Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Conspiracy Theories: C#, Corel, DOJ, MS and .Net

By pb in Op-Ed
Sun Oct 08, 2000 at 11:18:45 AM EST
Tags: Technology (all tags)
Technology

I've done a bit of searching and pondering, and I'd like some other opinions here, so tell me if you think any of this is possible.

Is Microsoft going to make Windows irrelevant? Are they using Corel to help create a new platform to dominate? Does their .NET strategy fit entirely in the Applications department? Will they try to crush Java with C#?


Of course you all know that Microsoft might be broken up into an "Operating System" company and an "Application" company. However, if they sell subscriptions to their .NET service and develop applications for it in C#, I think that could all technically fall into the Application department, even though it's essentially a new platform. In fact, this is the platform that Microsoft feared that Netscape or Sun would design to compete with Windows.

The C# page itself is sickening; it is designed to embrace and extend web standards by polluting them with COM technology and Microsoft-isms, and most likely uglifying XML. Only time will tell here, but it won't surprise me if this happens at all, once Microsoft starts getting developers to use it.

Enter Corel--they have experience with rewriting their Office Suite in Java and emulating it under Wine, and Microsoft wants them to develop for their .NET platform. Corel needs the cash, and says that this could be their chance to move their business platform to the web. Microsoft can certainly afford to be generous until they have everyone locked into their new platform.

It's early yet, but I already smell a rat. Could Microsoft use these tactics to evade the DOJ ruling and lock everyone into an evil subscription service with new slow applications that can't be bought, only rented, running in a C# virtual environment anywhere, but better on Windows, with corrupted Microsoft standards for everything? I hope not, but I'm sure they'd love it if it came to that.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
What was the last truly innovative Microsoft product?
o BASIC 7%
o DOS 2%
o Windows 4%
o Office 5%
o IE 5%
o Dev Tools 2%
o BOB 25%
o Innovation? What innovation?!? 45%

Votes: 277
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o develop applications for it in C#
o rewriting their Office Suite in Java
o Microsoft wants them to develop for their .NET platform
o Also by pb


Display: Sort:
Conspiracy Theories: C#, Corel, DOJ, MS and .Net | 62 comments (46 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden)
MS can't force anyone to do anything (2.66 / 12) (#1)
by meadows_p on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 06:28:23 AM EST

Microsoft can't force anyone to do anything. I think with the slower than normal uptake rate of Win2000 that people are rebelling against having to upgrade all of the time when the current version does the job that they want. I see no reason why this shouldn't continue. On the corel front, I think that's its much more likely that we'll see MS/Corel Linux with a Windows looking window manager running on top of it and .NET built in. Just my two penneth.

The real irony (4.25 / 4) (#2)
by pwhysall on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 07:27:28 AM EST

Is that W2K is the first version of Windows that actually has any hope at all of living up to the hype.

IOW, it's actually damn good and nobody wants it.
--
Peter
K5 Editors
I'm going to wager that the story keeps getting dumped because it is a steaming pile of badly formatted fool-meme.
CheeseBurgerBrown
[ Parent ]

Re: The real irony (3.50 / 4) (#3)
by spiralx on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 07:55:49 AM EST

Yeah, it's true - it looks and feels professional, especially compared to Win95 and co, and it doesn't suffer from the stability problems NT and 95/98 did. Whilst I'm sure it's not perfect under heavy loads, it really is a step up from MS's usual fodder.


You're doomed, I'm doomed, we're all doomed for ice cream. - Bob Aboey
[ Parent ]

Good Questions (3.10 / 10) (#4)
by Eloquence on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 08:02:14 AM EST

They're obviously trying to use .NET as a backup for Windows. The essential question here is: What does the other side have to offer? And can we sell it? MS will try to distribute .NET/C# as the new "paradigm shift", something that everyone needs to have because of its incredible powers, stability etc.

So I think Linux (and other open-source systems) must get ready for a serious, concerted counter-marketing attack. The power of MS can obviously not be broken by the DOJ, it can only be broken by the people, and to achieve this, it is important that even the different OS camps (KDE / Gnome, for example) "fight separately and strike together".

Most importantly, all businesses that are Anti-MS will have to organize under the roof of one organization. I will write more about that later.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!

Leave Microsoft alone.... (3.36 / 25) (#5)
by Carnage4Life on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 08:34:42 AM EST

This article is the exact kind of anti-Microsoft claptrap that made me leave Slashdot in the first place.

For your information MSFT is simply doing what every other freaking company is doing by trying to move into the ASP space by creating a platform that goes beyond the OS. Every major software company is doing this:

1.) Sun has Java which it using to create a server platform that is beyond the OS.

2.) Oracle has their Application Server products that tie into their databases.

3.) IBM is doing the same thing Sun is doing with Java as well as their DB and Application Server software.

4.) Hewlett Packard has E-speak.

The above are companies I remember off the top of my head, this doesn't count all the pre-IPO companies that are trying to create their own ASP platforms as well. For the past year or so almost every major software company has been making strong moves to becoming the premier service provider in the coming world of Application Service Providers. To single Microsoft out for doing what eveyone else is doing simply shows a single minded and unthinking dislike for Microsoft and nothing else.

It's early yet, but I already smell a rat. Could Microsoft use these tactics to evade the DOJ ruling and lock everyone into an evil subscription service with new slow applications that can't be bought, only rented, running in a C# virtual environment anywhere, but better on Windows, with corrupted Microsoft standards for everything?

What the fuck? The DOJ has ordered the company split and that is not enough for you?

Frankly the fact that the company is forward thinking enough to realize that being the king of desktop OSes will not be enough in the coming years and is thus moving to a cross-platform, cross-language, server architecture should be applauded instead of being cause for more recriminations by bitter Open Source zealots(this is aimed at pb, I've seen his posts on Slashdot).

So exactly what would you rather they did? Sit around twiddling their thumbs while the rest of the software industry uses the Web to make whatever OS you are running on irrelevant as long as you have a web browser?

Re: Leave Microsoft alone.... (3.60 / 10) (#6)
by pb on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 08:55:21 AM EST

Firstly, that's why I posted this in the "Rants" section. I hadn't heard much about Microsoft's strategy with the .NET stuff, so I tried to piece it together for myself. What do you think about my conclusions? It sounds like you think this *is* what they're planning.

The difference between Microsoft and all the other companies you've named (Sun, Oracle, IBM, and HP) is that I've seen what happens when Microsoft runs the show. They can't be trusted with The One Ring, as it were.

Sun has tried to make Java an "open standard", as in there are other implementations out there. We'll see what happens with Microsoft and C#, but I have yet to see Microsoft use a standard and not butcher it. If Microsft cared about standards in the first place, C# would be based around, say, CORBA.

Oracle has their place in the enterprise, otherwise they would have lost out to MS' SQL Server already, but they're primarily marketing to businesses, they don't have the entire consumer market at their beck and call yet. Ditto for IBM, and HP isn't even on the radar. But you're right, I don't like Microsoft, and I don't trust them. But they've also proven themselves to be irresponsible, and not worth my trust. If IBM does that next week, well, I'll start to not like IBM.

The DOJ *has* ordered the company split, but you'll notice that it's not split yet, and until that happens, Microsoft is in denial. They will do anything they can to weasel out of anything they don't like, and I've seen it enough times in the past. Heck, going back to IBM, I remember when Microsoft delayed the Windows '95 release just long enough that OS/2 wouldn't have support for Win '95 apps, because their source license ran out! (and remember that NT is built on the technology Microsoft got from OS/2, as well, after Microsoft couldn't sell Xenix, but still needed a real OS...)

When Microsoft realized that they might not be the king of desktop OSes in the coming years, they pressured Netscape to fold. And that's only after they realized that the Internet might become important somehow. They also failed to subvert Java already, and didn't seem too interested in standards-compliance back then.

Carnage4Life: here's some history, so you can see where I'm coming from. I like Linux, and I like Open Source, and I have my reasons. I would rather see Microsoft try to earn my trust back by perhaps making a decent product that I would want to use at a price I would care to pay for it. Remember those days?

I personally trace Microsoft going bad at around DOS 5.0, and I liked DOS back then. That's when they started to charge for the upgrades, and then got sued by Stac, and eventually bought or stole most of the DOS utility market. And Windows 3.1 was really bloated after that. And once they got rid of the .INI files in favor of the registry, and started hiding DOS and denying that it was a part of the OS, it was all over for me.

Not only am I not buying their crap again, but there's no way in hell they'll ever get me locked into a subscription contract for it! As if their license agreements aren't bad enough already, I'm not going to actually rent my word processor!
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
Re: Leave Microsoft alone.... (3.55 / 9) (#7)
by Carnage4Life on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 09:24:48 AM EST

Firstly, that's why I posted this in the "Rants" section. I hadn't heard much about Microsoft's strategy with the .NET stuff, so I tried to piece it together for myself. What do you think about my conclusions? It sounds like you think this *is* what they're planning.

Yes it is, my point was that everyone is trying to do it not just Microsoft.

The difference between Microsoft and all the other companies you've named (Sun, Oracle, IBM, and HP) is that I've seen what happens when Microsoft runs the show. They can't be trusted with The One Ring, as it were.

Trust me, you don't want Scott McNealy or Larry Wall running the show.

Sun has tried to make Java an "open standard", as in there are other implementations out there.

Sun has done no such thing. The language specifications are available for all to read just as they are for every other language even MSFT's C#. If people want to implement Java based on the spec doesn't bother Sun as long as no one calls it Java™ (trademark violation). If anyone wants to suggest changes to the official Sun specs, they have to go through the Java Community Process which is horribly convoluted and slow (probably less so than a standards committee) and whose sole arbiter is Sun, this is hardly open.

We'll see what happens with Microsoft and C#, but I have yet to see Microsoft use a standard and not butcher it. If Microsft cared about standards in the first place, C# would be based around, say, CORBA.

No offense intended but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the concepts you are discussing. C# is a programming language just like Java or C++. CORBA is a framework for communicating between distributed Objects similar to Java's RMI and COM/DCOM/COM+. From the perspective of standards, C# borrows heavily from both C++ and Java, here's an article that shows how similar they are from Dr. Dobbs journal. As for CORBA, I wrote a story this weekend on it which links to a paper that explains it's fundamental concepts as well as introduces Java RMI and DCOM, it's on K5 here.

Not only am I not buying their crap again, but there's no way in hell they'll ever get me locked into a subscription contract for it! As if their license agreements aren't bad enough already, I'm not going to actually rent my word processor!

Then don't.

[ Parent ]
Re: Leave Microsoft alone.... (1.66 / 6) (#10)
by pb on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 10:24:03 AM EST

Gee, I was just noticing that Microsoft was trying to do it, I didn't know that everyone had the same insidious plot! Maybe you should post a story about it.

What Sun does is they provide a testing suite so you can certify your implementation as being Java compliant. Microsoft failed this, by the way; that's why J++ exists, and now C#. I agree, Sun's idea of open is more like The Open Group's idea of open, but Microsoft doesn't know what open is.

I *know* that C# is a programming language, and if you bothered to read Microsoft's description of it, you'd notice that it is tightly integrated with COM by design. COM is a Microsoft "standard", CORBA is not. That's why I mentioned that, and you can stop patronizing me now.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
Re: Leave Microsoft alone.... (2.33 / 3) (#22)
by Carnage4Life on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:11:10 PM EST

*know* that C# is a programming language, and if you bothered to read Microsoft's description of it, you'd notice that it is tightly integrated with COM by design. COM is a Microsoft "standard", CORBA is not. That's why I mentioned that, and you can stop patronizing me now.

Why would Microsoft their new language on a standard controlled primarily by sworn enemies of MSFT when they have a distributed component technology that is far superior and more consistent than the baseline CORBA specification? This of course has changed with the advent of the CORBA Component Model (CCM).

[ Parent ]
Re: Leave Microsoft alone.... (1.33 / 3) (#33)
by dylansnow on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 06:27:02 PM EST

I'm sorry, but I think it is funny when corporations are said to have emotions and feelings.

[ Parent ]
You forgot AOL (1.00 / 3) (#8)
by AndrewH on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 09:38:08 AM EST

AOL have been spending time that they could have put into a working browser into their own platform.


John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr — where are you now that we need you?
[ Parent ]
Re: You forgot AOL (2.00 / 2) (#11)
by pb on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 10:25:54 AM EST

No, that's Netscape. :)

And I think I mentioned that in the article, actually.

However, it's much harder to subvert a truly open platform. I hope.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
Re: Leave Microsoft alone.... (4.50 / 2) (#19)
by Simon Kinahan on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 11:56:29 AM EST

I agree MS are just going where everyone else is going, although Sun's play with Java is not quite typical, as its a generally useful thing regardless of ASPs, and regardless of whether Sun continue to foster it, or someone else takes it on.

The ASP thing .... In my view its Nothing To Worry About. The whole ASP craze just now, and the great WAP fandango that seems to be accompanying it are lining up to be the push technology of the 00's, only with bigger players involved and more money being thrown down the drain. You simply *can't* push reasonable applications over HTML/HTTP or even over various jumped up XML-RPC thingies, and certainly not over WML/WAP. Form filling exercises, yes, but who gives a damn ? The front end is the browser, and people are going to want a portable back end platform - enter Java. Noone's going to bet their business on a web technology that only runs in IIS, or it they do they deserve the good kicking their shareholders will eventually inflict.

For richer apps, you need things like Metaframe, or X, but the bandwidth is not there yet to run these over normal company WANs, let alone the internet. Besides that, many questions remain unsolved. Are you going to trust your business cirical email and word documents to Joe's Random Fly-By-Night ASP ? I think not.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
[ Parent ]
Re: Leave Microsoft alone.... (3.00 / 1) (#21)
by genisis on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 12:19:05 PM EST

NT ASP usually goes through Citrix metphrame(terminal server) IT does not go through IIS.

[ Parent ]
Lets not *always* brand Microsoft bad (2.62 / 8) (#15)
by calmncool on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 11:06:25 AM EST

Microsoft buying Linux...interesting. But its too early and you already smell a rat. MS may be doing this just to excape from DOJ's clutches, but this could be a significant opportunity for Corel and Linux. Apple was in dire straits in 1997, when Microsoft came to its rescue. Altruism was not its motivation, DOJ was. But the cool things that Steve Jobs shows us wouldn't have been possible had Microsoft not been there.
---------- What if this wasn't a rhetorical question?
But what are you saying? (1.18 / 11) (#16)
by renec on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 11:09:02 AM EST

Conspiracy theories about Microsoft are nothing new, I don't think the article would really add anything.

Java being killed by C#? Not likely.. . (2.88 / 9) (#17)
by karnos on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 11:14:50 AM EST

Java is a meaningful language, something that C and its derivatives can't boast. By this, I (and Bill Joy and Gosling) mean that the Java platform is tightly defined. No matter what OS or architecture you run your code on, it always does the same thing. There are no guarantees of this for most other languages of which C# is a member, esp. those that are OS-specific in compilation. Another thing is that C# (or D-flat, whichever) has the same problem that C++ has: there's obvious feature bloat in the language, something that C and Java (if you don't count its API) don't have. You use 99% of C's features for every non-trivial program you write. The same for Java... okay, maybe 70%. But I've written programs in C++ that use 10% of the language. C# is a poorly designed language. It obviously never crossed a scientist's desk, just the tables of a bunch of focus groups that said, "I like how Java does this," to which Microsoft's tech department said, "Oh yeah, we can rip that off by adding this to C++." Maybe I'm not articulating this too well, but any computer scientist would think something similar. The only ones who are going to be fooled by C# are the college dropout techies who actually pay money to MS so they can become a "Certified" professional.

java is heavily feature bloated (none / 0) (#52)
by boxed on Sun Oct 08, 2000 at 11:17:51 AM EST

as prooven by brainfuck

[ Parent ]
Yeah, yeah, yeah (1.71 / 14) (#18)
by Jon.Rabone on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 11:44:06 AM EST

Same old crap. If I wanted anti-MS propoganda I'd go back to reading Slashdorks.

Exactly! (3.11 / 9) (#24)
by dieman on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:59:42 PM EST

The OS is irrevelant, the platform that everything runs on is what matters. Oh, didn't we see this in java years ago? Yes, but this time its got the Big M$ backing it. I expect to see a unix .NET arch. within 6-12 months, with full fanfaire, expensive dev tools, and Office.NET!

Be afraid, be very Afraid.
---
blah
It all makes sense. (1.77 / 9) (#28)
by AgentGray on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 03:14:47 PM EST

I don't want to bash Microsoft, but it does make one wonder why they were trying to really lengthen the appeals process.

Re: It all makes sense. (none / 0) (#46)
by 4gapa on Fri Oct 06, 2000 at 12:55:25 PM EST

Sigh - This is nothing new. The United States Government always goes after the biggest guy on the block. One of the costs for doing business for a company the size of microsoft is having a stable of lawyers filling the pipeline of the legal system. IBM had to do the same thing in the '70s and '80s. Microsoft is doing nothing more than paying their "taxes" for being the biggest.

[ Parent ]
Microsoft BOB, the only innovation (3.33 / 6) (#34)
by psicE on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 07:46:20 PM EST

Think about it. Microsoft bought QDOS and called it MS-DOS (stealthily changing the D to Disk). They ripped Windows 95 off the Mac interface, and then added the registry (oh the horrors!) Microsoft Bob was where they could actually make a fully integrated product that had everything a home user would need; it failed because they forgot that metaphoric user interfaces don't work well, and ones that bad ruin the entire product. If they had then known to merge Bob with a web browser and write the entire interface in XUL, in addition to making millions of dollars for being psychic, Bob would have succeeded and eventually have become Microsoft's flagship consumer product. Instead, we're stuck with a stupid Mac-clone that has an uptime in seconds equal to most Unix computers' uptimes in years.

Re: Microsoft BOB, the only innovation (3.00 / 3) (#38)
by fuchikoma on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 12:57:28 PM EST

Bob would have succeeded and eventually have become Microsoft's flagship consumer product. Instead, we're stuck with a stupid Mac-clone that has an uptime in seconds equal to most Unix computers' uptimes in years.

"Oh no! 3com (PalmPilot) is copying the Newtons! But... they're actually useful."
Sounds to me like you've never used Windows, and never will. Did Win 95 steal MacOS' look? Did MacOS Steal Amiga's look? Maybe Amiga stole Atari's? Maybe they all pulled it out a sci-fi novel? Actually, if Apple is such an innovator, maybe they should stop using things like PCI slots, and make their own standard... or maybe some things (like GUI) are inevitable. (Personally, I think MS got their Win95 look from OS/2. Win 3.1 is pretty much original unless you count DOSSHELL with MS-DOS 5.)

Also, just like a Unix computer will perform like a slug on depressants if you don't know how to make much of it, Windows will fold like a house of cards if you don't know what you're doing. The key difference is that Windows is very user friendly, so it's easy to "get by." True, I have some programs that crash a lot. I also have ones that I use regularly, and have yet to crash. (Large, complex programs too, like Unreal Tournament, 3D Studio Max, Metrowerks Codewarrior, etc...) If you set up your system properly, and keep it maintained, it'll work like a charm. My Win95 OSR2 system works like a charm even though I've put it through it's share of abuse (like replacing some DLLs with the Japanese Win98 versions to make some programs work.)

Not a flame, but watch where you swing those wild accusations.

[ Parent ]
Re: Microsoft BOB, the only innovation (3.00 / 1) (#40)
by psicE on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 04:41:32 PM EST

"Oh no! 3com (PalmPilot) is copying the Newtons! But... they're actually useful." Sounds to me like you've never used Windows, and never will. Did Win 95 steal MacOS' look? Did MacOS Steal Amiga's look? Maybe Amiga stole Atari's? Maybe they all pulled it out a sci-fi novel?

I am greatly an Apple zealot, but I use both platforms very often (my family buys all PCs, my school uses Macs). I do not think that Macs aren't useful; in fact they are often more so than PCs due to the fact that (at least when you're running one app :) they don't crash, and a PC with a non-MS operating system running everything you want it to doesn't exist [yet].

Actually, if Apple is such an innovator, maybe they should stop using things like PCI slots, and make their own standard... or maybe some things (like GUI) are inevitable.

As for the PCI slots, only one of their computers uses them now, the G4 Tower. Nothing about PCI slots is controlled by any one company, and part of PCI's original purpose was to be architecture-independent.

(Personally, I think MS got their Win95 look from OS/2. Win 3.1 is pretty much original unless you count DOSSHELL with MS-DOS 5.)

Why couldn't MS have stayed with the Windows 3.1 UI? Apple had something like that with At Ease (and now Macintosh Manager/Multiple Users) and it's amazingly easy to use: Apps on one side, docs on the other, end of story. If they had added a universal document folder, they could have turned that (with graphic library enhancements) into a very easy-to-use UI. Instead we got what we have now.

Also, just like a Unix computer will perform like a slug on depressants if you don't know how to make much of it, Windows will fold like a house of cards if you don't know what you're doing. The key difference is that Windows is very user friendly, so it's easy to "get by." True, I have some programs that crash a lot. I also have ones that I use regularly, and have yet to crash. (Large, complex programs too, like Unreal Tournament, 3D Studio Max, Metrowerks Codewarrior, etc...) If you set up your system properly, and keep it maintained, it'll work like a charm. My Win95 OSR2 system works like a charm even though I've put it through it's share of abuse (like replacing some DLLs with the Japanese Win98 versions to make some programs work.)

So, because the Mac is even more user-friendly, it follows that it's better than Windows?

[ Parent ]

Re: Microsoft BOB, the only innovation (4.00 / 1) (#47)
by C0vardeAn0nim0 on Sat Oct 07, 2000 at 03:32:53 AM EST

> (Personally, I think MS got their Win95 look from OS/2. Win 3.1 is pretty much original unless you count DOSSHELL with MS-DOS 5.)

Win 3.1 is not original. Is a rip-off of the GUI shipped with OS/2 1.3, wich was developed by Microsoft and IBM before they broke up.

http://www.comofazer.net
[ Parent ]
about the alleged horrors of the registry (none / 0) (#51)
by boxed on Sun Oct 08, 2000 at 11:12:16 AM EST

<mad prophet voice>
I've seen the alternative to the registry and it's the MacOS file structure! The folders with unnamable names, the files with unspeakable names and a structure like the chaos of the ICQ interface!
</mad prophet voice>

[ Parent ]
Off base (2.66 / 6) (#35)
by mparcens on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 09:05:56 PM EST

I think the author is looking for conspiracies where there isn't neccesarily needs to be one. Case and point: the monopoly trial. Microsoft needs Corel and their Word Perfect / Office applications to exist. If Corel goes under, suddenly they have a virtual monopoly in that area and the government's case becomes much stronger on that front

Same as how Coca-Cola needs Pepsi to exist. It provides enough competition to validate the industry, but not enough to be a serious threat to their market share. Also, the same reason why MS dumped 100+ million into Apple...

Maybe I'm being too pragmatic about this, but I think Occam's applies to the Corel case..


____________
your cookies aren't that secure

Re: Off base (3.00 / 1) (#39)
by pb on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 02:57:39 PM EST

First, I think I briefly covered this in one of my posts, but if you have to *give* your competitors money for them to stay in business, then that's not really competition. In fact, if they end up feeling obligated to you for saving them when other companies have died or been bought out, then that ends up drawing price-fixing lawsuits and whatnot. (like the airline industry)

Also, I love Coca-Cola, and can't stand Coca-Cola analogies. I don't make Coca-Cola analogies, either, but if I did, Microsoft would be Pepsi, because I can't stand Pepsi. Coca-Cola seems to do pretty well internationally; I didn't see any Pepsi in Mexico. I don't think Coca-Cola needs Pepsi to exist, either, as long as they compete fairly. This is especially true when there are independent alternatives like Dr. Pepper (or any generic brand; every supermarket has one, and they're pretty similar).

Currently, neither Pepsi nor Coca-Cola competes fairly in America; my University used to have an exclusive contract with Coke, but now they have one (for 5 years) with Pepsi. I'd much rather have both available so I could get my Coke nearby, but apparently that's more expensive for them. Sadly, it's still cheaper to go elsewhere and buy it in bulk, so these contracts don't seem to help anyone.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
More .NET Info (2.25 / 4) (#36)
by pb on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 09:29:14 PM EST

That other site has a link up that explains .NET in detail, from the beginning.

I'm reading it now, it looks interesting.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall

These locusts are SO yummy with that wild honey... (3.50 / 6) (#41)
by eric.t.f.bat on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 06:04:37 PM EST

I know I'm a voice crying in the wilderness here, but I've had a fairly extensive look at C#, and as a programmer with twenty years and about as many languages under his straining belt, I have to say I like it.

I program in Windows and PalmOS. I don't program in Linux because I don't have the patience to put up with the flakiness of the individual apps (the OS is much more stable; it's the applications that are awful). I only have the patience to put up with the flakiness of PalmOS because the usefulness of the hardware makes it worthwhile. I program Windows because the OS is stable enough and the apps are better than anything else -- bear in mind I haven't used BSD or BeOS, or any MacOS since 1984; I'm only mortal.

Hate me yet? Goooood...

Let's start with the fairly radical assumption that our personal feelings about Microsatan don't matter. Add to this the assumption that it's more important to write excellent software for most of the world than it is to write adequate software for all of the world. There's already lots of adequate software in the world.

C# was designed by the guy who did most of Turbo Pascal and half of Delphi, which are the best general-purpose programming languages for MS-DOS and Windows, respectively. It was designed as an attempt to replace Java, sure, but not by fiat: it actually takes Java and improves on it. I'll wrap an <em> tag around this so it will chill your blood more: C# is a better language than Java. Anders has done what Java's writers were trying to do, but he had two advantages: first, he had the benefit of hindsight, and second, he's far and away the best language designer on the face of the earth.

So I say: bugger the politics, bugger the bitching. C# is a remarkable piece of work. The Open Source community should put their time where their mouth is (since after all they don't have money!) and build a C# compiler into the next release of gcc. Then we can write programs in the language that might be Microsoft's greatest contribution to the world since Altair BASIC.

Or you could keep ranting, I suppose... that's always easier...

: Fruitbat :

More ranting; insert random subject line here. (3.25 / 4) (#42)
by pb on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 07:04:43 PM EST

Wow; so *that's* why the Pascal-isms are there! I was seriously wondering about that. Thanks for the information. I'm learning Java, and I love programming languages, so I'll probably get to try C# whenever it's ported to Linux, or reimplemented there, especially if it's fast. I have nothing but respect for the team that implemented Turbo Pascal for DOS, because Borland could write a mean, fast, optimizing compiler. I wasn't as thrilled about Delphi because of all the extra stuff it would compile in statically--I like it better when a tool can really exploit the native API, but unfortunately that means using all the Microsoft stuff under Windows.

It's the rest of your post that I'd rather rant about. :)

I don't program in Windows because (a) I don't use Windows if I can possibly help it and (b) it's ugly. I've seen what writing a simple Win32 program entails, and it's horrible. Of course, I also haven't programmed an app for X, for similar reasons; I've written simple stuff for SVGALib and that's okay, I've tried SDL, and that starts to get ugly, but I'll work on it. By contrast, the standard C libraries are beautiful.

I don't consider Windows to be stable enough, but maybe you have a different magical Windows configuration that I should be using. Also, I don't understand this line in your post: "it's more important to write excellent software for most of the world than it is to write adequate software for all of the world". That's how I feel about using linux: I'd rather use excellent software that perhaps not everyone else will get to use than use flaky software that everyone else seems to have forced upon them.

Of course, the quality of an app is such a subjective thing that this is hard to discuss objectively; not crashing is one issue and "user-friendliness" is another. The first one we might be able to quantify, but the second one is so general as to be useless. I consider text to be user-friendly, and I think that most literate people do as well. However, in the computer realm, apparently users would rather play with blocks or something. The fact remains that I do not find most GUIs to be really intuitive, and even if they were, they'd probably still waste my time trying to be friendly. If I ever find an excellent GUI, I assure you I'll use it and rant about how great it is; until then, I've got fvwm2.

That having been said, Linux has a lot of nifty GUI programs as well as the CLI ones; it is both powerful and versatile. It has GNOME and KDE, Mozilla, XMMS and Staroffice as well as screen, bash, w3m and links, mpg123 and mikmod, and TeX. What it doesn't have is a lot of Microsoft products, and if that bothers you, you might want to take it up with them. Until then, there's the Wine project, and indirectly there's also Plex86, VMWare, and some others. But if you can't find great software, then you probably aren't looking.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
Re: More ranting; insert random subject line here. (none / 0) (#44)
by jxqvg on Fri Oct 06, 2000 at 11:39:55 AM EST

X and Win32 apps are difficult in similar ways.

I Definitely agree that the C standard libraries rock. I program in an MS environment because I get it "for free" at work, but I don't mess with too much in the way of Win32 apps unless I really think it's necessary. Good 'ol C does it for me most of the time, at least for the stuff I really enjoy writing.

[DISCLAIMER: purely anecdotal content follows]I have yet to see my well beaten-up workstation crash on me. The apps can be a whole other story sometimes, but it's their own fault AFAIK.

I don't know if we'll ever get comparisons of system uptime that we can trust, but I think time will be the most trustworthy measure we'll ever get. Maybe give it another year and see how it does.

[sig]
[ Parent ]

X and MSWindows both easy to program for. ;) (none / 0) (#56)
by Parity on Mon Oct 09, 2000 at 12:02:52 PM EST

To digress...

Well, maybe not easy, but not horrific either;
For X, pick a good high-level toolkit that hides the complexity from you. (You can go learn it later, you didn't learn how a stack or a pointer-to-a-pointer works when you first wrote 'hello world' right?).
I like both Qt and XForms, and will find out soon what I think of GTK+. Qt is my current favorite though; you just need to keep a web browser open on the class documentation and you're all set. :) (The O'Reilly book helped too, I must admit. ;o)

For Windows, the trick is that you -must- use DevStudio, and you -must- use all the little wizards and things that set stuff up for you, let you interactively design a screen, etc. The system itself is horrific. Where X can hide the complexity from you with high-level libraries, Windows hides the complexity from you with Wizards, and you just don't look at the extra cruft it generates to make your application magically work. Running through the tutorials in the documentation helps here.

Once you know your way around at the high-level you can work your way deeper into the system to do the spooky stuff that makes other programmers worship you. Hopefully. Or else maybe you'll lock up your desktop and abandon the learning curve. ;)

Parity Odd




[ Parent ]
So you've has actually looked at C# (2.50 / 2) (#43)
by edderly on Fri Oct 06, 2000 at 06:07:30 AM EST

Given that you have had extensive look at C# - what makes it better than Java? Or maybe for what purposes is C# better than Java?

[ Parent ]
Re: So you've has actually looked at C# (2.33 / 3) (#45)
by jxqvg on Fri Oct 06, 2000 at 11:48:11 AM EST

See for yourself in the reference manual, or, since MS links change frequently, go to MSDN, and hit the library under Preliminary Documentation/C# Reference/C# Programmer's Reference.

I'm no language expert, but it looks very clean to me as a language. I also like what I've seen about the underlying mechanics, but that could be a seperate subject.

While I can't say it's a good reason, hey, Anders(props to all who collaborated, and apologies for not remembering names) wrote it. I think everyone can at least agree to "Anders doesn't suck".

[sig]
[ Parent ]

because java is fucked (none / 0) (#50)
by boxed on Sun Oct 08, 2000 at 11:04:38 AM EST

yesyes, I know, java has several things that are quite big improvements over C++ language wise, but they have even more stuff that was taken away for no good reason except perhaps easing the writing of the VM. Default arguments for functions only make code more elegant and simpler, as does templates. But of course the worst thing with java is it's horribly botched typing system: short a = 1, b = 3; short c = a + b; This simple code won't compile because the + operator converts shorts and bytes etc to int before handling them! Pure madness in a language that is marketed as a fast and easy developing language.

[ Parent ]
Where is... (1.00 / 1) (#48)
by Tuzanor on Sat Oct 07, 2000 at 09:09:47 PM EST

the BSOD???

Re: Where is... (none / 0) (#55)
by /ASCII on Sun Oct 08, 2000 at 05:51:43 PM EST

THe BSOD is just a cheap ripoff of ´the "Guru meditation" of Workbench fame. I'm surprised that Commodore didn't sue Microsoft.
"The time has come", the Walrus said, "To talk of many things: Of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and kings."
[ Parent ]
MS can't force anyone to do anything, but... (3.66 / 3) (#54)
by cme on Sun Oct 08, 2000 at 01:54:36 PM EST

The problem here is not that MS can force me to use their new .NET nonsense (or any other piece of nonsense). The problem is that there are *lots* of people who are going to use their new product no matter what it is, how much it costs, and how much it sucks or doesn't suck.

I'm jobhunting, currently, and being a unix weenie, my resume is in Postscript, text, and HTML. Any of those are easily readable by someone on a Windows box, and yet nearly everyone who's spoken to me (both HR types and headhunters) have wanted my resume in MS Word format. I have politely refused, stating that don't own any computers than can run MS Word, and asking politely that they use the Postscript version. This has caused my application to be dropped on the floor at least two times that I know of for certain. I'm sure I can't be the only one who's experienced this.

The problem isn't that I use Word... it's that I *don't* use Word, and everyone else does, and needs me to use it as well (or they think they do). So before you say "Oh, quit sounding like That Other Site, MS can't make you do anything you don't want to"... think about how many people MS has helping them to dominate the world....

On my more paranoid days, it feels like the whole world is Microsoft's impressment team.



That diagram with .Net below Windows and ASP+ (none / 0) (#57)
by jxqvg on Mon Oct 09, 2000 at 09:03:05 PM EST

Here it is! Hey, pb, hope you still track this thread, cause I finally found that diagram I was talking about. Anyway, let me know if you happen to pick this up.

[sig]
Re: That diagram with .Net below Windows and ASP+ (none / 0) (#58)
by jxqvg on Mon Oct 09, 2000 at 09:06:48 PM EST

Well, sorta. The Wrox book had a diagram similar, but more explicit about .Net being beneath "everything"

[sig]
[ Parent ]
Re: That diagram with .Net below Windows and ASP+ (none / 0) (#59)
by pb on Thu Oct 12, 2000 at 03:07:19 AM EST

Thanks, fortunately I am still tracking this, (or rather ended up back here somehow, and saw your post :) and I have mixed feelings about the whole thing now.

First, yes, this looks like a good way to abstract everything away from the Operating System and move stuff into the "Apps" department, and try to take over the world and all that...

Second, the multiple language support under the Common Language Runtime stuff sounds very cool. Unfortunately, all it does is interface back into the same weird Microsoft crap. And I'm sure it sucks compared to doing it all natively, but it's still a cool idea, which I am in favor of and indeed have had many times. (actually, I'd *really* want a tweakable language front-end, and end the Syntax Flamewars forever!)
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
Re: That diagram with .Net below Windows and ASP+ (none / 0) (#60)
by jxqvg on Thu Oct 12, 2000 at 12:10:18 PM EST

I still have some mixed feelings about the whole thing myself. I tried to learn some ASM once back in the day because I was horrified at how much space a C program took up! blah.com forever! Of course, I never had to write any big apps in it.

So on one hand, academia almost always goes for that extra layer of abstraction, and it certainly tends to make things more adaptable in the long-run. On the other, though, that tends to slow things down. I think it's one of those places where programming turns into this totally empirical study of price/performance, man-hours, blah blah blah manager terms.

I suppose in the end it comes down to a lot of things like that for me, too, though. Is it easy and fun to program in? Does it run fast? Do I get a free copy of Win2k to play with at work? What I've seen so far looks like pretty cool stuff, so for me, it might just work out. I definitely don't think it's for everyone, esp. if you have to spend too much money on it.

Back to tweakable front ends, though: wouldn't it be cool if you could compile your code into whatever you wanted, and somehow have it reverse-compiled into whatever language someone else was familiar with? This is probably where I get heckled by some compiler expert out there, but it still has some interesting ramifications.

[sig]
[ Parent ]

Re: That diagram with .Net below Windows and ASP+ (none / 0) (#62)
by pb on Thu Oct 12, 2000 at 06:32:21 PM EST

I agree that it would be nice to have something that at least isn't more bloated than C to hack in, and this won't be it. C++ actually isn't bad, in that you *can* write faster, simpler programs with the STL, (I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it myself...) and I think it'll take a while for Java to catch up to that, if it ever does.

I agree, I'd love to be able to disassemble byte-code back to a different language. But first, you'd at least have to save all the debugging information if you wanted, say, variable names and stuff. Second, I'd be fascinated to see what it comes up with after the optimizations, but all my constants would probably be folded into gibberish, and my unrolled loops might look funky in Scheme. :)
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
Of course it's a conspiracy, just a subtle one! (none / 0) (#61)
by wegster on Thu Oct 12, 2000 at 12:50:17 PM EST

Let's think about the MS mantra for a second here- embrace and extend, to the point of seriously minimizing any chance for a cross platform implementation.

There are perfect examples out there of MS 'open' standards-
1. COM- supposedly platform independent, but in actuality coupled so tightly to MS obscurities and data types it's literally impossible to do a 100% compatible cross platform implementation. Yes, I know there are 'COM-like' cross platform implementations, we developed one at work for doing cross platform component development...however, it's definately not syntactically identical.
2. TAPI- Initially developed as an open telephony standard API in conjunction with Intel. ANYONE that's ever worked with TAPI can tell you how tightly coupled to the MS data types and Win32 API this is. TAPI as an 'open API' has been in existence for years now- how many other platforms do YOU know that support it? Zero AFAIK...

The point? C# is yet another attempt at embrace and mutilate. Pay lip service and claim it will be non platform specific, an open specification, yet wait and see what comes of it. Already, the listed URL mentions Active X, ASP, and other non portable MS constructs, and C# will be no different. I imagine you'll find once you start using it, it will wind up tying in more and more MS specific technologies, and leave the option of using any other platform out of the question without total rewrites. Come on people, or does nobody remember J++ among other MS 'innovations'?



Conspiracy Theories: C#, Corel, DOJ, MS and .Net | 62 comments (46 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!