Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

jcwelch

jcwelch jcwelch The Mad Monk of Missouri

Niner since 2005

Many things, primarily a Sysadmin, a writer, a martial artist, a father. Reverse the order for how m...
  • Windows Presentation Foundation - Everywhere?

    reinux wrote:

    jcwelch wrote: They'd be in shock for six months, since it would be the first piece of native Linux software to come from Microsoft, what ever? If they want the Linux community to use this, then why NOT take the first step. Sure, the hard core folks will reject it, but then, they're not using WPF/E *anyway*, so there's neither any hope there or loss. But for the people who aren't fanatics, (and yes, they exist in the Linux community), why not do a bit of bridge - building instead of making them do all the work? I mean, what have you got to lose?

    A lot of human resources that could be allocated elsewhere, that's what they have to lose.


    Right, because getting more people to use Microsoft technology, regardless of platform is such a stupid idea that spending any time, effort and money on it is just dumb. Far better to continue with the hugely successful PR campaign of "Use Windows or suffer".

    reinux wrote:
    It's less likely that people will ultimately choose to use WPF/E if its implementation is written by Microsoft than it would be if it were written by a third party, whom they'd trust. Would you as a Linux user rather use WPF/E if it were written by Novell or by Microsoft?

    Whichever one works better. You're confusing "Linux User" with "Raving Stallmanite". I admit, it's an easy thing to do, but that's about as accurate as saying that all people who use Windows pray to Ballmer every morning and treat his words as absolute gospel. If Microsoft comes up with a kick-arse WPF/E implementation for Linux, hell yes I'll use it. I use Word because it does what I need better than anything.

    reinux wrote:
    Last time I checked, most of the Linux community folk were "hardcore folks that aren't using WPF/E *anyway*". I don't know why you'd write anything for them then.


    Last I checked, the ones in the enterprise were pragmatists selecting the best tool for the job.

    reinux wrote:

    jcwelch wrote:
    Rotor was not even close to what Mono is, and sat stagnant for how long, until Microsoft revved it into a...that's right, you guessed it, "requires Windows" tech. Gee, I can't IMAGINE why people ignored it with such sterling support. Meanwhile, Mono has actual product being built with it that runs cross-platform, something that Rotor doesn't.

    Mono's developer forums discourage even using Rotor code as a reference. It has nothing to do with platform compatibility.


    And of course, you can show that the sole reason for this is rampant Stallmanite ravings, right? Links please.

    reinux wrote:

    jcwelch wrote:
    However, you ignore the man thrust of my statement: Why is Mono a *mystery* to the guy working on a cross-platform CLR? If he'd said, "We looked long and hard at Mono, dissected it, and there are just things we need that would be faster to do ourselves in this case", that would be different. But Mike said that he really didn't know much about Mono, so there's no possibility that there was a technically qualified decision made in not using Mono. That leaves a limited number of possibilies, and I'll bet "Political" is real high up on the list. If that's the case, then just say so and move on. But to not be familiar with it? Again, what kind of bubble does the WPF/E team live in?

    Hahaha. Ever heard of a "job"? It's something that happens in the grown-up world a lot... well, maybe not all the time in opensource.


    Why, yes, I have one. Been an IT manager for almost 20 years now. And as part of that job, I'm expected to be up on all the various technologies and implementations that affect what I'm working on. It's called being knowledgable about your field, and it's a sign of someone with a clue.

    reinux wrote:
    You get too busy to be looking over your rival's shoulders all the time. Which is good, because you want to stay focused. If they come up with some groundbreaking technology, sure, but this man's busy implementing a standard that's already set in stone.

    Nonsense. According to him, the full runtime's not even demonstratable yet. That's not even close to "set in stone".

    reinux wrote:
    And until Novell proposes business to Microsoft one way or another (other than just having their devs email Microsoft with some questions about Mono), it's just another "cool project" on their watch. Especially when it's constantly being tinkered with by anonymous programmers.

    That doesn't explain why Microsoft consistently jiggers the BoF votes at the PDC to make sure Mono doesn't get any space. It also doesn't account for actual commercial products being written with Mono. But I guess if it's not developed in Windows, it doesn't exist to Ballmer.

    reinux wrote:
    Differing ideologies, to say the least.

    jcwelch wrote:
    So because Macromedia made a dumb decision, Microsoft shoult too? I wasn't aware that 12-year-old peer pressure methodology was how development decisions were made at Microsoft, although it would explain much.

    It doesn't matter if the Mono C# compiler works or not, because it's pretty much carved in stone that all WPF/E dev MUST BE DONE ON WINDOWS. Not that the WPF/E team knows anything about Mono, so even if it had been an option, they wouldn't have known. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft made using the WPF/E runtime contingent on developing the application with VS on Windows via the EULA or some required support library that can only be used in VS. When it comes to Ballmer's rabid "DEATH TO LINUX" POV, I'd not be surprised at all if he very specifically ordered that Mono not be an option.


    Listen to yourself talk, man! Take a deep breath and think!


    I am. I'm basing this on the  reaction Ballmer has every time Linux or any kind of work done on !Microsoft Platforms. Hell, he can't even be bothered to say something nice about the MS Mac BU when it's mentioned at an INTERNAL MEETING. Instead, he instantly has to  start bashing the iPod. When Ballmer changes his tune, then assuming rampant paranoia and immaturity as the reason for all Linux - bashing from him will no longer be applicable. Until then, if the shoe fits, wear it.

    reinux wrote:
    Macromedia's decision wasn't a dumb one, it was a wise one. In fact, it was probably their only option. Developers don't grow on trees, not even for Microsoft. You don't just throw all your resources in every direction.

    You expect Microsoft to write a designer for OS X, Windows AND Linux? ...wow.

    No, I expect them to design the  spec so that it can be implemented in existing !Microsoft implementations of C# and the rest, and to work with the people who are doing the most work to make that happen. Partnering works with Open Source people too. What I do not expect is for Microsoft to require that all WPF/E development be done in VS on Windows.

    reinux wrote:
    Besides, from what's known about Mono, I think it can safely be said that Microsoft expects Linux people to do the work of porting for the platform they know best, Linux.

    By that logic, then either Microsoft shouldn't be doing the Mac OS X port either, or that work should be done by the Mac BU, since, out of everyone at  Microsoft, they know the platform best. From what I saw in the video, the newest Mac BU intern knows Mac OS X better than Harsh, and he's doing the port. Again, when your lead porting dev admits to being essentially unfamiliar with the platform he's writing the port for? Not a confidence builder.

    reinux wrote:
    If anything, I expect Xaml to be ECMA standardized the way C# was. If you don't think so, well that's up to you but I could hardly call it an educated guess.

    Standardized and open are not in fact the same thing. You can say  they are, but I'd hardly call that a factual statement.

    reinux wrote:

    jcwelch wrote:
    Right...and people wonder why I have no confidence in Microsoft announcements until the product is available for sale. They don't even have a demo-able runtime available, yet anyone's supposed to take their predictions of testable code seriously? Ummm...try again.

    Even earlier than Microsoft has anything to show, you've decided you're not going to even put any thought into anything you say about it.

    Gotta stop making impossible expectations.



    Everything I say, I've based on the vaporous dog and pony show I've seen. Microsoft's release reliability outside of the  Xbox and the Mac BU is nonexistant, and they have a history of minor cross-platform dog and pony  shows that just never seem to get finished. So when I see real product that's really usable, I'll take it seriously. Until then, it's Active X for the Macintosh v. 2
  • Windows Presentation Foundation - Everywhere?

    reinux wrote:
    jcwelch wrote:Some things that come to mind:

    1) Leaving the Linux side to (random third party) is a HUGE mistake. I know that Ballmer has a fit and needs a binky everytime you *say* Linux, but this is just ridiculous.

    I don't think anyone would use it if Microsoft wrote it...

    They'd be in shock for six months, since it would be the first piece of native Linux software to come from Microsoft, what ever? If they want the Linux community to use this, then why NOT take the first step. Sure, the hard core folks will reject it, but then, they're not using WPF/E *anyway*, so there's neither any hope there or loss. But for the people who aren't fanatics, (and yes, they exist in the Linux community), why not do a bit of bridge - building instead of making them do all the work? I mean, what have you got to lose?

    reinux wrote:
    jcwelch wrote:
    2)The fact that Mono is a great unknown to the team that's trying to do a cross - platform CLR seems silly. How much of a plastic bubble are you in to have Mono be some kind of great mysterious land? They've been doing great work, probably a ton of the work you're trying to do, and if Microsoft could get over that snap OMGOPENSOURCERUN!!! reaction that Ballmer has, you guys could benefit a lot by not ignoring Mono. Why reinvent the wheel?

    If that's silly, then the fact that DotGNU and Mono ignore Rotor (which by the way, version 1.1 ran on FreeBSD and reportedly OSX as well) is just as silly. Why did they reinvent the wheel?


    Rotor was not even close to what Mono is, and sat stagnant for how long, until Microsoft revved it into a...that's right, you guessed it, "requires Windows" tech. Gee, I can't IMAGINE why people ignored it with such sterling support. Meanwhile, Mono has actual product being built with it that runs cross-platform, something that Rotor doesn't.

    However, you ignore the man thrust of my statement: Why is Mono a *mystery* to the guy working on a cross-platform CLR? If he'd said, "We looked long and hard at Mono, dissected it, and there are just things we need that would be faster to do ourselves in this case", that would be different. But Mike said that he really didn't know much about Mono, so there's no possibility that there was a technically qualified decision made in not using Mono. That leaves a limited number of possibilies, and I'll bet "Political" is real high up on the list. If that's the case, then just say so and move on. But to not be familiar with it? Again, what kind of bubble does the WPF/E team live in?

    reinux wrote:
    jcwelch wrote:
    3) The fact that debugging problems on !Windows is going to require a Windows box, or Parallels/VMware is lame. Again, instead of giving in to the "Make people use Windows" reaction, which really, just makes the people you *want* to reach with this not want to use it, work with the Mono team to get their C# compiler up to where you need it to be.

    One or two platforms for designers is enough to get the ball rolling. Do you see a Flash designer for Linux made by Macromedia?

    The Mono C# compiler is perfectly fine for things like this, by the way. What do you want, an obsessively tweaked x86 JITter by some assembly programmer in a basement running your Web apps? You don't need a Porsche of a C# compiler to make this sort of thing work.


    So because Macromedia made a dumb decision, Microsoft shoult too? I wasn't aware that 12-year-old peer pressure methodology was how development decisions were made at Microsoft, although it would explain much.

    It doesn't matter if the Mono C# compiler works or not, because it's pretty much carved in stone that all WPF/E dev MUST BE DONE ON WINDOWS. Not that the WPF/E team knows anything about Mono, so even if it had been an option, they wouldn't have known. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft made using the WPF/E runtime contingent on developing the application with VS on Windows via the EULA or some required support library that can only be used in VS. When it comes to Ballmer's rabid "DEATH TO LINUX" POV, I'd not be surprised at all if he very specifically ordered that Mono not be an option.

    reinux wrote:
    jcwelch wrote:
    5) Stop doing the dog and pony show demos. A faked clock on OS X is impressing no one. Do an application that has some real use, not just dancing baloney and flying cubes. Give people a real reason to want to use it. Considering how you're crippling it from the get go, you really need to make the demos rock.

    With a 150kb runtime? Hah. At these stages, even Hello World is impressive.
    Right...and people wonder why I have no confidence in Microsoft announcements until the product is available for sale. They don't even have a demo-able runtime available, yet anyone's supposed to take their predictions of testable code seriously? Ummm...try again.
  • Windows Presentation Foundation - Everywhere?

    Some things that come to mind:

    1) Leaving the Linux side to (random third party) is a HUGE mistake. I know that Ballmer has a fit and needs a binky everytime you *say* Linux, but this is just ridiculous. You don't need WPF/E on Windows, and to make OS X the only !Windows platform you support is ridiculous. I mean, if you *like* the hating, this is a great way to go about it, but I wasn't thinking you enjoyed that.

    2)The fact that Mono is a great unknown to the team that's trying to do a cross - platform CLR seems silly. How much of a plastic bubble are you in to have Mono be some kind of great mysterious land? They've been doing great work, probably a ton of the work you're trying to do, and if Microsoft could get over that snap OMGOPENSOURCERUN!!! reaction that Ballmer has, you guys could benefit a lot by not ignoring Mono. Why reinvent the wheel?

    3) The fact that debugging problems on !Windows is going to require a Windows box, or Parallels/VMware is lame. Again, instead of giving in to the "Make people use Windows" reaction, which really, just makes the people you *want* to reach with this not want to use it, work with the Mono team to get their C# compiler up to where you need it to be. it already runs on OS X, so again, why not make it stupid easy for people to use and *develop* WPF/E applications on the platform they want to run them on, without some stupid tools lockin. If people use this, REGARDLESS of the dev/deployment platform, you guys still win, and you'll see it used in ways that simply aren't possible when you're forced to develop on one platform. Why cripple your baby before it's even born?

    4)If the tools aren't going to be available until summer 2006, when's the final plugin going to be available so people can do real testing?

    5) Stop doing the dog and pony show demos. A faked clock on OS X is impressing no one. Do an application that has some real use, not just dancing baloney and flying cubes. Give people a real reason to want to use it. Considering how you're crippling it from the get go, you really need to make the demos rock.

  • Vista Collaboration

    trippparks wrote:
    jcwelch wrote:

    With regard to PNM and the rest, will Microsoft be providing ways for non-Windows platforms to implement these services on things like Linux, other Unix, and OS X, the way Apple and others have with Zeroconf and Bonjour?


    WS-Discovery is a WS* published protocol, PNM is implemented as any other service is using WS-Discovery.

    UPnP is a Device protocol that has been supported since Windows ME, and is supported in XP and Windows Vista and is widely supported in NAT's, Printers, Media servers, and other devices. It is an open standard (http://www.upnp.org)

    Zero-config is a combination of several technologies,
        Auto addressing which has been supported since Windows 98,
        mDNS which I believe has been superseded by LLMNR which appears         to be supported in WinCe and Vista


    Does that mean that all you have to do is be IETF compliant, and you'll be a full player in a PNM cloud? Bonjour uses Zeroconf, but there are aspects of it that differ, which is why Apple open-sourced it, so you could see the details of that implementation. If
  • Vista Collaboration

    nhorton wrote:

    Yes, zeroconf includes mDNS as part of its protocol suite.  mDNS, like many other protocols (LLNMR, NetBIOS, PNRP, WSD, PNM, SSDP) can perform configurationless name resolution on a subnet.  PNM differs from the others in that it is intended for finding users over the subnet, not just arbitrary names or machine names.  This is a construct more meaningful for many applications than the other protocols mentioned before.  To minimize the number of actual wire-level protocols, PNM was designed to layer on top of an existing subnet protocol, WSD.

    What zeroconf does not provide (at least according to any of the docs I have ever seen) is Internet-scale name resolution.  Its capabilities are targeted at the subnet.  PNRP was designed to provide serverless name resolution across the entire Internet.  The fact that the protocol also allows for resolution within the subnet is an added bonus, allowing one protocol to be used by an application regardless of the environment.  Furthermore, PNRP provides a rich security model that is lacking in other deployed name resolution systems.

    Regarding MS technologies "Causing problems with Zeroconf", that should not occur.  There is, in fact, no interaction between the cited protocols. 

    Well, to be accurate, there are no "people" on a network. There are end nodes and applications, and that is all *any* naming protocol can do. Zeroconf is quite capable of finding "people", just ask anyone using SubEthaEdit or iChat. Works quite well.

    With regard to PNM and the rest, will Microsoft be providing ways for non-Windows platforms to implement these services on things like Linux, other Unix, and OS X, the way Apple and others have with Zeroconf and Bonjour?
  • Vista Collaboration

    Ernie Booth wrote:

    I stand corrected.  I read through the doc, but the explanation of what Zeroconf actually provides wasn’t clear.   As for Windows Vista compatibility it still supports IPv4 it just additionally supports IPv6 so an implementation of Zeroconf should work fine if it worked on XP.  When you say “how well Vista's version of Zeroconf works with the real one” I think you are referring to People Near Me (PNM) correct?  If so then PNM just uses WS-Discovery which is a standard for communicating it doesn’t have anything to do with printers.  Is there a list of printers that support Zeroconf if we have one kicking around I will test out Zeroconf on Vista.

    Um...if you read all the supporting docs that the Zeroconf page links to, they're quite clear on it.

    I wasn't saying that Vista didn't support IPv4, but if the Zeroconf - like abilities of Vista cause problems with Zeroconf itself because, as it seems, no one's thought to test this stuff in a Zeroconf environment, well, that's going to be a problem.

    Zeroconf isn't a printer technology, it's just a way to provide zero configuration addressing, naming and service discovery in an IPv4 environment, since pure IPv6 still is a future world. There are a lot of applications and services using Zeroconf. In the printer world, find a reasonably new HP printer and look at the network setup, you should see an mDNS session. Heck, Apple open-sourced their own Bonjour implementation, and even has one for windows, the info is at: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bonjour/ Again, none of this is new, or even hidden away all that much.
  • Vista Collaboration

    Ernie Booth wrote:
    Zeroconf seems to be a replacement for IP on the local network vs.  PNRP is a DNS like service that works across the Internet.

    Big Smile


    Well, actually, Zeroconf works fine outside of the local network, and it's not a replacement for anything. If you read the docs, it's just a way to get the kind of services that IPv6 can provide natively out of IPv4. It's nothing more than what it says. Zero configuration.

    Again, is there any real information on how well Vista's version of Zeroconf works with the real one? If you have printers that support Zeroconf, will Vista work with that, or is MS ignoring it/NIH'ing it? Will things like PNRP cause problems with Zeroconf services?

    I'm really quite familiar with Zeroconf, but trying to find clear, concise info on Vista that isn't either API or Marketing fluff is more difficult than it's worth at the moment. hence my questions about interoperability with existing standards, something that should be quickly answerable by the Vista team.
  • Vista Collaboration

    trippparks wrote:
    People Near Me uses WS-Discovery over IPv6 Multicast (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnglobspec/html/ws-discovery1004.pdf). Using Ipv6 allows the use of IPv6 link local addressing which avoids some of the more unplesant autoaddressing problems of Ipv4. So yes, its a published standard that also is supported by other parties.

    Tripp
    Windows Collaboration.
    And what do you do in situations where people have turned off IPv6 to avoid the timeout delays cause by it when you're in a solely IPv4 environment?
  • Vista Collaboration

    Ernie Booth wrote:

    We’re going to be filming some going deep videos for Windows Vista Collaboration.  What questions do the 9ers have for the team?

    Windows Collaboration technologies:

    PNRP (Peer Name Resolution Protocol) - "Serverless DNS".
    PNM (People Near Me) - Collaboration with people on your local subnet.

    Session Invitation - send and receive invites to your contacts.



    Mesh, Grouping and Graphing – Long running group collaboration.

    Peer Channel - Group replication.

    Windows Collaboration Experience - Project your desktop to people’s computers around you. (Start->All Programs->Windows Collaboration)

    - Ernie
    Window Collaboration Technical Evangelist

    Okay, (since this silly forum makes me do things the hard way...

    how is this different from Zeroconf, (http://www.zeroconf.org/) which has been providing PRNP/PNM/etc services for years now and is an open IETF standard? Is this compatible with existing Zeroconf implementations, or will it require network admins to deal with both systems? If it's not compatible, does it use the same ports? Can both systems coexist, or do they conflict? Will printer and peripheral manufacturers have to include PRNP/PNM stacks AND Zeroconf stacks to make sure all their clients can easily connect? (Keep in mind that pretty much all the major printer manufacturers have been shipping Zeroconf support for over three years now.)

    if they're the same thing, great. If they aren't, why reinvent the zeroconf wheel, and make it harder to deal with Vista in a heterogenous environment?
  • Julie Larson-Green - Diving into the new Office 12

    willk wrote:
    Actually, concerning the editing surface for composing mail in Outlook12:

    Our editing surface will be the Word, regardless of what's installed. If the Word12 product is installed in additon to Outlook12, the you'll get the full Word editing experience in Outlook email.

    If Word12 is not installed, then some functionality won't be available when composing email, but you'll still have more functionality than was available using "trident" in Office2003.

    Also, in 12, Word will always be the rendering surface for email you've received, even in the Reading Pane.

    The Word team has worked hard to make sure we have high fidelity for rendering and composing. It's been truly amazing to see this great work.

    One more nugget: Outlook12 now uses Word as its editor for Outlook Meeting Requests, Appointments, Contacts, etc.
    Okay, third try...once again, the joy of Channel 9's craptacular post editing tools rises to the plate and hits a home run.

    What about winmail.dat attachments when you read Outlook email in other mailers on other platforms? Please tell me that entire concept has finally been shot in the head.

    How about people who just want to use plain text for 90% of their emails? Will setting that default be easier

    What about the inane dialogs and wizards? Will common tasks like rules and delegation be able to be accomplished without 345345 levels of dialogs and mandatory wizards? Maybe the O12 team can talk to the Entourage team for "How to do things without infinite layers of dialog boxes".

See more comments…