.NET Client Profile is a wolf in sheeps clothing

Somebody please correct me because I hope I am wrong. In this thread I had a disputation into the client profile, but it turns out I was right in choosing the separate installs as that reduced my framework install size by over 2/3.

Jaime Rodriguez has a pretty good explanation as to what the client profile is, and why it was procured. The salient points are that this is only of benefit to web installs, because as my miffed@ thread proves, you cannot install the client profile off-line. You inadvertently create a dependency for your application to use the internet in order to run (who's idea was that one?)

The client profile is a "wolf in sheep's clothing" for two reasons.

•  The biggest one is that after installing the minimal 28 MB version (all that a client application needs), it then proceeds to install the full .NET 3.5 framework in the background at a later date via windows update. This includes all the server based ASP.NET, WCF, WF stuff, so is this still a client profile application? Err...no! You should have called it a quick installer or something else because that "client profile" does not stay so for very long. If you are installing a .NET application on a CD, You may as well install the full 230MB - especially on business networks where installations are controlled. This is very disappointing!
• If you have .NET 2.0, it does not behave as a client profile, it just upgrades your application to the full .NET 3.5 SP1. Is this still a client framework? I don't think so!

So to recapitulate, I think this is of benefit to people that deploy .NET applications over the internet, for that initial install, but it is NOT a "client profile", because the server libraries will end up (needlessly) on the client, which for a lot of people, defeats the whole objective.

I had hoped that as .NET inflates a 2 tier framework would develop, but it seems that Microsoft have got this horribly wrong!

Maybe they can make a .Net server and a .Net client version for 4.0?

That would solve your problem

Maddus Mattus said:

Maybe they can make a .Net server and a .Net client version for 4.0?

That would solve your problem

I thought that was what the Client Profile was meant to do - the .NET framework would be the default server version. Even the title suggests it. Loads of people are interested in it, in the blogosphere, because they think it solves this exact problem.

I also think that they should have included the Silverlight runtime in this - or the ability to update it automatically - as that again is part of the "client profile", albeit for the interweb. It is such  an obvious thing for me that a client application should have an additional 4MB Silverlight, rather than 100MB server stuff that will never be used.

If you think of the  100 million+ Vista machines with ASP.NET and WCF that will never use it, yet had they Silverlight or a profile that updated itself to just the features that are needed. I guess that is dreamland.

vesuvius said:

Maddus Mattus said:

*snip*

I thought that was what the Client Profile was meant to do - the .NET framework would be the default server version. Even the title suggests it. Loads of people are interested in it, in the blogosphere, because they think it solves this exact problem.

I also think that they should have included the Silverlight runtime in this - or the ability to update it automatically - as that again is part of the "client profile", albeit for the interweb. It is such  an obvious thing for me that a client application should have an additional 4MB Silverlight, rather than 100MB server stuff that will never be used.

If you think of the  100 million+ Vista machines with ASP.NET and WCF that will never use it, yet had they Silverlight or a profile that updated itself to just the features that are needed. I guess that is dreamland.

I dont agree with you on the Silverlight portion, I can see why they would choose not to budle that with the plugin. I would not like a browser plugin get installed with my Windows Forms application. Those are two very different applications and platforms.

The reason they have choosen this setup is because they have more political agenda's running, it's not always about the developers and users needs. They want a large install base for the full-blown .Net framework, so they can compare internet p3nis size with java. As often with these types of decisions, managers have the say.

Install the Java framework, it updates all the time with stuff I dont want. I would catigorize this as another missed oppertunity for Microsoft to be superior

To put it in perspective; what is 100Mb compared with with the size of current updates? not much,....

Maddus Mattus said:

vesuvius said:

*snip*

I dont agree with you on the Silverlight portion, I can see why they would choose not to budle that with the plugin. I would not like a browser plugin get installed with my Windows Forms application. Those are two very different applications and platforms.

The reason they have choosen this setup is because they have more political agenda's running, it's not always about the developers and users needs. They want a large install base for the full-blown .Net framework, so they can compare internet p3nis size with java. As often with these types of decisions, managers have the say.

Install the Java framework, it updates all the time with stuff I dont want. I would catigorize this as another missed oppertunity for Microsoft to be superior

To put it in perspective; what is 100Mb compared with with the size of current updates? not much,....

I agree with that assessment completely, although they should have just pushed it via automatic updates. The client framework will get people excited over thin air because that is exactly what it is.

Quite why they (Microsoft) need ASP.NET and WCF etc. on all their client machines is still a mystery to me? It will never be used. Granted .NET is updated every once in a while, but Java seems every two weeks.The annoying thing with Java, is that it never overwrites or upgrades the previous version. I have seen PC's with 3 or more Java Updates on them. Very messy.

vesuvius said:

Maddus Mattus said:

*snip*

I agree with that assessment completely, although they should have just pushed it via automatic updates. The client framework will get people excited over thin air because that is exactly what it is.

Quite why they (Microsoft) need ASP.NET and WCF etc. on all their client machines is still a mystery to me? It will never be used. Granted .NET is updated every once in a while, but Java seems every two weeks.The annoying thing with Java, is that it never overwrites or upgrades the previous version. I have seen PC's with 3 or more Java Updates on them. Very messy.

Very messy

I guess that's also why they want to update to the fullblown .Net framework. Otherwise they would have yet another framework to provide support for.

But I liked the idea of multiple versions of the .Net framework;

• .Net Framework 4.0 Mobile
• .Net Framework 4.0 Workstation
• .Net Framework 4.0 Server

I'll go and fetch a patent on it and post it here,  so I can get my $$$

vesuvius said:

Maddus Mattus said:

*snip*

I agree with that assessment completely, although they should have just pushed it via automatic updates. The client framework will get people excited over thin air because that is exactly what it is.

Quite why they (Microsoft) need ASP.NET and WCF etc. on all their client machines is still a mystery to me? It will never be used. Granted .NET is updated every once in a while, but Java seems every two weeks.The annoying thing with Java, is that it never overwrites or upgrades the previous version. I have seen PC's with 3 or more Java Updates on them. Very messy.

I guess MS just wants to reduce the size of their testing matrix by limiting the number of possible framework versions. It eases testing and support if everybody's running the same thing.

Sven Groot said:

vesuvius said:

*snip*

I guess MS just wants to reduce the size of their testing matrix by limiting the number of possible framework versions. It eases testing and support if everybody's running the same thing.

That argument doesn't really hold water.  The amount of testing required by MS is identical here, because at least for a period of time users may have only the "Client Profile" installed and not the full framework.  Most of the other complaints about the "Client Profile" were, to me, stupid.  However, it makes NO sense that once installed the full framework will be installed via auto-updates.

wkempf said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

That argument doesn't really hold water.  The amount of testing required by MS is identical here, because at least for a period of time users may have only the "Client Profile" installed and not the full framework.  Most of the other complaints about the "Client Profile" were, to me, stupid.  However, it makes NO sense that once installed the full framework will be installed via auto-updates.

My argument was more about why they didn't do a client/server split in the first place. I agree the update thing makes no sense.

Sven Groot said:

wkempf said:

*snip*

My argument was more about why they didn't do a client/server split in the first place. I agree the update thing makes no sense.

Testing remains almost the same, because the codebase remains the same. Only thing you have to test separately is the setups.

If the .Net library continues to grow like this. I think it will become inevetable (or something) that they split the framework.  

wkempf said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

That argument doesn't really hold water.  The amount of testing required by MS is identical here, because at least for a period of time users may have only the "Client Profile" installed and not the full framework.  Most of the other complaints about the "Client Profile" were, to me, stupid.  However, it makes NO sense that once installed the full framework will be installed via auto-updates.

I actually think it would make sense to push the .NET Framework via Windows Update, regardless whether the Client Profile is installed. It would push adoption of .NET forward. If every desktop had the latest version of the .NET Framework installed, we would have a lot less deployment problems.

littleguru said:

Well... on Windows Vista the upgrade isn't that huge. But it's true that on XP it can be quite a load that gets downloaded.

I would say that the .NET framework is now inadvertently tied to the Windows operating system. You can expect C# 4.0 etc. when the next Windows version is released. This is the best way to promote the .NET framework as demonstrated by Vista.

I would be very surprised if it turned out not to be the case.

vesuvius said:

littleguru said:

*snip*

I would say that the .NET framework is now inadvertently tied to the Windows operating system. You can expect C# 4.0 etc. when the next Windows version is released. This is the best way to promote the .NET framework as demonstrated by Vista.

I would be very surprised if it turned out not to be the case.

I wouldn't quite say that. I"m in the middle of a Windows Server 2003 Install. The optional updates for it are .NET 2.0 and 3.0.

I haven't done a Windows Vista install recently, so I can't remember which Frameworks come with Vista.