would care.

Re: Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Port (1)

homey of my owney (975234) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956691)

You really should watch your double negatives. This probably sez exactly opposite what you intended.

Re: Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Port (1)

koreaman (835838) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956799)

Allow me to use a Venn diagramme to help clarify things:

                               _
Those who do not use Windows: |_|
                               _
Those who care:               |_|

Alternatively,
                              ____
Those who use Windows:       |  |_| <--- Those who care.
                             |    |
                             |____|

Not that I agree with the OP, I'm just trying to help you understand his point.

Very truly yours,
koreaman.

Re: Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Port (1)

tolan-b (230077) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957569)

The OP makes no sense, which is probably why the second post assumed it was an unintentional mistake.

Re: Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Port (4, Informative)

nametaken (610866) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957459)

I care. I maintain, and develop for, windows systems all day... then come home to all linux systems with the exception of an XP Pro VM I keep tucked away for emergencies. I'm not switching frameworks, and the business is not switching platforms. What's more, like most .net developers, I like the framework and the dev environment. They're the sort of things that MS actually got right.

It seems to me that the popularity of .Net should be obvious to those who frequent slashdot.

Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portable (1, Insightful)

boisepunk (764513) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956293)

MONEY!!!

Re:Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portab (1)

ArchdukeChocula (1096375) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956349)

Which is also the reason we will be a portable .NET ten years from now if they continue to loose ground in the business world and are still a big player but no longer the dominate monopoly. Hey, we saw it happen to Big Blue, why not Redmond?

Re:Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portab (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956843)

I view .Net as Microsoft's version of RPG. IBM still doesn't sanction moving RPG anywhere except AS400/iSeries/i5 and I wouldn't expect them to ever. I see .Net as Microsoft putting themselves in a smaller box so they can move from low cost commodities to high(er) profit support contracts and perhaps non-configurable hardware. They seem to want to be like "so-and-so" but not actually do business like that.

I think the biggest problem is that too many people outside want to make the Microsoft stuff work for them and it's just not practical.. look at Mono. First, it's a waste of resources that could be used on ruby, python or smalltalk based solutions. Second, it's just stepping into Microsoft's arena of IP and marketing "bait-n-switch". Novell will never win trying to "bargain" with the devil.

Re:Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portab (1)

ArchdukeChocula (1096375) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956967)

>I think the biggest problem is that too many people outside want to make the Microsoft stuff work for them and
>it's just not practical..

What about WINE? I won't argue with you about Mono but WINE is very practical. I doubt Linux would be near as popular as it is if it couldn't run any non-Linux binaries.

Re:Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portab (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956627)

MONEY!!!
You misspelled "WORLD HEGEMONY!!!". The money follows naturally.

Re:Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portab (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18957069)

I see the Microsoft astroturfers are out in force today.

Why is this modded TROLL? It is absolutely true and it defines (without any supporting arguments) the primary reason Microsoft has absolutely no interest in portability of any kind.

Re:Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portab (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18957335)

AND, slashdot and other website's love it too, think about it:

"Controversial topics" (i.e.-> Generally, anything that is "anti-microsoft" ( & there is an ABUNDANCE OF THAT, here @ /. , especially I have noted in my time here, browsing its news which is generally excellent on many levels, not just computers, and the responders are generally VERY GOOD imo as well on technical and business related issues to computing)) make the folks here or elsewhere online, monies, via pageviews on their websites.

"Good sheep, good sheep: Keep arguing about Microsoft vs. (insert UNIX variant here), while I make ca$h based on your viewing my website pages"

Keep THAT in mind, first & foremost, lol!

Controversy, arguments, & general online conflicts? As good as news for webmasters...

Does it matter? (4, Insightful)

brennanw (5761) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956299)

There's no point in making a marketing sleight of hand portable to other platforms, is there?

Maybe it's changed in the last few years, but when Microsoft first started talking about "dot net" the only thing I could figure was that they didn't really know what it was going to do [ubersoft.net] -- and four years after it had been announced it didn't really seem as if that had changed [ubersoft.net] .

Maybe it's changed since then... it's been three years since the last time I paid any attention to it...

Re:Does it matter? (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956473)

I always figured the whole "cross-platform" marketspeak was just a ploy to take some of the wind out of Java's sails. MS wanted people to stop jumping on the Java bandwagon and start jumping on the .NET bandwagon, so they made it sound like .NET was (or would be in the future) more widely usable than it is.

Re:Does it matter? (5, Insightful)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957199)

Cross platform for Microsoft means it will work on Windows, Xbox, and mobile devices that run Windows.

It's just another word to ignore when Microsoft says it versus say Samsung when their printers are cross platform which means Linux/Mac/Windows.

Re:Does it matter? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18956525)

Er, I'm no fan of .NET, but the Help Desk webcomic isn't exactly the best source for objective and serious assessments of Microsoft products. Several programming languages have been built for .NET and programs that are built with these will generally require the .NET runtime to run. Although this is irrelevant to the well-definedness of the concept, most people tend to acknowledge that these languages, perhaps C# in particular, are far better than Microsoft's earlier offerings along these lines, although they may of course not be everyone's cup of tea for various reasons including but not limited to their being tied to a closed system and their being generally non-cross-platform.

You may not like the framework, but there is no longer any confusion about what .NET is. You'll notice that the comic you linked to was from 2004.

So C# is .Net? (1)

brennanw (5761) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956735)

Keep in mind that (as I said) the last time I really paid attention to ".Net" was around 2004. I've heard a lot about C#, though -- as a programming language, and not in the context of .Net. Any time I hear about C# it's usually being compared to Java...

So I can understand that C# is good technology that people would like to see ported, but I was under the impression that .Net was supposed to encompass more than just a good language...

Re:So C# is .Net? (2, Informative)

revlayle (964221) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957057)

.Net is a programming framework. C# is a Microsoft developed language, used pretty much exclusively in creating .Net applications (however there are other .net compatible languages, C# was just designed originally to use with .Net).

Re:So C# is .Net? (4, Informative)

digitig (1056110) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957213)

No. As I see it (and there's more than one way to see it) .NET is essentially an API and virtual machine offering that API. C# happens to be a high level language that maps very closely onto the virtual machine language, but in theory any language can compile to that machine language (and many do -- C++, Java, VB, Python, Ada, Eiffel, and so on). I like it as an API (at least at version 2.x), the VM makes multi-language programming a cinch, its memory manager really does seem to eliminate a lot of classic memory bugs, and its deployment model moves away from huge, centralised registries. But it comes at the expense of bloat and the speed penalty of an extra layer between the code and the metal. IMHO that's a reasonable design choice to have to make. If you're developing for MS Windows I reckon .NET is a decent design choice as long as you're not particularly size or speed constrained. If you're developing for anything else -- well, try starting here: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/02/133 6216&from=rss [slashdot.org] .

Well in that case... (1)

brennanw (5761) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957275)

... if .Net is an API there doesn't seem much point in porting it. Taking into account that I'm not a programmer and have no clue what I'm talking about :) I don't see how you can effectively port an API that was designed to hook into a specific operating system without spending an enormous amount of time and energy on it.

Re:Does it matter? (2, Funny)

errxn (108621) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956753)

...the Help Desk webcomic isn't exactly the best source for objective and serious assessments of Microsoft products
Neither is Slashdot, for that matter.

Re:Does it matter? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18956763)

What .net is now is completely different from the vast swarm of swirling spin and angry buzzing buzzwords that poured forth from Microsoft when that concept was spawned, half-formed from the bowels of that beast. It was going to revolutionize the world, one-up .mac on the personal services side while providing corporate services that scaled to millions of users and provide a synergistic end-to-end mashup of all business processes with qualitative and quantitative analysis of everything at once. dotnet was going to bring the ultimate in efficiency and productivity to every one of your workers, from the CEO all the way down to the guy who screws the plastic case together and puts it back on the conveyor belt. (Remember the cars on demand ad, with the robot painting the cars as people decide what color they want? .net made that possible!) There was going to be windows .net, office .net and so on, all of them designed to work with The Intarweb in new and wonderous ways that would blow the minds of every lesser being if so much as a hint of their power was whispered at them from across the room.

Now it's just a runtime for a bytecode interpreted language. Whoopity-doo.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

skiflyer (716312) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956539)

I hear this joke on Slashdot all the time, but I don't get it, what is it that you guys fail to understand about .NET? It's not really hard to understand what it is or what it does if you spend 20 minutes trying to figure it out. I will definitely agree when they launched it they didn't seem to communicate the product to the marketing team well, and perhaps the argument could be made that they still haven't... but how does that change the reality of what the product is?

Re:Does it matter? (1)

brennanw (5761) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956797)

I will definitely agree when they launched it they didn't seem to communicate the product to the marketing team well, and perhaps the argument could be made that they still haven't... but how does that change the reality of what the product is?

If they're not communicating the product well, how am I supposed to understand what it is? I need more than "it's a bunch of things that do stuff." :-)

Re:Does it matter? (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957009)

It's true that .NET used to be something totally different (some sort of internet computing initiative), and then it wasn't clear, Microsoft seems to have settled on it as an actual product. It's a programming framework. I'm not a programmer so I can't tell you what's good about it, but it seems to be an actual thing now.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

nocaster (784709) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957065)

Well, at the time Sun was putting the "dot" in "com", so someone needed to put the "dot" in "net".

Non Free is Predictable. (2, Interesting)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956315)

Is there anyone, anywhere who thinks Microsoft will ever do anything that's really free [gnu.org] , and therefore portable, cross platform and all that other stuff they would like to say about .NET? The more they hype it, the more obvious the shortfall.

Re:Non Free is Predictable. (3, Insightful)

Dionysus (12737) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956393)

A software product/framework can be portable, cross platform without being Free. I don't know if Microsoft has ever claimed that .NET would be Free.

Re:Non Free is Predictable. (2, Insightful)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956549)

agreed, and while Microsoft's implementation may not be free or portable, I've yet to see a good reason why Mono doesn't make .NET portable. Admittedly, Mono isn't completely finished, but any .NET applicatino that runs in Mono (and it's not unheard of) is an example of portable .NET

Re:Non Free is Predictable. (1)

eviloverlordx (99809) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956497)

Is there anyone, anywhere who thinks Microsoft will ever do anything that's really free, and therefore portable, cross platform and all that other stuff they would like to say about .NET? The more they hype it, the more obvious the shortfall.

Of course not, because it's not in their best interests to open source .NET. MS would lose control over their product, which is exactly not what they want to do.

Re:Non Free is Predictable. (2, Interesting)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956661)


Is there anyone, anywhere who thinks Microsoft will ever do anything that's really free [gnu.org], and therefore portable, cross platform

Ever is a long time. Microsoft will do exactly what you describe shortly after they're losing badly to a competitor. Until then they'll continue to play the monopoly game.

Re:Non Free is Predictable. (1)

koreaman (835838) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956707)

My dear Twitter,

Microsoft has indeed released Free software.

Very truly yours,
koreaman

Snooze. (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956375)

1) Slashdotted.

2) Since I'm sure this is just another cookie-cutter Anti-MS piece, I'll point out the following: Please stop referencing MS memos/docs from years ago in order to bash the company. Come on. That's SO 1999.

Okay, this is better (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956619)

I'm proud of it, at least.
http://a4fs.net/img/lol.htm [a4fs.net]

(look at the "recommends" area)

Re:Snooze. (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957147)

So what you're saying is that what they said some years ago shouldn't be taken serious anymore? Why should I take anything said by MS now serious? Why should I believe that what's being spun today holds any meaning in the future if I am not supposed to believe what I was told earlier?

Don't get me wrong, but when a company makes a statement or announcement, there are two ways to deal with it. Either believe it and expect it to happen or declare it bunk and handle it accordingly. And if the former is expected, the results should warrant it. Either MS follows its words with actions or it has to accept that people ignore their announcements, or, worse, read them for the same reason they read the Prawda: To know what will certainly NOT happen.

Re:Snooze. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18957461)

but 1999 was the last time anyone around here had a solid job and that is all they remember

Terrified, they aint. (4, Insightful)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956377)

Come on.

Why is Microsoft the only company constantly expected to make decisions anti to their business model? Where is the clamor for Apple to adopt VB for the sake of 'developers'? Ok, bad example.

But seriously; with 50Billion in the bank, I think throwing around words like 'terrified' serve no purpose but to feed the rabid-anti-Microsoft crowds.

Hard to have a serious discussion, when the article is premised on hype and flaming rhetoric to start with.

Re:Terrified, they aint. (3, Insightful)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956419)

Just to follow up, how stupid is it for the same folks yelling "Microsoft sucks!" on a daily basis, to turn around and ask for access to some of that suckage for themselves?

Do they suck or not, people? If so, why ask for their shit?

Re:Terrified, they aint. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18956647)

Are you sure? I mean, can you point to someone who has done that? Or are you just confusing a group of people with the individuals within the group? 'cos I'm fairly sure that's what you're doing.

Re:Terrified, they aint. (1)

Da Fokka (94074) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956923)

The article summary, for instance:

...yet are terrified of the very thought of .NET being available to *nix users, even if that's to the benefit of .NET developers everywhere

Re:Terrified, they aint. (1)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957327)

As someone who's been saying that MS sucks for 20+ years, I feel qualified to answer this. They suck in many ways.

There's the standalone suckage such as every version of WinDOS they sold before NT. Most of us don't really care about this, in fact we find it amusing.

It's the other crap that gets us worked up. Network suckage, such as NetBeui and SMB, file format suckage such as MSOffice, and
corporate suckage such as their misdeeds against Sun, Digital Research, Linux and countless others.

If we wanted their shit, we would buy it. What we really want is for MS to stop being like the Borg. They should communicate with open languages and protocols and stop trying to assimilate the world. The reason they won't is that they would become irrelevant almost overnight.

Re:Terrified, they aint. (1, Insightful)

Locutus (9039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957415)

It's for the customers man. Those poor thoughtless, ignorant, and mostly naive people who have bought into Microsoft's lies and are now stuck with them with no way out. Like a cute fuzzy forest creature following a food trail into a dastardly trap. You feel sorry for the thoughtless creature and want to help it out of its cage. So too is the desire to lead the caged masses out of the trap(s) Microsoft has lead them into. ;-)

LoB

Re:Terrified, they aint. (3, Insightful)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956655)

"Terrified" isn't really the word, but "paranoid" would probably do. Microsoft, as an organization, doesn't like to compete with other companies. So, their way of doing business is to rig the system so that they have such an overwhelming competitive advantage they don't have to compete. This is why they are paranoid about someone figuring out their file formats, certain network protocols. And they're paranoid about their army of developers being able to quickly and easily develop for other platforms. Look at their actions and you'll see that.

Frankly, that paranoia got them the $50B in the bank, so it's hard to argue against.

That said, they have as much interest in making cross-platform development tools as they have in supporting ODF, and basically for the same reason. The WWW is one of the only truly cross-platform development environments left; why do you think they want so badly to make a "flash-killer"? It's not about flash - it's about the web.

Re:Terrified, they aint. (3, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956669)

Indeed. If Microsoft has a fault, it's the fact their marketing does claim they'll be just as cross-platform and open, as Adobe Flash is, as a web platform (talking about Silverlight and the open-sources CLR here).

Adobe open-sourced part of the platform as they feel the heat from Microsoft. Microsoft did the same as they feel the heat from Adobe (yes, having 50 billion in the bank doesn't mean they're immune to failure, so they DO react quickly to competition).

It's stupid to expect they should spend years developing .NET and then give it all away randomly to make MS-bashers happy (which they will never ever be, anyway).

Acknolwedge the amount of effort that went into .NET and accpet it as a great platform, that's more or less tied to Windows, and has limited deployment on other platforms. That's all you need to do: see through Microsoft marketing, and use technology where it's best fitted.

I'm a Flash developer and would still see lots of uses for .NET/Silverlight, that in some cases even mix Silverlight and Flash in the same experience - why not? Why should I be a nazi and not just give it to Microsoft for having a great runtime, when they do.

Screw bashers.

Re:Terrified, they aint. (-1, Offtopic)

blankaBrew (1000609) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956733)

Apple did make a decision that was adversarial to their business model. Steve Jobs laid down the gauntlet and asked the record industry to allow them to sell music DRM free. Of course, the anti-apple crowd claimed that Jobs was just grandstanding and would never get rid of DRM because it allowed Apple to lock in iPod users. Then....low and behold... Apple got rid of DRM.

Apple does things that are good for the consumer. Their whole business philosophy is to compete on merit by producing "insanely great products", and not by removing consumer choice through lock-in, etc.

Re:Terrified, they aint. (1)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956867)

Oh please.

Apple just did what they always do, which is to read the tea leaves sooner than the competition. DRM is limiting what Apple and others can do, but unlike the others, Apple doesnt mind taking a short-term risk in favor of a long term goal. Apple's foresight is the only reason they still exist as a force in the marketplace.

In that Apple customers have a religious zeal for their products, this decision is NOT against their business model.

Re:Terrified, they aint. (1)

blankaBrew (1000609) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957099)

M$ Zealot Timeline

January 2007 - Apple is a DRM pushing monopoly

February 2007 after Steve Jobs' call to end DRM - Jobs is lying.. they would never agree to get rid of DRM because that would be against their business intersts in customer lock-in.

April 2007 after Steve Jobs announces Deal to drop DRM - They just read the tea leaves sooner than everyone else. This is not against their business model.

Re:Terrified, they aint. (2, Insightful)

dubl-u (51156) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957441)

Why is Microsoft the only company constantly expected to make decisions anti to their business model?

I think Slashdot is pretty consistent in expecting companies to make decisions in favor of Slashdot readers. And when they don't, we expect them not to lie to us too much.

The problem with Microsoft is that their business model, which involves creating a fair bit of vendor lock-in and maintaining their monopoly by any means necessary, is one that doesn't fit well with either of those criteria.

Re:Terrified, they aint. (1)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957473)

Really, the question is why supposedly smart people insist in investing time and money on a project where Microsoft controls the requirements?

And yes - because Microsoft has an effective monopoly, it is subject to a different set of rules designed to protect the market from it.

.Net Framework Portability (3, Informative)

Wharper (13989) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956413)

It does seem M$ is making some effort to take at least some portions of the .net framework to other systems:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/embedded/bb278106 .aspx [microsoft.com]

It even looks as if some companies are making dev boards with it:

http://www.embeddedfusion.com/default.aspx?id=76 [embeddedfusion.com]

In talking with them (M$) it seems that you pay to port this framework to whatever platform you would like to take the framework to. This is with or without an operating system.

Cheers,
    Bill

Hmmm... (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956421)

Well, MS never hyped .NET as a truly platform independent envioroment. They hyped it as a language independent platform which *eventually* would run in several OS.

OTPH why should they be scared of the UN*X world? If they should be scared, then it's the MAC world they should be scared of in the desktop world? AND if they were so scared of Linux, they COULD have reacted directly to the mono project. They have all the rights to stop it and guess what... They never did it.

Re:Hmmm... (2, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957519)

Why should they be afraid? Because given 30 years and more money than the GNP of Texas they can't come up with a better OS than a finnish nerd's geek vanity project, or a better language than c++. They should be afraid because the future is Open.

Portability (3, Insightful)

Egonis (155154) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956447)

It's pretty sad.

On the other hand, there is always the Mono Project (www.mono-project.org)
It even has a Visual Basic Compiler.

Yes, it's not ready for primetime yet (imo), but it looks very promising.

Microsoft's actions will just result in more 3rd party and OSS development.

Re:Portability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18956695)

> It's pretty sad.

>On the other hand, there is always the Mono Project (www.mono-project.org)
>It even has a Visual Basic Compiler.

>Yes, it's not ready for primetime yet (imo), but it looks very promising.

Yeah.. it is sad.

Mono looked to be in about the same position 3 years ago ( looks very promising!). Unfortunately the devs have been suckered by MS. How can anyone be even slightly surprised when the .NET/c# bar keeps moving on the mono guys? They will never catch up and MS will just keep using them as an example of 'openness' .

Harsh truth does hurt.

Re:Portability (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956723)

I think that Sun should pour a bunch of money/time into Mono, to make it ready for prime time. This would allow them to have .Net on sun systems. I think that could play very well for them. .Net is a great framework for developing applications, but I've always found that IIS is a little lacking for running large enterprise systems.

Re:Portability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18956849)

WTF?

Ever heard of Java and the dozens of frameworks and app servers you can use to build applications? Apps that run on half a dozen platforms w/ little to no changes?

Jeez...

----

I suppose I just fell for a troll.

Re:Portability (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957533)

there is always the Mono Project (www.mono-project.org)
It even has a Visual Basic Compiler.

Yes, it's not ready for primetime yet (imo), but it looks very promising.


WINE isn't ready for primetime yet (imo). As a project, it's been going on for about 10 years and it's been looking very promising in the last couple of years.

But then Microsoft release something new - maybe some new APIs in the latest version of Windows, or as part of a service pack - and suddenly WINE has more catching up to do.

The same is true of Mono. A project like that simply cannot hope to ever reach the same level as the product it's aping because as it's trying to hit a moving target.

Mono Anyone? (3, Insightful)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956457)

Stop griping and expend your efforts bringing Mono [mono-project.com] up to .Net 2.0 compatability.

Re:Mono Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18956747)

Nope.

I stopped gripping long ago and I'm using Java instead.

At the end of the day, the one and only reason Microsoft came up with C#, the CLR and so on is because Java was portable.
VB.NET could just as well have targeted the JVM, and as for the C/C++ compatibility which as I recall was the main argument for starting Mono in the name of reuse, and mysteriously dropped off the radar, that's just syntactic sugar in the C compiler.

So just what kind of moron expect them to make it cross platform now?!?
Yeah, I know, Miguel and those guys...

Whatever guys. For that I got Java.
For everything else I got Python, Perl and C.

Re:Mono Anyone? (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957339)

Stop griping and expend your efforts bringing Mono [mono-project.com] up to .Net 2.0 compatability.
Microsoft is on .NET 3.0.. Kind of sums up the problem doesn't it. :-)

Whatever (3, Interesting)

Concern (819622) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957491)

Even if Java wasn't about to be GPLd, was it really worth all the effort, plus daring the world's most notorious IP barratrers' fairly obvious patent/IP trap, so you can get...

Operator overloading? Unsafe code in a VM? Not to say there aren't a few nice things. But too few. Mono is a dangerous waste of time.

That C#/.NET hype is so damn tired. It's a dead-end platform, unless MS opens it up, or chooses to add some truly novel features to it in the future.

Java (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956469)

.NET is basically Java without the portability.
So why bother with .NET?

Re:Java (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18956605)

Why use Java? I admit I'm more of a hardware guy then a programmer but why bother using either Java or .NET? C works just fine for most programs. It's portable, it's easier to learn, and it's less hyped with fewe buzz words?

Re:Java (2, Funny)

aegisalpha (58712) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957425)

Objects blah blah blah blah

They fear the power of C, obviously.

Re:Java (5, Interesting)

poindextrose (640377) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956653)

I develop in both the Java and .NET frameworks. I like the Java language a lot more than C#. Unfortunately, users like Windows.Forms a lot more than Swing.

Re:Java (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956795)

Linux and Mac users don't.

So don't use Swing? (1)

dgym (584252) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957189)

Unfortunately, users like Windows.Forms a lot more than Swing.
Your Linux users probably much prefer Swing. The article is about portability after all.

You have a choice for your Java GUI widgets, if you or your users don't like Swing there are numerous alternatives. Swing just happens to come with the JVM, thats all.

Re:Java (2, Interesting)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956689)

So why bother with .NET?

Simplicity. I hate MS to my very core, but I can whip up apps in C#.NET faster than I can in Java. 99% of the time I don't care about portability. I just care about getting things done on time. Of course, then there's the other times when I have to use MFC for various reasons, and that pretty much cancels out any gains I got from using C#.NET...

Re:Java (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957211)

Funny. I can write apps in C++ a billion times faster than in C#. That I've been doing it in C++ for about 15 years now could be a reason...

Of course you're faster with a language you know than one you don't.

Re:Java (1, Troll)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956715)

.Net is Java without portability and with bugs. and don't even get me started on ASPX vs JSP.

Unfortunately we have too much code to shift from .NET/asp to Java and most of our developers only know .net otherwise we would be a Java on Unix with Apache house instead of a .NET on Windows with IIS house that keeps having 'problems' with practically everything we try to do with the technologies.

Re:Java (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957337)

.Net is Java without portability and with bugs.
MS want you to use their platform, just like SUN saw Java as a means to ship their hardware and Solaris. This surprises you why? Care to mention some of these bugs? I have been using both Java and .NET for several years and the bug counts for both platforms are quite low.

and don't even get me started on ASPX vs JSP
You are right, ASPX is a vastly superior and cleaner model for web development and does not require learning 5 different Java web frameworks to get anything done in a maintainable manner.

most of our developers only know .net otherwise we would be a Java on Unix
Since this is not the case you obviously dont call the shots on the IT Architecture so this is wishful thinking on your part, not fact.

that keeps having 'problems' with practically everything we try to do with the technologies
If you keep having 'problems' then maybe the issue is not with the technology.

Re:Java (1, Insightful)

hclyff (925743) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956727)

Java runtime has to be installed separately, while .NET is preinstalled on Windows.

Re:Java (4, Informative)

Jarnis (266190) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957539)

It may be preinstalled in Windows *Vista*, but it sure as hell is not preinstalled on XP.

Instructing end users to install this and that .NET framework is a common problem. As is explaining the fact 'WTF why do I have to install .NET 1.1, I already have 2.0!' - most users don't understand that the two can (and in some cases should) coexist.

MS has made .NET very end-user unfriendly in XP.

Re:Java (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956839)

.NET is basically Java without the portability.
So why bother with .NET?


And you're basically a sack of carbons. This is why, they say, the devil's in the details.

Re:Java (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18957401)

.NET is basically Java without the portability.
No, it's not. Even cursory research into both runtimes and frameworks will begin to show you how different they are.

.NET Is Only Really Useful on Windows Anyway (5, Insightful)

repruhsent (672799) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956475)

Other implementations of .NET are kind of stupid anyway, and, like it or not, Mono really isn't very useful. Anyone who does development on Linux/Mac/anything that isn't Windows will just use native code, or Java - probably because writing a native app isn't nearly as difficult on other platforms, and Java actually is write once, run anywhere (well, closer than .NET, anyway).

The only platform that benefits from .NET is Windows; have any of you written a native code Windows app (I'm sure many of you have)? The code is a nightmare and makes my eyes scream. With Windows, you really, truly need a system like .NET to make developing any non-trivial app even remotely possible, unless you want to spend 1,000 hours writing fucking COM shit (which I sure as fuck don't).

Object-orientation and elegance are secondary (1, Troll)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956505)

at Microsoft.

When Bill Gates was asked if he'd develop for an object-oriented systems _years_ ahead of anything else then available his response?

``Develop for it? I'll piss on it.'' Randall Stross, _Steve Jobs and the NeXT Big Thing_, pg. 72

Which is probably why the ``Yellow Box'' in Mac OS X was so named. But that sort of attitude on the part of Microsoft goes a long way towards explaining their hostility to a true cross-platform solution.

William

For God's sake... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18956571)

...Please learn to spell "its".

Arrrgggghhh.

It's in their interest Not to... (3, Insightful)

blueforce (192332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956589)

With the proliferation of Web Applications and SOA, and the diminishing relevance of desktop software, it's in Microsoft's best interest NOT to make it cross-platform.

Let's say that a full implementation of the .Net framework was available for *nix or OS X - all of the framework libs, ASP, WinForms, etc. What incentive would I have to fill a Web server farm full of thousands of dollars of Windows Server licenses when I could run my ASP.Net apps on Apache? The only real costs to add machines to the farm are hardware-related. .Net already has providers for Oracle and MySQL. Suddenly, Microsoft's Operating systems and platforms become irrelevant to developers who have years of experience and time invested in learning .Net.

Re:It's in their interest Not to... (0, Troll)

blankaBrew (1000609) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956991)

I disagree. It should be in M$' best interest to make great products that people want to buy, which includes allowing that web developer in your example to run his ASP.Net app on Apache. I hate to keep pointing out Apple, but look at the contrast. Apple gives the Webobjects developent environment for free with MacOS X, and once developed, it can be deployed on any Java server, including linux. They don't try to sell MacOS X servers buy requiring Webobjects to only run on MacOS X boxes. They try to sell their servers based upon their own merit. A company can operate this way and turn a nice profit.

Re:It's in their interest Not to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18957257)

What incentive?

Well, *ideally*, because Microsoft has invested the resources to make .Net on Windows Servers perform the best and have the best support system. In other words: because they make the best implementation of the standard and service, and, therefore, it would be worth the extra money that having Windows Servers would cost. Best value for the money. Beat the competition fair and square. That sort of thing.

Of course, I did said "ideally".

I'm sure Microsoft is well aware of the scenario you describe. So, more likely, they'll drink just enough of the "cross platform" poison to get some other people on board, and then they'll stop. Kind of like they did with the original versions of Windows NT, which were also initially cross platform, and then were dropped.

Simple (2, Insightful)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956643)

Because Microsoft never made a single portable product!
Where "portable" means "on other OSs than the Microsoft's ones".

its, it's, IT (2, Informative)

dailyrev (1096411) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956675)

Please forgive the grammar lesson, but this is the third time I've seen this error this week. And geeks should understand me more than anyone: you work with languages and grammar of your own. "abuse of it's developers" Here's your rule of thumb, author: 1. it's = it is (it's a beautiful day to bash MS) 2. its = belonging to it (its brain had been washed by Ballmer) 3. IT's = ah,now that could be either "belonging to the IT dept." or "I(nformation)T(ech) is..." So the correct spelling of the above would be "abuse of its developers..." --Brian Donohue, dailyrevolution.net [dailyrevolution.net]

Just use Java (0)

RAMGarden (306790) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956709)

I think Java has the market cornered in cross-platform programming. I could be wrong though - but probably not.

.Not! (1, Troll)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956851)

...yet are terrified of the very thought of .NET being available to *nix users, even if that's to the benefit of .NET developers everywhere.


Are you INSANE??
I would never defile my precious machines with that nasty M$ crapware!

Re:.Not! (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957397)

You modded me troll? Looks like someone's sense of humor isn't functioning properly. I recommend caffeine with sugar.

sh1t (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18956855)

where it belongs, w00t 7his mis7ake or

Hold up (1)

blowdart (31458) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956909)

Microsoft employees discuss the (im)possibility of creating a cross-platform code and UI framework, years before the .NET project even started!

So what, computers don't move forward? People don't change their minds ever? You're attempting to justify a stance because of discussions years ago? If that is true, shouldn't you be a train driver because that's what you said you were going to be at age 6?

Re:Hold up (1)

danpsmith (922127) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957393)

So what, computers don't move forward? People don't change their minds ever? You're attempting to justify a stance because of discussions years ago? If that is true, shouldn't you be a train driver because that's what you said you were going to be at age 6?

I am a train driver, you insensitive clod.

Blog post found to be incorrect, News at 11 (2, Interesting)

Michael Dorfman (324722) | more than 7 years ago | (#18956925)

So, in other words, TFA chewed Microsoft out for not making .NET cross-platform, just days before Microsoft announces a cross-platform version of .NET. How exactly is this "stuff that matters"?

FAILZlORS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18956939)

were n0ulified by

It is cross platform. (1)

kinglink (195330) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957109)

It works on Xp and Vista, the only platforms Microsoft acknowledges.

Duh! (3, Insightful)

phillymjs (234426) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957113)

Nobody with any sense is going to believe any cross-platform claims made by Microsoft anymore. The Windows platform is their lifeblood, and they'll do whatever they have to to artificially bind people to it. That's why they're fighting and delaying all attempts to truly open up their connection protocols and file formats. On a level playing field, people would desert Windows in droves, and Microsoft knows it.

Honestly, I don't see how this is even still open for debate in 2007-- Microsoft showed their true colors w/r/t portability after they added Windows-only extensions to Java. And that's if you ignore their prior attempt to balkanize the web and cause pain for anyone not running Windows IE.

Their "Flash-killer" and their "PDF-killer" and any other allegedly-open standards they try to foist off on us should be ignored and allowed to die. If we allow them to get a foothold, we deserve everything we get.

~Philly

Re:Duh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18957477)

Got to agree.

Microsoft's cash cows are Windows and Office which prosper precisely because of proprietary lock-in. Microsoft's only interest in cross-platform standards is in trying to kill them, and one way to do that is to compete with them with (with entirely disingenuiness long-term intent).

Spelling error (1)

MisterBad (40316) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957283)

That should be "abuse of its developers". Possessive form of "it" is "its"; "it's" is a contraction of "it is".

A choice of two (1)

Jerry Smith (806480) | more than 7 years ago | (#18957507)

(1)Because of the money, or (2)because the customer demands/wants/appreciates it. Or a combination. So: why will Microsoft never make .NET truly portable? should be easy to answer now.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...