Coffeehouse Thread

26 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Miguel has some choice words about how Microsoft develops .NET

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Bass
  • User profile image
    ManipUni

    Sounds fairly accurate to me. There is a reason after all why Java is still popular and .Net is only really popular on Windows and even then by closed source developers. 

  • User profile image
    rhm

    I think Microsoft's response to this kind of argument would be "cry more". It was never their intent to spread .NET across different platforms and become a competitor to Java. The intent was to make a better managed environment for Windows because Java sucked so hard for making Windows apps (and still does).

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    ManipUni said:

    Sounds fairly accurate to me. There is a reason after all why Java is still popular and .Net is only really popular on Windows and even then by closed source developers. 

    I can see his reasoning, but I'm not entirely sure I agree with all of it.

     

    The problem is that he doesn't account for the two different business models adopted by Sun and MS. MS sells development tools and servers and the like, while Sun open sourced its development tools and tried to sell servers and services around them. The real reason that Twitter and Facebook and Wikipedia were not developed on .NET has nothing to do with Microsoft's stance on patents; it's simply because MS tools cost money to buy, whereas you can set up a Java based service for next to no money.

     

    Now this is great for the developers and has led to a lot of innovative sites, but if MS had adopted the Sun model, how well would they have done? Could they have made the tools free and just made the money on add-ons and services? Hard to say really, but we could look at Sun as an example of how well that strategy works. Yes, Java rules the server, but as far as I remember, Sun was on the verge of going bust before they were nabbed by Oracle.

     

    In this regard, Microsoft is more like Apple: don't chase numbers, chase money.

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    rhm said:

    I think Microsoft's response to this kind of argument would be "cry more". It was never their intent to spread .NET across different platforms and become a competitor to Java. The intent was to make a better managed environment for Windows because Java sucked so hard for making Windows apps (and still does).

    And that's the issue. The movement has been to move to the web (for good or ill), and not embracing that was a mistake. If Microsoft is still saying "cry more", then they're doing a poor job of analyzing the market.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    Ray7 said:
    ManipUni said:
    *snip*

    I can see his reasoning, but I'm not entirely sure I agree with all of it.

     

    The problem is that he doesn't account for the two different business models adopted by Sun and MS. MS sells development tools and servers and the like, while Sun open sourced its development tools and tried to sell servers and services around them. The real reason that Twitter and Facebook and Wikipedia were not developed on .NET has nothing to do with Microsoft's stance on patents; it's simply because MS tools cost money to buy, whereas you can set up a Java based service for next to no money.

     

    Now this is great for the developers and has led to a lot of innovative sites, but if MS had adopted the Sun model, how well would they have done? Could they have made the tools free and just made the money on add-ons and services? Hard to say really, but we could look at Sun as an example of how well that strategy works. Yes, Java rules the server, but as far as I remember, Sun was on the verge of going bust before they were nabbed by Oracle.

     

    In this regard, Microsoft is more like Apple: don't chase numbers, chase money.

    Weird examples you choose - twitter, facebook and wikipedia weren't developed on Java either.

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    blowdart said:
    Ray7 said:
    *snip*

    Weird examples you choose - twitter, facebook and wikipedia weren't developed on Java either.

    True. I was aiming for the free thing, rather than the Java thing. But now that you mention it, this highlights another problem with Miguel's argument: Java may be cheap to develop, but more often than not, costs more to host that .NET. Most Java sites are run by outfits that can afford the hosting costs.

     

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    Ray7 said:
    blowdart said:
    *snip*

    True. I was aiming for the free thing, rather than the Java thing. But now that you mention it, this highlights another problem with Miguel's argument: Java may be cheap to develop, but more often than not, costs more to host that .NET. Most Java sites are run by outfits that can afford the hosting costs.

     

    Thing is that .NET hosting isn't expensive - it's SQL Server hosting that is really expensive. .NET and MySQL hosting is comparible to the linux setup.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    Imagine if Microsoft would open source the entire .NET framework, it would change the computing industry.

     

    Why does the Mono project even need to exist? It seems stupid there there has to be hundreds of developers wasting what at this point is hundreds of years of effort duplicating the same work Microsoft has done already.

     

    These people could be doing far more useful things to society. The only reason Mono exists is because Microsoft refuses to allow people to use .NET outside of their limited set of platforms.

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    Bass said:

    Imagine if Microsoft would open source the entire .NET framework, it would change the computing industry.

     

    Why does the Mono project even need to exist? It seems stupid there there has to be hundreds of developers wasting what at this point is hundreds of years of effort duplicating the same work Microsoft has done already.

     

    These people could be doing far more useful things to society. The only reason Mono exists is because Microsoft refuses to allow people to use .NET outside of their limited set of platforms.

    I can't agree. Why should there be only one "vendor" for .NET? Competition is a good thing. Very few other languages have only a single vendor.  I can't imagine what it would be like today if Bell Labs were the sole vendor for C++.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    wkempf said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    I can't agree. Why should there be only one "vendor" for .NET? Competition is a good thing. Very few other languages have only a single vendor.  I can't imagine what it would be like today if Bell Labs were the sole vendor for C++.

    But it's not just that .NET isn't open source. The long-term legal ambiguities surrounding .NET effectively salts the possibility of multiple .NET vendors. That was Miguel's point, at least.

     

    So it's not just that they have to recreate an entire extremely large framework/ecosystem from the ground up, with little/no help from the original vendor: They have to deal with the fact that many people do not trust Mono to even be legal to use, which greatly limits the potential of the software.

  • User profile image
    turrican

    rhm said:

    I think Microsoft's response to this kind of argument would be "cry more". It was never their intent to spread .NET across different platforms and become a competitor to Java. The intent was to make a better managed environment for Windows because Java sucked so hard for making Windows apps (and still does).

    http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=133

     

    Windows : 92.12%
    Mac : 5.02%
    Linux : 0.98%

    I fully agree with you. Let them cry more! I can't believe people even care and MONO is a f***ing joke.

  • User profile image
    Cannot​Resolve​Symbol

    wkempf said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    I can't agree. Why should there be only one "vendor" for .NET? Competition is a good thing. Very few other languages have only a single vendor.  I can't imagine what it would be like today if Bell Labs were the sole vendor for C++.

    What would it be like today if Bell Labs had patented core parts of C++ and spent the first eight years of its life threatening to sue anyone who attempted to implement it?

     

    That's the situation .NET is in today.  No one wants to do research or development involving .NET because the platform's been tainted by patent threats.

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    Bass said:
    wkempf said:
    *snip*

    But it's not just that .NET isn't open source. The long-term legal ambiguities surrounding .NET effectively salts the possibility of multiple .NET vendors. That was Miguel's point, at least.

     

    So it's not just that they have to recreate an entire extremely large framework/ecosystem from the ground up, with little/no help from the original vendor: They have to deal with the fact that many people do not trust Mono to even be legal to use, which greatly limits the potential of the software.

    But that's not what you just argued. "It seems stupid there there has to be hundreds of developers wasting what at this point is hundreds of years of effort duplicating the same work Microsoft has done already."

     

    I'm not interested in the "should MS open source .NET" debate. Open Source isn't the be-all end-all way things should be. There's pros and cons, so the correct choice is a case by case thing. I think it's actually a good thing that there's both choices in the .NET world. Though it would be nice if Microsoft could do something to clear up the legal questions about some of the "stacks" that Mono has implemented. For instance, using Mono for web development leaves you in very questionable legal standing, because ASP.NET is proprietary.

     

    No, what I was interested in was the argument you did make, that the Mono folks were wasting man hours that could be better spent elsewhere. I don't agree with that, at all.

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    turrican said:
    rhm said:
    *snip*

    http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=133

     

    Windows : 92.12%
    Mac : 5.02%
    Linux : 0.98%

    I fully agree with you. Let them cry more! I can't believe people even care and MONO is a f***ing joke.

    Mono is used on a lot more than Mac and Linux, and it's certainly not a joke. It's very impressive and highly useful. You're showing your zealotry, and it's not becoming.

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    CannotResolveSymbol said:
    wkempf said:
    *snip*

    What would it be like today if Bell Labs had patented core parts of C++ and spent the first eight years of its life threatening to sue anyone who attempted to implement it?

     

    That's the situation .NET is in today.  No one wants to do research or development involving .NET because the platform's been tainted by patent threats.

    Your analogy is flawed. .NET isn't encumbered with patent issues, because Microsoft standardized it, which required protection from patents. People question Mono's legality for two reasons:

     

    1. Microsoft hatred and FUD.

    2. Mono implemented more than .NET. They included several APIs outside of the BCL, such as ASP.NET and WinForms, that Microsoft very well could go after them for. However, Mono makes that perfectly clear, and they are prepared to drop any/all of those stacks the second Microsoft takes action.

     

    To date, Microsoft hasn't made a single threat with regards to Mono, even over the "stacks" that Mono acknowledges they have some right to. So, claiming they have made threats is FUD, regardless of the legality of using those stacks.

     

    Like turrican, your zealotry is showing, and it's not becoming.

  • User profile image
    Cannot​Resolve​Symbol

    wkempf said:
    CannotResolveSymbol said:
    *snip*

    Your analogy is flawed. .NET isn't encumbered with patent issues, because Microsoft standardized it, which required protection from patents. People question Mono's legality for two reasons:

     

    1. Microsoft hatred and FUD.

    2. Mono implemented more than .NET. They included several APIs outside of the BCL, such as ASP.NET and WinForms, that Microsoft very well could go after them for. However, Mono makes that perfectly clear, and they are prepared to drop any/all of those stacks the second Microsoft takes action.

     

    To date, Microsoft hasn't made a single threat with regards to Mono, even over the "stacks" that Mono acknowledges they have some right to. So, claiming they have made threats is FUD, regardless of the legality of using those stacks.

     

    Like turrican, your zealotry is showing, and it's not becoming.

    Actually, Microsoft did not have a covenant not to sue for patents related to the ECMA .Net standards until July of last year, when those standards were placed under the Microsoft Community Promise.  There is, filed alongside the standard, a letter promising that Microsoft will license the patents relating to the standards (with "commercially reasonable" royalties) to anyone who wishes to implement it, but that doesn't make it non-encumbered--  instead, it's quite the opposite (it makes it quite clear that you need a patent license to implement the spec).

     

    Congratulations on attacking me for my "zealotry," though.  If this is the direction C9 is going, I know where I'm not going to be spending my time in the future.

  • User profile image
    turrican

    wkempf said:
    turrican said:
    *snip*

    Mono is used on a lot more than Mac and Linux, and it's certainly not a joke. It's very impressive and highly useful. You're showing your zealotry, and it's not becoming.

    Is it used in more than Mac and Linux? O RLY? Like on cars? Where else does it run beside those two? Maybe you mean Unity3D? You must be joking, right?

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.