Topic: .Net hands Linux (and gang) a loss (Read 7225 times)

Scott Allen Abfalter · « **Reply #20 on:** February 09, 2004, 12:02:40 pm »

- Java runs on about any OS with a JVM. C#/.NET runs on Windows with plans to maybe someday run elsewhere, maybe.

- Can't use CORBA very easily. .NEt has XML over SOAP but that's a cheap alternative.

- Java is free.

- Microsoft holds a tight reign on the .NET framework, whereas there are many many open source Java extensions with more coming every day.

Basically, .NET is designed to keep you on Microsoft OS and using Microsoft tools. Tha'ts fine if you want to keep paying money to them. The alternative is Java, which is free and allows you easier integration with other vendors (via CORBA, etc). With .NET you get what Microsoft develops. With Java you get what the worldwide Java community develops.

That's how I see it in a brief nutshell.

RogueJedi_XC · « **Reply #21 on:** February 10, 2004, 02:22:25 pm »

.Net is just as free as Java. You do not have to purchase Visual Studio .Net to use it. You can download it free from MS's web site and use the accompanying CLI tools to compile C#, VB.Net, C++.Net, and one or two others. There are also several open-source free graphical development environments available for .Net.

Saying .Net is not free is, at best, ignorant. At worst it's an outright lie.

(Note to self: this is not the hot 'n spicy forum, cool the rhetoric!

)

Toasty0 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 10, 2004, 05:56:02 pm »

Quote:

.Net is just as free as Java. You do not have to purchase Visual Studio .Net to use it. You can download it free from MS's web site and use the accompanying CLI tools to compile C#, VB.Net, C++.Net, and one or two others. There are also several open-source free graphical development environments available for .Net.

Saying .Net is not free is, at best, ignorant. At worst it's an outright lie.

(Note to self: this is not the hot 'n spicy forum, cool the rhetoric! )

You are absolutely correct Rogue.

Here is a link http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=9B3A2CA6-3647-4070-9F41-A333C6B9181D&displaylang=en

and for you Linux die hards...err...fans this is Rotor: http://www.ondotnet.com/pub/a/dotnet/2002/03/04/rotor.html

This should give someone an idea of the number of languages .Net supports or will soon support: http://www.gotdotnet.com/community/resources/Default.aspx?ResourceTypeDropDownList=Language+vendors&SortDirection=Desc&SortColumnName=CreationDate

There is more about .Net that I like (including managed DirectX), but I don't want to pile-on or seem disrectful of Scott's expert opinion.

Best,
Jerry

Toasty0 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 11, 2004, 12:05:58 pm »

While surfing WWW I wandered into the Sony site. Wow, even they use .Net and Asp.Net...

Best,
Jerry

Demandred · « **Reply #24 on:** February 11, 2004, 05:19:05 pm »

*reads case study*

Eh? What were they smoking when they wrote that?

"However, Java could only deliver on about 70% of the cross-platform promise."

So, they are saying that a Microsoft technology that currently only runs on Windows is more cross-platform than Java?

"As far as interoperability is concerned, we feel that the interface approach (Web services) is more solid than the portability approach. The reason why we feel the J2EE solution is not completely portable is because your J2EE application doesn't automatically run on every J2EE application server (without designing and verifying accordingly)."

And anything .NET only runs on a Windows operating system, thus they did have to design for the platform. They also seem to be saying that .NET doesn't need verification... well, whatever technology you are using, nobody but a cowboy would make it live without extensive testing. Did they outsource to India? *snicker*

"In the end, a commercially supported framework is cheaper. By the time you add the hardware (assuming that it's Sun) and the database (assuming that it's Oracle), the deployment costs even for a free J2EE application server are higher than for the .NET Framework."

Wha? If a PC-based server meets their needs (Windows doesn't run on anything else), why would they go out and buy an expensive Sun server? And naturally, since they wouldn't be using MS SQL, they'll be buying the uber-expensive Oracle. Couldn't possibly use an open-source database server.

"We knew that the only way to go was with standards-based development tools,"

If he means Microsoft standards, then yeah, I guess. I just find the whole article a tad over the top. I've never seen a story like this outside a Microsoft site. It kinda reminds me of Microsoft's response to Apple's Switch ads... they eventually had to admit that the woman in question happened to be a Microsoft employee.

Scott Allen Abfalter · « **Reply #26 on:** February 12, 2004, 09:31:59 am »

Maybew to Microsoft 'interoperability' means "between different versions of Windows..."

*smile*

Scott Allen Abfalter · « **Reply #27 on:** February 12, 2004, 09:34:44 am »

All I know is that I develop Java on my Windows PC and then FTP the jar file over to my Solaris system to run it. When our lab was shy a SunBlade I put the software on a spare Linux box and it ran fine. Same jar file, no recompile and no extra work. That flexibility is very nice.

TalonClaw · « **Reply #28 on:** February 12, 2004, 09:47:53 am »

I've been playing around with .NET and have to say it is a really nice tool. Finally MS comes up with something that actually helps you develop quicker. It's a good thing to learn. I checked the job offerings in my area and every one of them is for .NET development.

Scott Allen Abfalter · « **Reply #30 on:** February 12, 2004, 10:02:28 am »

For the record: .NET is certainly a step forward for doing development on a Microsoft system. I'm not knocking it if that's what you want to do. I just see J2SE/J2EE as a development platform that has a wider range of applicability; most particularly in an deployment environment with different OS's. But that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with .NET and C# for what it is.

Toasty0 · « **Reply #31 on:** February 12, 2004, 10:54:48 am »

TC--

Not sure how far you're drilling down with .Net but if you're doing any API hooking at all you might find this interesting.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/win32map.asp

Best,
Jerry

Toasty0 · « **Reply #34 on:** February 09, 2004, 09:26:07 am »

Simplify, Tomoye's flagship Community of Practice (CoP) software is built on Linux using PHP, Apache, and MySQL. When some of Tomoye's customers began to outgrow the current offering, Tomoye needed to build an Enterprise scalable CoP platform. The company considered and rejected writing a J2EE application, and instead designed and built a new, highly advanced, highly scalable Web application in C# for Microsoft Windows Server 2003 operating system using the Microsoft .NET Framework and SQL Server 2000. The time to market was a mere 18 months...

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/casestudy.asp?CaseStudyID=14992

Sorry guys. Guess you can't win all the battles.

Scott Allen Abfalter · « **Reply #35 on:** February 09, 2004, 10:18:35 am »

Hey, I am sure Microsoft can find all sorts of cases where people were foolish enough to use their cr@p.

Scott Allen Abfalter · « **Reply #37 on:** February 09, 2004, 12:02:40 pm »

- Java runs on about any OS with a JVM. C#/.NET runs on Windows with plans to maybe someday run elsewhere, maybe.

- Can't use CORBA very easily. .NEt has XML over SOAP but that's a cheap alternative.

- Java is free.

- Microsoft holds a tight reign on the .NET framework, whereas there are many many open source Java extensions with more coming every day.

Basically, .NET is designed to keep you on Microsoft OS and using Microsoft tools. Tha'ts fine if you want to keep paying money to them. The alternative is Java, which is free and allows you easier integration with other vendors (via CORBA, etc). With .NET you get what Microsoft develops. With Java you get what the worldwide Java community develops.

That's how I see it in a brief nutshell.

RogueJedi_XC · « **Reply #38 on:** February 10, 2004, 02:22:25 pm »

.Net is just as free as Java. You do not have to purchase Visual Studio .Net to use it. You can download it free from MS's web site and use the accompanying CLI tools to compile C#, VB.Net, C++.Net, and one or two others. There are also several open-source free graphical development environments available for .Net.

Saying .Net is not free is, at best, ignorant. At worst it's an outright lie.

(Note to self: this is not the hot 'n spicy forum, cool the rhetoric!

)

News:

Topic: .Net hands Linux (and gang) a loss (Read 7225 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Scott Allen Abfalter

RogueJedi_XC

Toasty0

Toasty0

Demandred

Toasty0

Scott Allen Abfalter

Scott Allen Abfalter

TalonClaw

Toasty0

Scott Allen Abfalter

Toasty0

TalonClaw

TalonClaw

Toasty0

Scott Allen Abfalter

Toasty0

Scott Allen Abfalter

RogueJedi_XC

Toasty0

Topic: .Net hands Linux (and gang) a loss (Read 7225 times)