Discussions

News: Opinion: Is .NET a rip off of Java?

  1. Opinion: Is .NET a rip off of Java? (183 messages)

    In a recent editorial, a builder.com editor responded to a question about J2EE and .NET: which is the original, and which is the rip off. His response was somewhat contrived and seemed to imply that all of J2EE is a copy of Microsoft technologies, but concludes with a useful takeaway point: "every industry takes the best of what already exists, makes it better and blends in innovations."

    Check out Ask Chuck: Is .NET a rip off of J2EE?.
    Story source: application-servers.com.

    In particular his point about how Sun only releases reference implementations (instead of production releases such as MS) is ridiculous, since that is how the JCP process works.

    If the article were truly complete, the author would also have mentioned that many MS technologies, including MTS are based on older established enterprise development platforms, such as Tuxedo, Gemstone/S, etc...

    Threaded Messages (183)

  2. Those dates are interesting.. but at the core of .Net is C Sharp's rip off of Java.

    Birth of Java = 1995
    Birth of C Sharp = 2000/2001?

    I worked at a major bank back in 1999, and we did scalability tests between ASP and JSP (JServ), the results were astounding... we couldn't get more than a few concurrent hits with our ASP server, and so we chose Java. ASP might have been a "production" quality release, but what does production mean? Windows 95 was a production quality release, and so was 98... 2k, and so is XP... has your production quality Windows crashed on you lately?

    With MS products, you're forced with ONE implementation, Microsoft's. With Java, you get as many implementations as there are ppl who care to make them, some free, some not. I enjoy my freedom to choose.
  3. This discussion has as usual been amusing. In the end it doesn't really matter who rips off whom, even in a court of law. Just ask Apple computer who spent too much energy in their rip off case.

    One of the things I think is especially amusing is the incredible ignorance of most Java programmers. They critize Microsoft for being all about marketing. They critize .Net for being like what we already have in Java and they make the hopelessly naive assumption that if the later point is true Java doesn't have anything to worry about.

    Well ladies and gentlemen lets talk about Smalltalk. In particular I will speak about what is now VisualWorks Smalltalk - which is a descendent of the original parc place version of Smalltalk. This language is cross platform because it runs on a virtual machine that has been ported to all the platforms that Java has and then some [In fact in Eiffel, also, you are also able to write once and run anywhere for many more platforms then Java]. It has automatic garbage collection that has used a generational algorithm for years (Java has just figured that out with 1.4). It comes with an IDE which is also the deployment platform and can be manipulated by the programmer (as it is written in Smalltalk). They have had a refactoring browser for years. Almost all XP practices etc come from Smalltalk.

    It is said that Steve Jobs saw the Smalltalk IDE's at Parc and came up with the idea for a Macintosh (which Gates and company subsequently stole from Apple).

    Smalltalk is a pure OO language with much more consistent semantics. Distributed cross VM computing is available.

    Performance ? At the start for sure Smalltalk was and is still faster than Java at almost everything.

    So why are we all Java programmers and not Smalltalk programmers? Marketing. Sun marketed Java aggressively while the folks at Parc place laughed and thought how could that inferior badly designed language win out over the superior Smalltalk.

    Well never mind how. It did. And it did based on NO technical reasons whatsoever.

    So why do I bring all this up? Whatever you think about Microsoft and .Net, it will do well because of marketing. You can sit there and maintain your attitude of superiority and watch while everything around you goes from Java to .Net - and then have to change at the last minute as many Smalltalkers did or you can stay apprised of various technical solutions and be well versed in them because you know that technology doesn't matter. Marketing does. After all you could do the whole thing in Assembly if you had to. ; )

    Java is a horribly designed language with little to recommend it but I program in it every day. If that becomes C# tomorrow why should I really care?

    Do you need further proof the marketing wins out over good sense and good technology? How many of you write EJB based applications? How many of those wouldn't have been better designed (certainly more OO) using POJOs instead. So why are you using EJB? Marketing.
  4. help wanted[ Go to top ]

    Hmm,

    Just for the record and without any facts whatsoever I will just state that I do not believe that Smalltalk was better than Java - the whole enchilada, with class libraries and all. That suspicion have nothing to do with science – please don’t flame me.

    It have been toted for more year than I can remember and have all the marks of the "urbanmyth", so I am suspicious. Can not anybody who is more knowledgeable that I once and for all kill this statement (just as the old the "Betamax was better than VHS" was killed in an article here the other day).

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  5. help wanted (Screenplay)[ Go to top ]

    1 (sitting in a lounge chair): "It's better. That's why"
    2 (confused, but curious): "Which one is better?"
    1 (exhaling smoke from a pipe): "That, my friend, depends on what you need."
  6. Not a myth[ Go to top ]

    Hmm,

    >
    > Just for the record and without any facts whatsoever I will just state that I do not believe that Smalltalk was better than Java - the whole enchilada, with class libraries and all. That suspicion have nothing to do with science – please don’t flame me.

    > Rolf Tollerud

    I can see from your comments you have never downloaded any smalltalk dialect. The class libraries are far better than Java's and certainly are more object oriented in implemntation. This is not a myth. This is what I found coming to Smalltalk second - after programming in Java. Give it a try.

    Here is the link

    http://www.cincom.com/scripts/smalltalk.dll/index.ssp

    PS the ssp is smalltalk server page ; )
  7. "I love baiting questions!"

    Did J2EE rip off CORBA? Did Apple rip off Xerox PARC? Did Bill Clinton rip off the Republian platform? As an '80s Mac user, watching Microsoft build a then nascent window manager (Windows) into a thriving business, I was very frustrated. Not this time. I plan to work with .Net short term because departmental systems (cheaper to do it in .Net with Office integration) will use it and enterprise systems (Java/C++/Cobol) will need to communicate with it.

    Long term, Open Source is the future. Darwinism smiles on organisms that do more with less. The natural selection process is starting to bear fruit per Linux's impact on MS. The quality is here now. It will take a while for it to sink into the management layer and investment community. Think of it, companies getting dinged by Wall Street for not having an open source strategy. Does Microsoft have an open source strategy?
  8. Just as the article ends with, every technology borrows from the one before it. To me, when I hear people talk about .NET's 30+ languages, I laugh. It's nice that Microsoft has provided a nice framework for many different languages (although, a number of languages just don't work well in .NET), but there's just one problem -- it's a completely Windows centric view of the world. I'd like to have the .NET framework on Linux, Mac OS X, Solaris, FreeBSD, etc. But, Microsoft has no interest in supporting any of those ports. In fact, they may be gearing up to shutdown projects like Mono and DotGNU if MS feels the projects are becoming too "dangerous." That is my biggest complaint with .NET. We can argue the technical merits of .NET all day long, but until Microsoft makes a real effort to support .NET on *nix platforms, I don't have much interest in using it.

    J2EE is great if you need the sophistication it offers. However, I, like many others on this site have stated before, don't believe many web applications demand J2EE's complexities. I tend to lean towards scripting languages for the flexibility they can provide. There are pros and cons to the scripting languages as well, but I think the ability to simplify things and focus on solving the problem at hand is a powerful idea. :)

    Anyway for what it's worth, I've written a brief posting on my weblog concerning things I'd like to see Microsoft do to improve itself, which I think is really what the issue with any Microsoft product is these days.
  9. I'd like to have the .NET framework on Linux, Mac OS X, Solaris, FreeBSD, etc. But, Microsoft has no interest in supporting any of those ports.


    You do have it:
    Shared source CLI
  10. .NET complete, not just the CLI[ Go to top ]

    People seem to be mistaking two important things about making .NET cross platform:
    <ol>
  11. The CLI is not the entire framework as most would consider .NET complete. The CLI does not include the API's that make .NET complete. Take away things like Windows forms, ADO.NET, ASP.NET, etc. and you've taken away some of the most commonly used components of .NET development. Have a developer use Visual Studio .NET and then have them run their web apps on a non-Windows platform based on the shared source CLI. Problems? Hmmm... Just having the CLI is similar to just having the Java JVM and a few tools like a compiler, etc. Would that constitute for J2EE or even J2SE for that matter? No, and neither should the CLI be considered a complete .NET implementation as Microsoft is selling it.


  12. Microsoft does not support projects like Mono or DotGNU. They haven't come out and tried to shut them down, but they don't actively support either of those projects. a href="http:
  13. /netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='20030028685'">Microsoft has patents on .NET features that are just waiting to be used on any perceived competition, including projects like Mono or DotGNU. Don't you find it a little funny that the Mono team has been told to not look at the shared source/Rotor project? They're preparing for the inevitable battle over patents with Microsoft.


    > > I'd like to have the .NET framework on Linux, Mac OS X, Solaris, FreeBSD, etc. But, Microsoft has no interest in supporting any of those ports.
    >
    > You do have it:
    > Shared source CLI
  • Java designers should start ripping off some of the interesting things in .NET and C#. Specifically, Java designers should start paying attention to language brevity. The succinctness of programming languages is closely tied to a programmer's productivity. Java is not that succinct, therefore we code more slowly.

    J2SE1.5 starts to make some inroads in this area, finally dealing with enumerations and generics (these were both obviously needed from the get-go 7 years ago), and thank god for 1.4.1 patterns. However, some folks ought to take a step back and review the language, looking at where redundancy crops up. Generics remove the need for so many casts, for example. Method pointers for example ... have you ever noticed that sometimes attributes, parameters, etc. all look pretty much the same, but you can't code a generic handler to dump and load them because the method names are different? Sure someone could have thoughtfully used an interface when the coded the thing originally, but they didn't. And now we're stuck with repeating code that does the same thing over and over.

    Anyway, when people talk about .net envy, I think they are talking about the fact that .net weenies go on and on about how fast they can develop a .net web site compared to Java. While Java systems are more robust, ultimately don't we want both fast development and robustness?

    Of course, some of these comments could also be applied to the whole J2EE framework.
  • Apples to apples[ Go to top ]

    Is .NET even in the same problem space as Java? One of my colleagues plays with .NET a lot but he's yet to impress me with the framework's enterprise features. I don't think .NET has anything equivalent to entity beans or message driven beans. In fact I'm not sure it even has a decent message queue implementation. It also lacks a good authentication/authorization service (though the J2EE one is not perfect). The Microsft platform seems like a really good way to whip up a simple website like a basic store front but it really isn't ready for enterprise level development. Right now it may be more of a competitor to servlets coupled with plain Java objects rather than being a head on challenge for J2EE
  • Apples to apples[ Go to top ]

    I don't think .NET has anything equivalent to entity beans or message driven beans. In fact I'm not sure it even has a decent message queue implementation.


    Come on... Message queues have been there for a long time in windows. And queued components are the equivalent of message driven beans.
    You're right in thinking that most .NET developers code quick and dirty, because of their VB background. But it doesn't mean that everyone does so. You can code quick, clean and robust applications with .NET. You just have to look around, and you'll find all the needed tools.
  • MSMQ[ Go to top ]

    I don't think JMS copies MSMQ. JMS Point to Point was modeled after IBM MQSeries. MSMQ copied alot of MQSeires as well. MQSeries (now WebSphere MQ) now uses JMS for Java.

    Nonetheless, MSMQ is an implementation, JMS is an API. You are not comparing the right thing.

    Entity Beans has many concepts from VAP for Smalltalk. MTS got things from OTS. It's a cycle.

    Lastly, another serverside post with a title favoring Java, but an article favoring Microsoft??
  • MSMQ[ Go to top ]

    The API that enables you to use MSMQ from .NET is System.Messaging.
    Anyway, who cares if this or that is a "rip-off"? I couldn't care less.
    Be careful, most of what's in this forum is nothing but wishful thinking. "You can't build robust applications in .NET. J2EE rules". Yeah. You wish.
  • I always said good architect/developers can implement good systems with whatever technology. This thread is specifically about who ripped off what. That is what the article is about.

    That being said, the article said compare .NEt with Java, the author said, compare .NET with J2EE. Well I say, J2EE is a set of standards, .NET is an implementation (call it a standard if you want). That being said, Microsoft uses Sun to bash Java and I think Sun hurts Java in this way because they don't have the best implementation.

    It is WebLogic and WebSphere that is out there and the reason that J2EE is strong. Open Source products as well are strong. Microsoft stays away from comparing what is fair? (Not saying that Sun doesn't either)

    .NET versus WebSphere (Not an article on Web Services but J2EE)
    .NET versus WebLogic (Not an article on Web Services but J2EE)
    .NET versus JBoss (have to mention not to get eaten alive on this board)
    etc...

    Where are those articles, Microsoft? (there may be one scattered around if you are lucky) That is your real competition. You will go to customer and that is the competition, not Sun.
  • Opinion: Is .NET a rip off of Java?[ Go to top ]

    .NET is arguably much more like J2EE than it is like previous Microsoft technologies. This is something that Microsoft are understandably quiet about, as they don't like to admit the extent of the borrowing and don't like to scare their developers with the truth that .NET is a bit conceptual leap if you're a VB or even Visual C++/COM development. On the other hand, I find .NET applications easy to understand from a Java/J2EE background.

    C# is very Java-like, although in fairness it does add features (mostly good, some bad) that make it more than just a clone.

    As the saying goes, "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery".

    However, I think "rip off" is a bit strong. .NET does add some original ideas. Anyway, I think it is good for technologies to feed off each other. This is why I think .NET could well end up being good for J2EE, in that it helps to explore some different approaches that could be incorporated into J2EE. For example, C#/IL metadata attributes are a valuable new feature that look like going into Java 1.5. Martin Fowler's new book uses both J2EE and .NET examples, which I think is great.

    There really are few new things under the sun. EJB owed something to MTS, as they both did to much older transaction monitors etc.

    Rod
  • Opinion: Is .NET a rip off of Java?[ Go to top ]

    |
    |.NET is arguably much more like J2EE than it is like previous Microsoft
    |technologies. This is something that Microsoft are understandably quiet about,
    |as they don't like to admit the extent of the borrowing and don't like to scare
    |their developers with the truth that .NET is a bit conceptual leap if you're a
    |VB or even Visual C++/COM development.
    |

    I couldnt agree with you more.
    Its absolutely astounding how many ASP/VB hackers have the impression that .net and C# is the "natural progression" for them - without really appreciating the conceptual leap you point out.

    Based on thier zero understanding of Java/J2EE (and similarly superficial level of understanding of .net) they make the assumption that to move to Java/J2EE will require massive re-training, whereas with .net no training will be required.

    |
    |On the other hand, I find .NET
    |applications easy to understand from a Java/J2EE background
    |

    Which leads to the entertaining situation where most Java/J2EE programmers probably know more about .net than most Microsoft (VB/ASP/COM) programmers.

    -Nick
  • Opinion: Is .NET a rip off of Java?[ Go to top ]

    <nick>
    Which leads to the entertaining situation where most Java/J2EE programmers probably know more about .net than most Microsoft (VB/ASP/COM) programmers.

    Absolutely. However, recruitment agencies and employers aren't likely to figure this one out soon.

    I actually had a client (Microsoft shop) for whom I wrote a very successful J2EE prototype. They agreed that it was great and met all their expectations, but decided to go with .NET at the last moment because they were scared of the learning curve with J2EE. 6 months later they're really struggling getting to grips with .NET. From what I've seen they're doing a lot of stuff in their old COM way, rather than in true .NET assemblies. They're purely using VB.NET, not C#. And they've made little progress.

    I have pretty strong knowledge of the old MS technology stack (MTS etc.) I find whenever I think about .NET I don't draw on it at all, but purely on my J2EE knowledge.

    Rod
  • Rod,

    Ha ha, that was a very funny story. To think that they could probably have converted the Java app in a couple of days!

    "All apps large and small should use EJB!"
    "Use VB programmers rather than experienced Java programmers in .NET projects!"

    The only problem for me is that I don't know whet ever to laugh or cry.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • So whats your point. You can't do it in .Net what J2EE can do? If that is what you meant you are highly mistaken. May be your client had stupids working for them.
  • New Feature[ Go to top ]

    Rolf, thanks to you, I have discovered a new feature on The Server Side.

    The "Mark as Noisy" feature is a great addition.

    Elaine
  • New Feature[ Go to top ]

    I don't think we should mark Rolf noisy. He's part of our community!
  • Noisy[ Go to top ]

    I was joking. Love him or hate him, Rolf stimulates discussion.
  • Opinion: Is .NET a rip off of Java?[ Go to top ]

    "I have pretty strong knowledge of the old MS technology stack (MTS etc.) I find whenever I think about .NET I don't draw on it at all, but purely on my J2EE knowledge. "

    My experience is much the same. I've been doing J2EE development for most of the last 2.5 years but prior to that I did a bunch of COM(C++) MTSable components.

    Now I'm doing some .NET development on the side. It's better to forget MTS, COM, IDispatch, etc and look at .NET more from the J2EE perspective.

    BTW, forgive me for asking, but is Rod Johnson your real name? A double double entendre......
  • what is the proper attitude[ Go to top ]

    Where is the logic?

    One post claim that he will use .NET for the moment but in the long term Open Source is the future. Another complains that .NET is only for Windows.

    How is it possible to forget that Open Source Mono will be released for Linux/Unix this summer? Neither is Java Open Source.

    It is kind of comical to bash MS for not porting their products to Unix, wouldn't it be better just to be thankful? Like Oracle: Thank you MS for not porting the SQL server to Unix! (SQL server is on the verge of overtaking Oracle in Europe as we speak according to Gartner despite of being only available on Windows).

    I hope you don't question the fact that Microsoft can easily port -all- their products (present and coming) to Unix?

    What do you think of that scenario?
    Better not to disturb the boat and leave everything as it is.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • what is the proper attitude[ Go to top ]

    I hope you don't question the fact that Microsoft can easily port -all- their

    > products (present and coming) to Unix?

    Yes, if you really mean *all* MS products, then I do doubt it, and the fact that you dont really does say something about the relative difference in size between your mouth and your brain...
  • curiosity killed the cat[ Go to top ]

    Johan,

    I make a breach of my principles. Usually I never answer personal attacks but my curiosity got the better of me.

    What particular product do you think that MS can not port to Unix in case they choose to do so?

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • Re: curiosity killed the cat[ Go to top ]

    Johan,


    I'll answer in his place :)

    > I make a breach of my principles. Usually I never answer personal attacks but my curiosity got the better of me.
    >
    > What particular product do you think that MS can not port to Unix in case they choose to do so?

    Notepad... (it will probably crash with a segmentation fault ;)

    >
    > Regards
    > Rolf Tollerud
    /Anders
  • help arriving[ Go to top ]

    Anders,

    OK, Well then - but I took it for granted that they can envisage help from JCP committee! I'm sure they can fix everything!

    (and fast too)

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • curiosity killed the cat[ Go to top ]

    Johan,

    >
    > I make a breach of my principles. Usually I never answer personal attacks but my curiosity got the better of me.

    But you dont seem to mind producing them, see message #75276

    >
    > What particular product do you think that MS can not port to Unix in case
    > they choose to do so?
     

    Yes, and quite typically you know forget that the original claim you maid contained the key statement - "easily" - your exact wording was:

    >> I hope you don't question the fact that Microsoft can easily port -all-
    >> their products (present and coming) to Unix?

    I dont question that they can port their products to unix, I question how easy it would be. How come you change you claim when challenged?

    > Regards
    > Rolf Tollerud

    Best regards - Johan
  • the damokles sword[ Go to top ]

    Johan,

    "But you dont seem to mind producing them, see message #75276"

    What of it? I did not bash any particular person! As usual the presents are always excluded in these cases..

    So it is the easy part which you don't buy.
    But what is difficult for a company of MS size with $40 billions and hiring only this year 5000 of the best and the brightest? Remember - Microsoft was chosen "Most Desired IT Employer of 2002" It is all C code isn’t it?

    Anyway, they are in the process of converting everything to .NET. As soon as a product is in this environment I am sure that even you will accept that it is easy.

    MS prepare for different scenarios. Deploy on Unix is guaranteed one of the tricks that they have in their bag - to be used if needed.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • the damokles sword[ Go to top ]

    As usual the presents are always excluded


    What a pity, I love presents =)

    > So it is the easy part which you don't buy.

    Of course.

    > But what is difficult for a company of MS size with $40 billions and hiring only this year 5000 of the best and the brightest? Remember - Microsoft was chosen "Most Desired IT Employer of 2002"

    Yes, but then you should have defined what you meant with easy.

    > It is all C code isn’t it?

    Yes, but c code that makes heavy use of OS specific system calls, or?

    > Anyway, they are in the process of converting everything to .NET. As soon as a product is in this environment I am sure that even you will accept that it is easy.

    Yes, I think I will, provided that someone defines easy. But do you really mean that they are planning to convert for example SQL server to .NET? Also, I believe (and I could be wrong) that winforms still dont work on any non windows platform?, and that would be a key requirement for what you describe, unless someone wants to run Excel in command line mode?

    >
    > MS prepare for different scenarios. Deploy on Unix is guaranteed one of the tricks that they have in their bag - to be used if needed.

    I will believe that when I see it. Making their software available on UNIX seems contradictory to MS existing business strategy - but who knows? If MS wants to kill 2000 Server, I will not protest...

    >
    > Regards
    > Rolf Tollerud

    Best regards - Johan
  • RE:curiosity killed the cat[ Go to top ]

    Any! All MS products are based on Windows' APIs, and porting them is the same as porting Windows to Unix(?).
  • RE:curiosity killed the cat[ Go to top ]

    Any! All MS products are based on Windows' APIs, and porting them is the same as porting Windows to Unix(?).


    Thank you.
  • curiosity killed the cat[ Go to top ]

    What particular product do you think that MS can not port to Unix in case they choose to do so?



    Errr.... The most important one? Windows? :P
  • curiosity killed the cat[ Go to top ]

    What particular product do you think that MS can not port to Unix in case they choose to do so?

    >
    >
    > Errr.... The most important one? Windows? :P

    Thank you.
  • Rolf is full of Net (.NET)[ Go to top ]

    Rolf, while it's certainly entertaining to read your replies the reality is that Java and Open Source are the future of Enterprise computing. .Net isn't even competition for a small company like BEA...

    Whole article at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,905722,00.asp

    eWEEK: Let's talk about competition overall, not just IBM. How do you compete with .Net?

    Chuang: Well, there's no competition now because the .Net server doesn't exist. I've been through this several times with Microsoft. Back in 1996 there was a technology called Microsoft Transaction Server. We were doing Tuxedo, just barely moving into our CORBA-based third-generation object-oriented transaction, and we sat around and said, "Oh my God. Microsoft is coming out with MTS. How are we going to survive?" And people asked me the same question. And then MTS disappeared. I'm not sure .Net will be the same, but the same symptoms are clearly happening.

    There was a lot of momentum for a while and then a bunch of other things distracted it, and it seems to have diluted the whole thing. And I would not be surprised if the whole .Net methodology would be dropped altogether and done as something else.

    But I think you are getting to the right point, though. Because the way I look at it I think that Microsoft will ultimately be BEA's competition. Because here is the challenge: We're out there aggressively trying to get the enterprise to standardize so we can see proliferation of applications so we can continue to grow. We are doing more stuff online today than we ever have. If that continues that means the supply of applications real time into the hands of the people using the Internet is absolutely the most critical thing.

    We are edging out into the world Microsoft is in. We will cross into their world, and over time Microsoft will be BEA's biggest competitor even though now there's no direct competitive product. But our channel model, their channel model; our product, their product; our ecosystem, their ecosystem; all have different tastes to them and it depends on the next generation of the world what it's all going to look like. I think it will be very exciting.
  • Steven,

    "And I would not be surprised if the whole .Net methodology would be dropped altogether and done as something else"

    So you take the words at BEA CEO at face value? That is not a very scientific method!

    February 13, 2002 was release date for .NET.
    Today is February 28, 2002.

    The situation after one year and 15 days is:

    jobsearch.monster.com
    .NET 1260
    Weblogic 565

    www.hotjobs.com
    .NET 1000
    Weblogic 288

    www.it.jobserve.com
    .NET 550
    Weblogic 210


    Before you say that this is not real jobs or real hits, I invite to take a stroll through the sites.

    The next version of .NET is just around the corner. For each developer at BEA MS has 10 or 20..(we can leave the discussion about the talent and quality of the staff to another time!)

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • Rolf I love this one. First, we all no that these little search stats that you love are BS. The HR monkeys always just add in all kinds of techs that they say they wnat, but don't really need. On top of that, you're doing .NET vs Weblogic. I don't think Weblogic represents J2EE. In fact it probably represents about 30% by dollar licensing revenue (which alone makes your comparison bad, but when you consider open-source like Tomcat which probably is the most used, it makes your comparison ridiculous). But I'll play your game. Also, What if you're just using servlets (probably a much larger number than people using full J2EE features).

    Monster.com
    .NET search =
    J2EE = 1212
    Serlvet = More than 5000 (they stop at 5000).

    On top of that, I found a number of job postings that had listings for both MS and Java technologies. These search numbers you love to throw around in threads don't seem to mean much.

    Blah, it's all a load. Hell, I think I'll mark _myself_ as noisy just for being a sucker and replying to this.

    Jason McKerr
    Northwest Alliance for Computational Science and Engineering
  • Jason,

    I assume you are an educated person able to extrapolate a graph.

    We all know that when you are on a diet, the only thing you need to know is if you are going down or up. While it may be interesting to know your real weigh - it isn't that important.

    Less that 6 months ago, I did the same searches and come up with only 10-15% .NET jobs.

    So you see, even if these figures may be inaccurate - the trend still shows.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • brave BEA fighting against dark forces[ Go to top ]

    We all know that when you are on a diet, the only thing you need to know is if you are going down or up. While it may be interesting to know your real weigh - it isn't that important.


    Have you ever tried reading what you have written before you push the little button labeled reply? If a person weigths 45 kilos or 300 kilos when on a diet is indeed interesting, both for that person and for his/hers physician.

    >
    > Less that 6 months ago, I did the same searches and come up with only 10-15% .NET jobs.

    Again you post new and/or changed information when challenged on your facts. I bet you will ignore this post just as you ignore any posting that actually challenges your beliefs.

    >
    > So you see, even if these figures may be inaccurate - the trend still shows.

    No, if the figures are inaccurate they cannot show any trends. Unless of course you can quantify how inaccurate they are. Anyone who knows how to extrapolate a graph would know that.

    >
    > Regards
    > Rolf Tollerud

    Best regards - Johan
  • let us check every other month[ Go to top ]

    So then Johan,

    how many times do you need to accept a trend?

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • Truly Revolutionary[ Go to top ]

    Truly revolutionary, INHO, would be for some of us in this forum, to get together and build some plug-ins to Eclipse that would make Java the envy of any platform. And then, everyone will say not how great Java is, but how cool the Java guys are. Compete with that!

    Wishing everyone one a great weekend.
  • I agree[ Go to top ]

    Apart from .NET having some of the frameworks that make .NET development rapid.
    Part of the kill is in the tool that Visual Studio is.

    If only we can get to better tools to do java development work.
    but the problem is we that with Java, IMHO, I don't want to use open source tools which u waste a lot of time setting up nor do i want to spend big bucks getting a tool( Java to me is about getting software development for free).

    Eclipse is very promising for this.
    we know eclipse can do it, because the plugins that come with Eclipse are great, work smooth (have been developed systematically) wheras the other open source tools always have some problems or the other. The plugins that are good are the ones that the owner eventually wants to make commercially available.

    - I may just be out of sync with things
  • lies, damn lies and statistics[ Go to top ]

    Johan!

    On second though let us check every month, as we happen to have Yann Caroff check on January 29 on www.it.jobserve.com. (http://www.theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=17627&article_count=44#72363
    .NET case studies)

    The numbers was,

    NET: 455
    WebLogic: 18

    today February 28,
    NET 550
    Weblogic 210

    That is a 2% difference this month.

    What do you say?

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • lies, damn lies and statistics[ Go to top ]

    Sorry, the numbers for January was,

    NET: 455
    WebLogic: 182
  • Rolf the .Net Scientist[ Go to top ]

    And using a job search service is scientific? Of course you are going to get more hits with .Net for a number of reasons. One is that .net and mycompany.net will get a hit. Searching for Java and J2EE will yield more results than just Weblogic or Websphere. You can use statistics and skew them any way you like, but it doesn't detract to the phenomena of Open Source and J2EE in the Enterprise.

    Here, let's us some Rolf empirical scientific theory using Google:

    ".net" "sucks" 1,520,000 hits
    "java" "sucks" 27,400 hits
    "j2ee" "sucks" 256 hits

    :)
  • shouting loud enough[ Go to top ]

    About the massive anti-Microsoft campaign by Sun through the world full of half-truths, slander, innuendoes, arrogance, personal attacks (even on BG father!) and lots of down right lies.

    Unlike you, I don't question your numbers. And to speak of marketing (as you all time say that MS are so good at), these numbers show how deeply the -Sun- marketing has penetrated and how good they are at it.

    That does not make it any truer though.

    Isaac Asimov:
    "If you say something loud enough and often enough, and with enough
    conviction, any idea, no matter how ludicrous, will be believed by some
    people."

    But only for some time.

    <Ara Abrahamian>It was a historic day for me today, I unsubscribed from EJB-INTEREST mailing list today. I've been subscribed to it for some 4 years! It's a historic moment because that means EJB for me is now dead.Abrahamian>

    Unfortunately for Java/Unix/Sun there are still left some people that can think for themselves..

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • scientific research[ Go to top ]

    Hi Steven,

    I took the trouble to redo your searches and I think you must have done them yesterday because I got:

    ".net" "sucks" 916.000
    "java" "sucks" 84.700
    "j2ee" "sucks" 3.140

    That is the .net sucks have almost halved, and "java" "sucks" is up ca 300% and "j2ee" "sucks" is up 1200%! In one day!

    That must certainly constitute a trend or?

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • Rolf the .Net Scientist[ Go to top ]

    <rolf>
    That is the .net sucks have almost halved, and "java" "sucks" is up ca 300% and "j2ee" "sucks" is up 1200%! In one day!

    That must certainly constitute a trend or?


    Rolf, you are smart enough to know the count wouldn't go down in a Google newsgroup search. But you have proven my point about skewing statistics.

    http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=%22.net%22%20%22sucks%22&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&lr=&num=100&hl=en

    <rolf>
    About the massive anti-Microsoft campaign by Sun through the world full of half-truths, slander, innuendoes, arrogance, personal attacks (even on BG father!) and lots of down right lies.

    Unlike you, I don't question your numbers. And to speak of marketing (as you all time say that MS are so good at), these numbers show how deeply the -Sun- marketing has penetrated and how good they are at it.

    That does not make it any truer though.


    I'm not sure where the above comments came from. I'm not listening to Sun or MS marketing. Part or my job is to R&D OS, development tools, middleware, etc. That means I have to actually stress/scalability test products instead making false claims or listening to marketing hype.

    Assuming you were talking about the BEA article in eweek, you have to take that on it's own merits. Or perhaps you have me confused with someone else? The Google search was a joke to show you how worthless your bogus job search statistics are.

    Steven P. Goldsmith
    Supervisor, Application Systems Architecture
    FCCI Insurance Group
  • Steven,

    My mistake, you were searching on google groups, I on Google web.

    And when I said -you- I didn't mean you literally, but the anti-MS groups.

    about "skewing statistics"

    The Java guys are quick to denounce any negative information about J2EE. But have you heard about circumstantial evidence? Enough of that and you can even be caught for murder..

    I am about to collect enough evidence to show without any shadow of doubt that not only are Java backing every week, but also that the whole infrastructure behind is disintegrating.

    Just two tidbits:
    http://www.mail-archive.com/jug-discussion@tucson-jug.org/msg00355.html
    http://www.internalmemos.com/memos/memodetails.php?memo_id=1321

    Only the Hobbits at Jakarta can avoid the doom and prevent disaster now! That is, if they are given the chance to so..

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
    (the emperor is not as forgiving as I am!)
  • Rolf says:

    <quote>
    The Java guys are quick to denounce any negative information about J2EE. But have you heard about circumstantial evidence? Enough of that and you can even be caught for murder..

    I am about to collect enough evidence to show without any shadow of doubt that not only are Java backing every week, but also that the whole infrastructure behind is disintegrating.

    Just two tidbits:
    http://www.mail-archive.com/jug-discussion@tucson-jug.org/msg00355.html
    http://www.internalmemos.com/memos/memodetails.php?memo_id=1321


    The first "tidbit" address Swing exclusively, the second one has been discussed here before - it addresses 9 issues with java, 4 of which have to do with Swing.

    My question is, what does Swing have to do with the J2EE? What does it have to do with java's "whole infrastructure"? This isn't exactly a smoking gun. Could it be that you're just a little bit biased against java and therefore can't be objective?

    -Scott
  • http://www.mail-archive.com/jug-discussion@tucson-jug.org/msg00355.html

    This is old news dude. Have you ever heard of Thinlets? I know it isn't a shrink wrapped MS drag-n-drop product, but... http://www.thinlet.com/

    http://www.internalmemos.com/memos/memodetails.php?memo_id=1321

    That memo is over two years old and most of the issues raised have been fixed in the Solaris JVM. I'm sure you already knew this before posting. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-984529.html

    Keep 'em coming and eventually I will be convinced the Java sucks and .Net is the only way to go...
  • Basic Statistic[ Go to top ]

    ".net" "sucks" 1,520,000 hits

    > "java" "sucks" 27,400 hits
    > "j2ee" "sucks" 256 hits
    why don't you try
    ".net" "good"
    "java" "good"
    "j2ee" "good"
    then use following (sucks hits/(sucks hits+ good hits)) * 100% = ?

    btw, right know have develop University Information System, the software available in both platform (J2EE & .NET), I have 1 Analyst team, 1 .NET Programmer team,1 java/j2ee programmer team, and it's working now. so nothing wrong with j2ee and .net unless .net is cheaper(inc salary, .net programmer is cheaper then j2ee). the performance and quality depend on your programmer's skill.
  • Article has a good point[ Go to top ]

    The article makes an a good point that some java standards have been influenced microsoft api's. I believe that is true for JSP, EJB Session beans. However the rest are off the mark (don't know about ADSI though). JMS is not like MSMQ, JMS is a vendor neutral spec, MSMQ would be more like MSeries, a specific implementation of queueing. Again same with JAXP, JAXP was created as a standard way to invoke XML parsers, the api's like DOM and SAX, that was invented earlier. I believe up to this day, .NET doesn't have a SAX equivalent, DOM on the otherhand is W3C, however I don't think .NET implements it. Message Driven Beans again something invented in isolation as a "patch" to EJB. Web Services, well you have to give IBM credit here to, after all its both IBM and Microsoft that defined the SOAP spec, not Microsoft by itself. So in short, lots of inaccuracies in the article.

    However, the statement makes an implicit argument, that because Java borrowed some Microsoft concepts, then Microsoft is therefore ahead of the game! Yes, I agree Java did borrow some ideas (nothing wrong with that), however it implemented these ideas in a different kind of architecture. That's where Microsoft is playing catchup, the big question then is "When will Microsoft port MSMQ, MTS or many other API's to .NET?" The truth is most likely never, just like the fact that the Windows API have never been ported to COM, in the sameway the Windows API will remain unchanged, COM will remain unchanged and .NET will remain forever dependent on both.

    For more on the Java vs .NET argument read http://www.freeroller.net/page/ceperez?catname=101+List

    `
  • Article has a good point[ Go to top ]

    I believe up to this day, .NET doesn't have a SAX equivalent, DOM on the

    > otherhand is W3C, however I don't think .NET implements it.

    I'm not very knowledgable about .NET (yet!), but it only took a few seconds of looking through the documentation to find out that there _is_ an implementation of the DOM. There is also an XmlReader class which, while it may not be directly equivalent to SAX, is at least in the same problem space. Please get your facts straight before you post - spreading FUD is not in our best interests as developers.
  • Article has a good point[ Go to top ]

    I could not agree more. It is imperative to present "accurate" data when making statements that are inferred as factual.

    MS has spent significant resources (hiring Don Box et al) to keep close tabs with the XML working group of the W3C. Hence, there is excellent support for the core XML abstractions (Infoset, etc) in the underlying MS XML APIs. Please refer the many Don Box papers and documentation on MSDN and elsewhere.

    On the other hand (after spending many years developing J2EE apps and mastering SAX and DOM manipulation), I wish that I did not have to learn another XML API. Although, the curve was not bad because of the familiarity and reasonable knowledge of core XML concepts.

    I recently was interviewing candidates for developers for a .Net project and it is a shame that most of them knew the MSXML.IDOMDocument (analog of org.w3c.dom.Document) and System.Xml.XmlReader (similar to SAX2's XmlReader interface - with notable differences) but some of them did not know what SAX and DOM were. This exemplifies the disparaging effect of not using single standard/API. My roots were sewn in the C++ world and we knew these types of problems as well (multiple implementations would become dejure for disparate groups before defacto standards were ratified - if you didn't want to wait for ANSI, STL or POSIX). Remember, it is very difficult for large companies (whose only loyalty is to their stockholders) to carefully consider the implications of creating novel technology implementations before specs are really rubber stamped.

    I am quite happy to continually see (at least for the last 12 years) a convergence phenomenon in our industry. This is proven by many of the threads in this topic...that J2EE developers can easily understand a .Net system architecture given a simple .Net primer. The convergence of the VMs (JVM and CLR) and the languages (C# and Java) will continue because of the leapfrogging improvements made for "competition" sake. This convergence is also seen in the distributed object/RPC models. My first real understanding of EJB in 99 was not an epiphany (more like a dejavu). I already had a strong familiarity with the MTS/COM/OLE2 and CORBA2 models and knew all of the concepts that the EJB spec was attempting to conquer. Yes, I do believe that EJB was a copy of MTS with improvements (compare the IObjectContext and the javax.ejb.EJBContext interfaces) and congratulate every company that delivers new products by building on top of existing known-good products. Thus, in the spirit of continuous improvement, the .Net technology stack is just an improvement on the J2EE stack. What is the next great leap?

    There is an expression we use here in Texas called "Texas Pissing Match" that includes the following ingredients: arrogant men, a table, a ruler and a winner. I'll leave the rest to your imagination...

    Most of the threads I read (whether it started out to review the last Billy Joel & Elton John concert or not) digress to a simple .Net vs J2EE "pissing match". Honestly, there is never a clear winner in this competition. We must learn to be more agnostic and choose the right technology when a problem presents itself (hammer or nail first?). Also, let's attempt to accelerate the convergence effect so that we can leverage our resources more efficiently. We are attempting to do that at our development shop (an energy company) by using similar processes, design artificacts, etc for both .Net and J2EE (Websphere and JBoss) projects.

    I would like to see more time spent improving projects that use converging technologies like .Net and J2EE than to wade thru all of the threads that attempts to present the perception of a divergent gulf between the MS and Java camps.

    Sorry for the long ramble...
  • Carlos,

    Thanks so much for pointing to your baseless list that has been debunked by a variety of individuals. If anyone wastes his/her time looking at Carlos' pathetic list just remember to also read the following to get the real and balanced view.

    http://staff.develop.com/jasonw/weblog/2003/01/11.html
    http://www.neward.net/ted/weblog/index.jsp?date=20030126#1043620368370
  • Carlos,

    >
    > Thanks so much for pointing to your baseless list that has been debunked by a variety of individuals. If anyone wastes his/her time looking at Carlos' pathetic list just remember to also read the following to get the real and balanced view.
    >
    > http://staff.develop.com/jasonw/weblog/2003/01/11.html

    Great, I quit reading after:

    >>> run on largish NT mainframes.

    What is this?
  • http://www.javalobby.org/thread.jsp?forum=61&thread=7006
  • Like the article says, everything is based on something that was created before. You will find that it is nearly impossible to create anything unique anyway. If it happens, it happens extremely rarely, and by accident.

    I do not know enough about every technology so I am not going to guess what is a copy of what. But you can clearly see what Java copies from C or/and C++ and other languages. What makes Java unique is that the way it combines these features, that's all. C# is basically everything that Java is plus some add-ons, which is probably why people talk about ripping off Java.

    Everyone copies, that's the bottom line. Copying is the bread and butter of Microsoft and many other large companies who can wait and see what innovations are emerging. They copy a technology and use their size to overwhelm the competition. There is really no sense in innovation when someone is doing it for you. But even Microsoft can't take every bite (remember when they thought they could overtake Internet with MSN), and Java is one of those big bites they can't handle :)
  • JHTML[ Go to top ]

    I had this debate with a guy at javalobby and could produce no evidence. So, I wanted to know if someone here could help verify this for me. JHTML came with the original servlet release 1.0(maysbe in the pre releases, I don't remeber). If I remember correctly, there was very little difference between jhtml and jsp. I believe that this jhtml from sun was the first mainstream serverside tag based mechanism for web applications. Was anyone else here working with that then? Is your recollection the same?
  • Actually, CFML nee DBML was first[ Go to top ]

    Les said,

    "I believe that this jhtml from sun was the first mainstream serverside tag based mechanism for web applications."

    Mainstream? I would argue that Cold Fusion's CFML and its DBML predecessor was the first "mainstream serverside tag based" web app development mechanism. There were (and probably still are, although I have no figures to back it up) far more Cold Fusion rather than jhtml (then jsp) web apps in the wild.

    J
  • JHTML[ Go to top ]

    I have used JHTML and it was similar to JSPs. If I remember clearly, it was the time of JavaWebServer and pre-dated Tomcat. And yes JHTML came with the original servlet release.

    Yes, it could be very well the first tag based system that was usable, although I think Netscape Web server also had some server side javascript support and tag features.

    Man , does that make me a fossil ??
  • JHTML[ Go to top ]

    The Netscape one was called something like Livewire. I think it came out a little before ASP, which definitely came out before JHTML. I don't even remember when JHTML was phased out (or in) -- I know that WebLogic supported it at least in the 4.x days, and I'm pretty sure that ATG still uses it when you use the ATG model versus using more of a J2EE development model.

    Mark
  • I think Microsoft marketing machine is at work here.
    Java/J2EE is the leader and de facto standard here.
    Java is about 5-6 years older then .Net. Java is time tested
    and it is a proven platform with many applications in production.
    By comparing .Net vs Java/J2EE, we've just validated
    and elevated .Net into the same realm as Java.

    Hai
  • Livewire[ Go to top ]

    Netscape had Livewire in the Enterprise Server which used server side javascript. There was also the template engine in the Netscape App Server which was developed by Kiva and proprietary.

    I believe O'Reilly came out with the first servlet prototypes after NES's own version of a server side java engine. O'Reilly's version was chosen for the first servlet spec by Sun.

    I'm not sure where Cold Fusion came along but I think I remember ASP came before JSP. CF was around at those times too though and may have come first.
  • Who rip off what.... who cares[ Go to top ]

    Choosing between .NET and Java is not a simple task. My company has done extensive development on both platforms and our conclusion is:

    0) We have come to love C#. Just as easy as, yet more powerful than Java. Attributes, indexers and type-boxing is simply something Java needs to adapt. And soon, C# will have generics too.

    1) If everything is going to run on Windows (except the database, for instance), choose .NET.

    2) .NET offers better performance for most solutions, but for high-volume sites Java appears more stable for now. Mono on Linux may prove this wrong.

    3) GUI? .NET is way ahead in terms of everything. Swing development, in particular, is counter-productive and the result is typically not even close to what native / .NET apps offers... given you're running the gui on windows, that is. But who's doing Linux GUI's anyway ;-)

    4) Competence: Getting expert Java and .NET developers is equally difficult.

    5) Tools: The open-source community is much more developed in the Java camp. But Ant, JUnit and all the other popular tools are beeing ported as we speak.

    Conclusion? Java is great, but .NET is even greater for a lot stuff.
  • Who rip off what.... who cares[ Go to top ]

    <quote>
    >
    > 0) We have come to love C#. Just as easy as, yet more powerful than Java. Attributes, indexers and type-boxing is simply something Java needs to adapt.
    </quote>

    Why would we need type-boxing in Java? It is required in C# because the way 'struct's are dealt differently from 'class'es.

    Im not a serious C# developer yet, but IMO introducing 'struct' in C# was an unncessary complexity. Now, everytime I store any basic data types in a collection class, I have to think of how many times boxing/unboxing would happen and how it would affect the performance!

    - shiv
  • "It's not a question of where he grips it. It's a simple matter of weight ratios."

    Of course .NET contains big chunks that are ripped straight from Java. That's OK ... there is nothing wrong with building on good ideas. Java got good ideas from elsewhere too, some of which came from Microsoft. Isn't that how most great things are accomplished?

    The problem is that Microsoft didn't come out with anything revolutionary. So instead of standing on the shoulders of Java, they just kind of squat there. You don't get compatibility, but you don't get anything extra either. Kind of embarrassing, and it has to be hard for them to explain.

    It's not bad stuff, and it's way better than the previous version of development stuff that Microsoft had, so if you're stuck in a Microsoft shop, you should be going to .NET. That's a no-brainer. It's just too bad that it is a custom-built vendor-lock-in scheme instead of some sort of "great new technology" ... or at least a compatible platform.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
  • I am not to sure if you are aware of what you are saying. "The problem is that Microsoft didn't come out with anything revolutionary". Let me ask you this. What other framework out there gives you the best of both worlds. Cross platform and cross language integration at the stroke of a pen. I DARE YOU TO GIVE ME ONE. .Net gives you true freedom. Freedom to choose your own platform(Mono, which will be released this summer) and freedom of language(c#,vb,c++,c,perl and more to come). That sounds pretty revolutionary to me.


    -M
  • Opinion: Is .NET a rip off of Java?[ Go to top ]

    What do you think will happen to Mono if and when it's capabilities that enable deployment on non-Wintel servers starts to eat into M$'s revenue stream???

    What was the name of that ASP knockoff a few years back that did a half-baked job of enabling ASP to run on Solaris????

    That is the one problem I have with any statement that .net will be truely cross platform.
  • Chilisoft[ Go to top ]

    It's actually a pretty good product. There are a few bugs, but practically nothing has been done on it since Sun bought them in 2000 (2001?). Kinda like Star Office. And Cobalt.

    Anyway, I've used Chilisoft with Apache on Linux and Windows NT 4. It is definitely more stable, robust, and *secure* than ASP on IIS. Also, the docs are fantastic. Much better than MSDN's own ASP documentation.
  • Opinion: Is .NET a rip off of Java?[ Go to top ]

    Cross platform and cross language integration at the stroke of a pen. I DARE

    > YOU TO GIVE ME ONE. .Net gives you true freedom.

    This has to be a trick question? You do know that there is a whole array of other languages that can run on a JVM? I guess that setup is just about as common as .NET on a non-windows platform will be. I guess that you dont seriously expect .NET to be a big hit on non-windows platforms?
  • I know I'm late, but I cannot resist... Related to mackie Jackson's post:

    <quote>... Let me ask you this. What other framework out there gives you the best of both worlds. Cross platform and cross language integration at the stroke of a pen. I DARE YOU TO GIVE ME ONE. .Net gives you true freedom. Freedom to choose your own platform(Mono, which will be released this summer) and freedom of language(c#,vb,c++,c,perl and more to come). That sounds pretty revolutionary to me.


    I don't want to bash anyhing in any way, but...

    This happened to me 2-3 years ago: I made a small COM component in C++Builder, version from year 2000. I made test program in Delphi, version from year 1999. I started debugging session in Delphi, reached the line where my COM component was called and, by mistake, isued "Step into" command. Guess what happened? I went from Delphi (Pascal) source to the C++ source of my COM component and <strong>continued source code debugging there. Source compiled with year 2000 product debugged in product from year 1999, using a different language.. Cross language - big deal! Common compiler and common primitive types system, and there you have it. Some revolution .NET brought there!

    Also: since 2 years or more, the same products (Delphi and C++Builder) support development for both Linux and Windows based on a common framework. You can actually go and buy these. Can you buy/downlaod Mono today?

    Now, these are products from a small company, so it's just two languages and two platforms. Microsoft can do the same a couple of years later on more platorms? With Microsoft's brain/financial/whatever power, I don't see how one can call it the revolution.

    Goran.

    P.S. Cannot say it's not a big deal though...
  • Mono[ Go to top ]

    Don't quote Mono or DotGNU as examples of cross-platform implementations of .Net. The fact of the matter is that they are clean-room implementations of the specification, and as such, may not be 100% compatible with "real" .net.

    Until Microsoft formally endorses 3rd party .net implementations explicitly by providing a compatibility test kit, then they can be considered to have embraced the cross-platform world. Otherwise, it's just so many words. Moreover, Ballmer and company have consistently made generalized remarks about leveraging their .net-related patents...the latest patent application obviously would impact open source implementations of .net technologies because its claims cover the whole API.

    Until Microsoft publicly and explicitly endorses efforts like Mono, IT managers aren't going to buy into it. Don't use it as an example of cross-platform compliance until then.
  • Robert,

    "The fact of the matter is that they are clean-room implementations of the specification"

    1) That is quite correct, and therefore Mono is safe from patents.

    2) Microsoft listen to their developers (whatever you say), and we will never accept anything less than cross-platform compatibility.

    3) In the low probability case that MS will not listen we just go with Mono.

    4) You can not on the one hand tout all the advantages with open source (how bugfree it is and so on) and then on the other hand say that "IT managers aren't going to buy into it". They are willing to use Linux and Apache and JBoss etc but not Mono?

    5) Another argument that I have heard is that once Mono is completed, MS will break backwards compatibility. That is a brain-dead argument because then MS will break all applications for their own customers.

    6) Ximian needs now only to get the diacritical marks right for MySQL and it is go for early birds. Winforms is unimportant, that can wait. Nobody do desktop applications anymore.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • 6) Ximian needs now only to get the diacritical marks right for MySQL and it is go for early birds. Winforms is unimportant, that can wait. Nobody do desktop applications anymore.

    >

    This is definitely not true. Many business applications are too demanding for web-based GUIs. In fact, with the new .NET remoting capabilities, distributed Win-forms will blur the distinction between windows applications and browser-based applications IMO.
  • Rolf: Nobody do (sic) desktop applications anymore.


    What does that mean? Do mean that nobody develops GUI desktop apps, i.e. fat clients? If so, you are quite mistaken. If that is not what you mean, please clarify.

    Ryan
  • Rolf -

    <quote>
    2) Microsoft listen to their developers (whatever you say), and we will never accept anything less than cross-platform compatibility.


    Hmm...That's never been a desire or demand of any MS developer I have ever met. Must be a new stance by miscrosoft developers?

    <quote>
    4) You can not on the one hand tout all the advantages with open source (how bugfree it is and so on) and then on the other hand say that "IT managers aren't going to buy into it". They are willing to use Linux and Apache and JBoss etc but not Mono?


    It took a fair number of years for Linux to be accepted - I suspect that it will take the same amount of time for Mono - if MS shops decide that Mono is worth going for in the first place. I doubt that many cross-platform shops will switch terribly soon, if ever.

    <quote>
    5) Another argument that I have heard is that once Mono is completed, MS will break backwards compatibility. That is a brain-dead argument because then MS will break all applications for their own customers.

    Your worship of MS gets in the way of your rational thinking. MS does what makes it the most money, period. Their primary goal isn't to make Rolf Tollerud happy. The argument from your quote is, in fact, not brain dead. You can bet that any adoption of Mono will be hindered by nagging doubts as to the direction MS will want to go. MS will have to come out and say (Balmer/Gates) that they are in full support of Mono. MS makes its money on licensing its software and sending its little consultants around to companies to sell that software.

    Here are three scenarios:

    1.) Mono doesn't have all of the features of .NET. Developers and companies will stay with MS products, Mono languishes. Why switch?

    2.) Mono has everything that .NET has. Mono eats into MS revenue, Bill & Steve put the kai-bosh on Mono.

    3.) Mono does MORE than .NET, Mono eats into MS revenue - see #2.

    Talk to me about Mono when you produce quotes from Stevie and Billy showing me how much they love open source products and how they are going to back them 100% from here on out. That's a commitment I'm not too sure they are willing to make. They aren't saying anything now because they want to see how far Mono can eat into Java's opensource dominance. But they will have to climb down off the fence to one side or the other sometime. Depending on which side of the fence they climb down on, they may have to change their business model quite a bit which, in their case, is a risky endevour since they already have one that works quite well the last I checked.


    Cheers
    Ray
  • Ray,

    "That's never been a desire or demand of any MS developer I have ever met"

    Hmm. Let me put it in another way: Why should we -not- want cross platform? We don't want to sell our products to as many as possible?

    "I doubt that many cross-platform shops will switch terribly soon"

    For two reasons: 1) Mono is a better platform 2) It is Open Source.

    "Your worship of MS gets in the way of your rational thinking"

    At least they always have gone out of their way (and even been criticized for) to keep backwards compatibility.

    "three scenarios:"

    "1.) Mono doesn't have all of the features of .NET"

    Of course Mono will not have all of the features of .NET. It will always be a subset or do you think the 120 developer of Mono can compete with the thousands of developers at MS? So, if you want cross platform - just keep to Mono - it is not a problem.

    "2) and 3)"

    See 1).

    "when you produce quotes from Stevie and Billy"

    There have been a lot of favorable comments from MS to Ximian. Or let me put it in another way again: the enemy (the Java guys) is very negative to Mono - that should be enough to convince you that MS is very satisfied with the Ximian.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
    (one of MS little consultants)
  • You are the cheese[ Go to top ]

    Hi Rolf,

        Would you mind spending a few weeks in Iraq?
        I was just thinking about how many lives we could save if, instead of going to war, we would instead let you run a software consulting shop in Baghdad.
        By the end of the second quarter, you will have accomplished more destruction to Saddam than Dubbya and Pappy ever could have dreamed.

    God speed to you and your mission. U-S-A! U-S-A! Go Rolf Go!

    Scott
  • "what shall we talk about?"[ Go to top ]

    Scott! How is it going with you golf?

    Well I could try to do my best but I think it would be better to send one of those impractical J2EE guys with pet theories (as completely opposite to Jurgen Hoeller as possible).

    "In the last project (a major customer-care call center app), they had used Entity Beans, and Websphere, and there were 500 EJBs, and 4700 distinct application classes. It took 2 days of continuous processing just to 'deploy' the beans, and I was called in when they found they couldn't meet adequate performance."

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • Rolf -

    <quote>
    For two reasons: 1) Mono is a better platform 2) It is Open Source.


    Hmmm....and you come to conclusion #1 how?

    Cheers
    Ray
  • Ray,

    I don't want to quarrel with you. I'm sure you in due course will find out the advantages of the .NET and Mono.

    With respect
    Rolf Tollerud
  • I don't want to quarrel with you. I'm sure you in due course will find out the advantages of the .NET and Mono.

    Translation: "I have no idea, but I sure like trolling."
  • you are digging in the wrong place[ Go to top ]

    I don't want to quarrel with you. I'm sure you in due course will find out the advantages of the .NET and Mono.

    >
    > Translation: "I have no idea, but I sure like trolling."

    I dont know, but does trolling really cover this case? I cant imagine that Rolf is really spending this much time just for fun. I think he has cunningly calculated that he can increase his own consultancy revenue if he makes himself known as an avid .NET proponent, and a slayer of J2EE.

    But hey, if the guy can make himself richer while entertaining me, cudos to him. Isnt this the American way in a nutshell?
  • Johan,

    The only thing I know about American way is that they sure like conspiration theories.

    I don't like to argue with Ray because I know that he is employed in one of the 80 companies in the world who really needs EJB and that he also have the experiences of 10 ordinary programmers..

    As to getting richer, can't you understand that when you have been a MS consult the better part of your life and is considering yourself pretty good (true or not) it is "un poco" irritating to overhear some morons and their usual MS bashing.

    Just giving back a little of your own medicine and in the process entertaining myself.

    That is the only reason.

    But if I by participating have contributed to bring about that people concentrate more on improving their own products instead of bashing others I considers my self successful.

    Even if you from an academic standpoint take the view as J2EE really are as successful as the members of this forum think to believe - I am still useful. Remember that when a Roman general was allowed a triumph - he was also allocated a slave that whispered in his ear "remember you are mortal".

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • Well, Rolf, consider this a slave whispering in your ear "someday you'll make sense" because so far you're not. But you are entertaining.

    You say "But if I by participating have contributed to bring about that people concentrate more on improving their own products instead of bashing others I considers my self successful."

    All you have done is bash Java and J2EE consistently with statements and descriptions of your problems that (to me, anyway) indicate a thorough lack of real experience with Java (or even .NET, for that matter). In every post I have made, I have consistently stated that I do not think either Java or .NET is thoroughly superior, that I program in both EVERY DAY, and that I understand that both have weaknesses and strengths.

    You are trolling. You are not educating or helping with your pointless bashing based on anecdotal evidence. If someone were to post a constructive criticism about J2EE, explaining in detail their issue with a certain feature or lack of feature, and then explain how .NET does it better, I would turn around and say "you are right, and why doesn't J2EE support that?" I feel that way about a number of things on both sides. All you have done instead is come on like an airhorn bleating "MS make better product! You all fool for not like Microsoft!". You are certainly not helping me "concentrate on improving [my] own products".

    I hope you can understand my frustration.
  • I’m satisfied[ Go to top ]

    Drew,

    "hope you can understand my frustration"

    Good.

    Then you can understand some of us "third-part" MS developers better!
    (".net" "sucks" 1,520,000 hits)

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • I’m satisfied[ Go to top ]

    Rolf,
    I'm so touched that you think that I have the experience of 10 ordinary programmers (is that like Ten Grinches Plus Two?). Obviously you don't get out much and meet very many J2EE developers. By the way, when I was refering to the fact that I have had to work with MS consultants, I meant consultants who work for MS Professional Services (or whatever its called). I wasn't disparaging your line of work. My current client even has a couple of MS-specific programmers on staff, but since their (the client) development is primarily Java/J2EE (with and w/o ejbs ;-), they don't have much to do except learn Java.

    Which brings me to a point about your statements in one of these threads that says essentially that MS programmers are desperate for cross-platform capabilities. Most MS developers that I know can't stand Unix because its such a different paradigm than Windows. Why would they all of a sudden want cross platform capabilities? Why would any MS shop who has bought the MS party line hook-line-and-sinker all of a sudden want to "go cross platform"? So again, until you can point me to quotes from Bill and Steve showing me how much they are going to support open source, I doubt that there will be a mad rush to Mono. For me, I am able to use Java already on any platform I want using mature open source tools and application servers. Or I can go buy a product from one of the comcercial vendors - my choice. No need to move to Mono for any reason I can think of.


    Cheers
    Ray
  • silence gives consent[ Go to top ]

    Ray,

    "Why would they all of a sudden want cross platform capabilities?"

    I am surprised that I have to explain this to you.

    We, the MS third-part people are interested in everything that can help to "win" over Java. So all extra functionality is a "+". Cross-language is good - but not so good as cross-platform. We believe that .NET is a far superior environment (and still more in the future) - the lack of cross-platform is the only thing that's missing.

    In additional those of us that make products and components want our market to be as big as possible. I, personally, lost a big contract for Ericsson because our product (then) was not cross-platform. We live in a capitalistic society!

    If MS should drop a patent bomb on Mono, the Java/Unix/Sun crowd will be very happy and the MS third-part people will be very angry.

    Don't hold your breath for that to happen.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • silence gives consent[ Go to top ]

    "We, the MS third-part people are interested in everything that can help to "win" over Java. "

    That's the issue here in a nutshell, isn't it? Why in the world would you be interested in that? The only reason you have the option of using something as nice as .NET is because of the competition of Java. If you really knew what you were doing and didn't get caught up in religious wars, you'd be more interested in getting both Sun and Microsoft to keep putting out their best efforts. You wouldn't care if one of them "won" because that doesn't help you in the slightest. In fact, one of them "winning" means the rest of us lose because of the lack of competition.

    Again, the rest of us "third-party people" don't feel the same way that you do. I think you take the whole Java vs. .NET thing a little too personally. I certainly wouldn't hire a contractor that bound to a particular vendor's products.
  • ".net" "sucks" 1,520,000 hits[ Go to top ]

    Drew,

    Do you know something?

    It was not we who started the war.

    Nobody was more surprised than me when the first signs started to come with the first versions of Netscape Navigator. I didn't even knew about that "Unix" had a grudge! But obviously they had.

    <Patrick Boyle>The Java/UNIX/Oracle camp particularly seems to enjoy casting their technical preferences in quasi-religious terms that encourage hyperbole,
    paranoia and hatred. The rhetoric used by Java advocates about Microsoft
    and Bill Gates is not subject to common standards of decency.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • ".net" "sucks" 1,520,000 hits[ Go to top ]

    Strangely, for once I agree. If you want some real fun, go post on Slash dot. They'd love you. I think some people are rabidly anti-Microsoft and they end up looking just as ridiculous as the pro-microsoft people. I love watching Larry Ellison talk about Microsoft's evils when his company is just as bad but not as successful. Larry's not disturbed that MS is a monopoly; he's just worried that Oracle isn't.

    I'm no more against Microsoft than any other corporation. Developing Microsoft solutions has made me a good bit of money over the years, as has developing Java solutions. As a developer, I look for the best fit for the solution at hand. If it's got to be cross-platform or even strictly on Unix, I'm not going to even bother looking at .NET or Mono, because regardless of what you might claim now, I can GUARANTEE you that it will never be a viable enterprise platform (not when the Java solution exists as a proven entity and Microsoft holds out on open-source support). If it involves MS technologies, such as office integration, if I'm planning GUI development in a mostly Microsoft environment (which, believe me, is still happening; I just kicked off a project for at least a year of development on a GUI tool for medical instrumentation) or if I'm working with a company whose core developers come from the MS/COM environment, it would take a LOT of convincing to get me to use Java. There's no point in getting into religious arguments about it because common sense makes it extremely plain when each should be used.

    Regardless of who started it, though, this site is usually pretty even-keeled about the "war", so your stance kind of sticks out. Not that I don't understand it, but really, your flame provoking is really more of a fit for someplace like Slash dot. I come here expecting useful analysis and comparison; in fact I have come to rely on it.
  • a prediction[ Go to top ]

    Ok, I get your point. This is my last post in this thread.

    Drew McAuliffe (about Mono):"I can GUARANTEE you that it will never be a viable enterprise platform"

    I regret very much that I didn't saved some postings from last year. I will not make that mistake again.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • I’m satisfied[ Go to top ]

    Rolf, please read before typing. I also develop Microsoft solutions. I understand myself pretty well. Speaking for the rest of "us", we don't appreciate you making us look short-sighted and foolish.
  • Johan,

    >
    > The only thing I know about American way is that they sure like conspiration theories.
    >

    Might be, I probably dont know more than you, since I am a northern european, just like you I suppose.

    > I don't like to argue with Ray because I know that he is employed in one of the 80 companies in the world who really needs EJB and that he also have the experiences of 10 ordinary programmers..
    >

    Good for Ray. I dont want to argue with him, or you, either. I am hoping that in this forum we discuss facts, and opinions, based on their own merit, we dont argue, or support, people merely for who they are. That, to use your own analogy, would be to silence the slave whispering in the generals ear.

    > As to getting richer, can't you understand that when you have been a MS consult the better part of your life and is considering yourself pretty good (true or not) it is "un poco" irritating to overhear some morons and their usual MS bashing.
    >

    Sure, actually I can. I guess that you can appreciate that the opposite is also true?

    > Just giving back a little of your own medicine and in the process entertaining myself.
    >

    And entertaining me, which I appreciate.


    > That is the only reason.
    >
    > But if I by participating have contributed to bring about that people concentrate more on improving their own products instead of bashing others I considers my self successful.
    >

    I think you have helped people sharpen their arguments to why J2EE is in some ways superios to .Net. A skill that might be usefull out there, in the real world.

    > Even if you from an academic standpoint take the view as J2EE really are as successful as the members of this forum think to believe -

    Do you really dispute the fact that J2EE has been really successfull? I can see how you can dispute if it deserves the success, but thats a little bit different?

    > I am still useful. Remember that when a Roman general was allowed a triumph - he was also allocated a slave that whispered in his ear "remember you are mortal".
    >

    Indeed you are, and I will not exploit the tempting analogy of slave and general that you so kindly opened for. =)

    > Regards
    > Rolf Tollerud

    Br - Johan
  • "There have been a lot of favorable comments from MS to Ximian. Or let me put it in another way again: the enemy (the Java guys) is very negative to Mono - that should be enough to convince you that MS is very satisfied with the Ximian."

    You give argument without proof. Produce the quotes, please.
  • 1. You're thinking copyrights. If you infringe on a patent, you infringe on a patent. The method you used to develop it doesn't protect you.

    2. Microsoft has stated repeatedly that they don't want cross platform anything. They withdrew from the OpenGL group because they have no interest in real standards, just the standards they make up on their own.

    3. And what happens if MS drops a patent bomb on Mono?

    4. The people who are going with Linux, Apache, JBoss, etc. probably aren't going to go for .NET anything at all. And if they do use mono, it will probably be thru Gtk# and Gnome#.

    5. They don't need to break backwards compatibility, they just need to make sure that, like Winforms, they tie it so tight to Windows that it can't be written for other platforms. That also assumes that mono will ever be complete. And its not like Microsoft hasn't broken other peopls apps before (error messages when you tried to run Windows on anything other then MS-DOS for example).

    6. I have no clue what you're talking about.
  • ?[ Go to top ]

    I certainly have no clue to what you are talking about!
  • the optimist's christmas dream[ Go to top ]

    Chris,

    if MS drops a patent bomb on Mono?

    Can you imagine the glee, the triumph, the absolutely totally boundless happiness in the Java/Unix/Sun world if Microsoft dropped a patent bomb on Mono?

    What makes you think that MS will give you such a "regalo"?

    Do you know what wishful thinking is?

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • the optimist's christmas dream[ Go to top ]

    Rolf: "if MS drops a patent bomb on Mono? Can you imagine the glee, the triumph, the absolutely totally boundless happiness in the JavaSun world if Microsoft dropped a patent bomb on Mono? What makes you think that MS will give you such a "regalo"? Do you know what wishful thinking is?"

    Good point. Microsoft will allow their business model to be completely compromised just to avoid giving boundless happiness to Java zealots. [end sarcasm]

    This is classic projection, a common human defence mechanism. You assume that others would think in such a narrow manner as yourself.

    Maybe, just maybe, other people in the world use (at least a little bit) a rational method to come to the conclusion that basing their future on a non-Microsoft version of .NET is not a tenable position.

    I think Mono is probably the worst of all possible solutions because of issues like this (legal). I would much rather use Microsoft's .NET tools and deploy on Windows servers. It is arguably a much safer approach.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
  • the optimist's christmas dream[ Go to top ]

    Cam, you would actually write a C# app?

    .Net changes way too quickly for any third party company to keep up with a cross platform version. Whatever products comprise .Net today will certainly change substantially in 6 months.
  • C# app[ Go to top ]

    Cam, you would actually write a C# app?

    I don't write apps, so if I answer "no", don't get offended.

    What I said previously was that I would choose C#/.NET/Windows long before I would even consider Mono. Mono makes very little business sense to me.

    While the .NET product does not itself make a huge amount of business sense to me (closed proprietary product), it at least is shipping, has some customers, works for the most part, etc. Besides, if I choose to use it, Microsoft indemnifies me on the IP issues, provides support for a fee, is responsible for bug fixes and upgrades, etc. All nice things from a business point of view.

    I prefer Java's market model (all comers welcome to compete) and I have some latent reservations about being locked into a Microsoft domain (bad experiences), but that hasn't stopped us from supporting .NET (and even VB) developers who want to use our clustering software. We'd support PowerBuilder and Delphi too if there were enough customers using those products and needing our software.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
  • I can't resist..[ Go to top ]

    Excuse me. I know that I have promised to finish but I can't resist..

    I must say that I am very satisfied that it is Open Source that implements .NET on Linux/Unix and not Microsoft. You shall defeat the enemy with their own weapons!

    Besides, if it was MS that did the implementation - there would be now end to the accusations that they deliberately was putting a inferior version on Unix.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • I can't resist..[ Go to top ]

    I must say that I am very satisfied that it is Open Source that implements .NET on Linuxand not Microsoft. You shall defeat the enemy with their own weapons!

    The enemy. Weapons. Defeat. Beautiful choice of words.

    (See also: Pogo.)

    Besides, if it was (sic) MS that did the implementation - there would be now (sic) end to the accusations that they deliberately was (sic) putting a (sic) inferior version on Unix.

    Probably true, especially having seen the early performance numbers from Mono.

    Out of curiousity, have you seen that product that runs .NET apps in Java? (It converts .NET MSIL to Java class files.)

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
  • Mono Capabilities[ Go to top ]

    Well I have not been long in the loop regarding Mono. But the question remains just how viable will it be. Microsoft in the beginning allowed only 180 classes to be added to the project. Did this increase? What type of applications can I develop? Does it cater for the whole spectrum or not??
  • "3. And what happens if MS drops a patent bomb on Mono? "

    Can't Sun do the same with Java?
  • Go read the JCP stuff. It basically requires that members license their patents freely for the implementation of JSRs. So basically, no, Sun and other JCP members cannot use patents to prevent people from implementing the JSRs.
  • Go read the JCP stuff. It basically requires that members license their

    > patents freely for the implementation of JSRs. So basically, no, Sun and
    > other JCP members cannot use patents to prevent people from implementing
    > the JSRs.

    FYI, for almost 100% of all Java technologies, you must license and run a TCK (Test Compatibility Kit) before releasing your implementation. The typical price is around 20.000$. So yes, the APIs are most of the time patent free, but as far as implementing them will require you to acquire a 20.000$ TCK license sooner or later...

    Only Apache will be receiving TCK licenses for free. The latests announcements with regard to open source Java don't even apply to the average developer wanting to start an open source implementation. It is true that in the future there will be more freedom for the JSR manager to decide about these issues, but unless a generous action from SUN, this doesn't apply to the Java technologies to date, including all the Web services technologies to be included in J2EE 1.4... Sorry for this cold shower...

    Bertrand Fontaine
    INSPIRE IT - www.inspireit.biz
    JavaShelf.com - Your Java bookstore on the Web!
  • "Can't Sun do the same with Java?"

    The implementors of Java have licensed it from Sun, and their licensing agreement specifically allows clean-room implementations. Show me the section of Microsoft's license that allows that for .Net.
  • "The implementors of Java have licensed it from Sun, and their licensing agreement specifically allows clean-room implementations. Show me the section of Microsoft's license that allows that for .Net."

    What will keep Sun from upping the price or doing whatever the heck they want with Java? Unless current licenses run from here to eternity?
  • "1) That is quite correct, and therefore Mono is safe from patents. "

    IANAL, but AFAIK clean-room only buys you protection from copyright infringement based on stealing code.

    "2) Microsoft listen..."

    Sure they do, but the developers aren't clamoring for cross-platform .Net because the majority of developers that work in competitive platforms are inherently suspicious of anything that comes from Microsoft. The demand
    will only pick up when REAL .Net (not, e.g., using ASP.NET as a glorified
    ASP) starts to gain traction. Then the UNIX shops may start pressing for
    .Net for UNIX.

    "3) In the low probability..."

    Until Microsoft sues Mono for infringing on its patent on the whole .Net API (which was a recent application) and forces them to withdraw.

    "4) You can not on the one hand tout..."

    Sure I can. Just because I'm an open source advocate doesn't mean I'm an IT manager or that I've got my head so stuck in the clouds as to believe that all IT managers will buy into what I would consider a utopian vision of computing. IT managers are historically cautious to jump on things, and in the current economy, they're not going to jump on anything unless there's a proven value-add. You don't get that with Mono unless there is guaranteed compatibility, and that only comes with a Microsoft compatibility test kit that Mono passes.

    "5) Another argument..."

    Microsoft has a history of doing exactly what you say is brain-dead. When OS/2 had a Win32S compatibility mode, Microsoft changed that API every other month. Customers adopting Mono will do so at their own risk. Microsoft will not commit to leaving their product alone for the sake of a competing product. If anything, that will be incentive for them to "innovate" the API.

    "6) Ximian needs now..."

    I won't argue that they Mono can achieve 100% compatibility...I believe they can. But it would be a foolish IT Manager who would buy into Mono without a guarantee of FULL .net compatibility. It is the same reason that has affected JBOSS's penetration into the J2EE market...their lack of certification has cost them a not small number of installations.
  • vain wisdom and false philossophy[ Go to top ]

    Robert,

    "the developers aren't clamoring for cross-platform .Net because the majority of developers that work in competitive platforms are inherently suspicious"

    It is the millions of -MS third party developers- (not the Unix developers) who are pressing for cross-platform.

    "Until Microsoft sues Mono for infringing on its patent"

    read my post "the optimist's christmas dream"

    "IT managers are historically cautious to jump on things"

    Ha ha, that was funny. EJB?

    "Microsoft has a history of doing exactly what you say is brain-dead"

    Miguel de Icaza: "Microsoft is remarkably good at keeping their APIs backwards compatible"

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/deicazainterview.asp

    "it would be a foolish IT Manager who would buy into Mono without a guarantee of FULL .NET compatibility"

    Why?

    Read the interview at MSDN and speculate on why MS put up an interview with Miguel de Icaza at their site.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • vain wisdom and false philossophy[ Go to top ]

    "It is the millions of -MS third party developers- (not the Unix developers) who are pressing for cross-platform."

    Burden of proof is on you, and my experiences lead me to doubt your claim. Show me your proof.

    'Miguel de Icaza: "Microsoft is remarkably good at keeping their APIs backwards compatible" '

    Miguel has a vested interest in trying to make sure that people don't balk at Mono over compatibility concerns. Unfortunately, past experience is quite clear...Microsoft will change standards as it sees fit, without concern for outside products that might break.

    "Read the interview at MSDN and speculate on why MS put up an interview with Miguel de Icaza at their site."

    Read all published interviews with Ballmer and Gates and wonder why they're not fully supporting Mono. Moreover, why are they making veiled threats based on patent claims?
  • vain wisdom and false philosophy[ Go to top ]

    So you think it would be smarter of Microsoft to glee and triumph when things go their way? (a la Scott McNealy?)
  • Who cares about "revolutionary"[ Go to top ]

    "The problem is that Microsoft didn't come out with anything revolutionary."

    .NET added:
    1. ASP.Net WebForms which is way ahead of Java Server Faces.
    2. Strong support for XML Web Services. J2EE is finally catching up.
    3. Cross language object oriented development. (May not be useful to do multiple languages in a single development team, but if your team uses C# exclusively, and you wanted to use NewFangledUIFramework from another company and that was written in VB.Net, you had that choice.)

    Revolutionary is a relative term. Depends on what perspective you are looking from. I know that since switching over to .NET (from previous MS tech) I have increased development productivity dramatically--maybe tenfold. That is measurable and quantifiable benefit. It may not be revolutionary, but I'll live with it.

    - Linus
  • Who cares about "revolutionary"[ Go to top ]

    Linus: "Revolutionary is a relative term. Depends on what perspective you are looking from. I know that since switching over to .NET (from previous MS tech) I have increased development productivity dramatically--maybe tenfold. That is measurable and quantifiable benefit. It may not be revolutionary, but I'll live with it."

    Re-read my post. You will find that I said it was a no-brainer to move up to .NET from the previous MS tools & technologies.

    OTOH, Compared to Java, .NET is not revolutionary. I've used both. They are very similar in many ways. Hardly surprising, considering the people involved with the C#/CLR/.NET-libs design.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
  • background is always important[ Go to top ]

    Cameron,

    I will tell you what that is revolutionary.

    For the first time in computer history, -real- money is thrown at us developers. Microsoft is using hundreds of times the amount of money normally used for tools like this.

    Therefore it is sad that so many of the Java guys are against everything from Microsoft.

    And your opinion that .NET is nothing special is your own opinion which of course you are entitled to. But considering your background nobody would expect any other opinion!

    I, to be sure, have a very different view!

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • background is always important[ Go to top ]

    Rolf: "And your opinion that .NET is nothing special is your own opinion which of course you are entitled to. But considering your background nobody would expect any other opinion!"

    My background as a Microsoft MVP? ;-)
  • background is always important[ Go to top ]

    No, I am thinking of your today’s ownership in a company that specialize in Java products and your over 3000 posts in various forums about Weblogic.
    The MS work was many many years ago.

    Assuming that the above is correct, perhaps you can agree that nobody would expect you to praise .NET that much?

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • Comments on all of this[ Go to top ]

    Some responses to comments across the board. As a disclaimer, I've personally done work in COM, Java/J2EE, and .NET. I'm currently working on projects in both J2EE and .NET; since both pay the bills, I don't really think I'm biased too much one way or the other.

    <quote>
     Cross platform and cross language integration at the stroke of a pen. I DARE YOU TO GIVE ME ONE. .Net gives you true freedom. Freedom to choose your own platform(Mono, which will be released this summer) and freedom of language(c#,vb,c++,c,perl and more to come). That sounds pretty revolutionary to me.

    First, .NET is not truly and completely cross-platform, not the way Java is. Many other members here have stated excellent points as to why. All I need to see is "Mono, which will be released this summer" to raise warning flags about how cross-platform it is. There is just too much in .NET tied to the WinAPI and too few reasons for MS to fully support .NET on UNIX for me to think it will every be a viable enterprise platform on anything other than Windows.
    Second, I think everyone touting the benefits of cross-language support needs to take a long and hard look at how useful this "feature" is. Personally, I think that the advantages of (true) cross-platform support FAR outweigh those of cross-language support. It is far more useful within an enterprise to standardize on a language and toolset than to have developers going crazy in whatever language they want. It's a maintenance nightmare. If everyone's on the same language (and that language is expressive enough), everything is a lot easier. It's far more useful to be able to debug and develop on one platform and then move the code to another platform for testing deployment than it is to have everything locked into one platform but cobbled together from a myriad of languages. I've worked for two separate companies who have made the jump to .NET and in both cases, they've standardized on C#. C# is seen as the de facto standard within .NET and is more suited to the language (compare, for example, event handling in VB.NET and C#; vb does some weird things to make .NET event delegates "feel" like the old vb events). The only reason for maybe going cross-language is if you're migrating your developers over to .NET and they're used to VB. Even then, the paradigm shift is so great and the learning curve so large that staying with VB.NET won't make that much of a difference in the long run compared to C#.

    I don't even think Rolf's comments can be taken seriously. Please. If you think that MS could easily port any of their applications to UNIX, then you're smoking something crazy. Or you've never dealt with the WinAPI. A comment like "they're both written in C" is just begging for flames. Mac, Windows, Unix, etc, they're all written in C or C++ at some level. That doesn't mean that they're not OS specific.

    "ASP.Net WebForms which is way ahead of Java Server Faces. " WebForms is one web framework. It's a nice one, and integrated really well into the .NET toolset. But it's one framework. In J2EE, JSF is just a tool that could be used as part of one of the many web frameworks out there, like Struts, WebWorks, Turbine, etc. As in most things, Java gives you a choice. You might not get the nice tool support, which can be a big deal, but that's your choice. Also, WebForms isn't a full MVC framework, which can be a big thing for some people. In some respects, some of the J2EE frameworks out there are "way ahead" of ASP.NET; in others, ASP.NET has a huge advantage. Personally, I don't like having one vendor sell me dev tools, a web framework, a platform, and a language. I like some flexibility and choice.

    On the "ripping off", EVERYONE in this industry rips off from everyone else. Everyone leapfrogs everyone else. It took MS a while to get something that could compete with Java but they did it, borrowing heavily from their competitor in the process. Some random notes on this:
    -Java copied ADO for JDBC. That's a good thing, because it was a good model (better than ODBC).
    -Java copied a lot of language features from C++, evolving them in the process
    -C# copied a lot of language features from Java, evolving them in the process.
    -Java did NOT copy MSMQ on messaging. I've worked extensively in messaging with a lot of vendor-specific tools (Vitria, webmethods, Tibco, etc.). MSMQ was a poor-man's MQSeries. It doesn't see much use in the MS world. A large number of the real messaging platforms, like Vitria, webMethods, Tibco, MQSeries, etc., standardized on Java early on. Sun coalesced the APIs of all of these products into the JMS API, which a large number of those vendors are now moving towards. JMS was an attempt at coming up with a standard on a whole series of products that were already using Java, not a copy of ANYTHING MS was doing.

    Bottom line: Both technologies will become better by the presence of the other. If it weren't for Java, a lot of people would still be stuck in COM hell. If it weren't for .NET, Java would never see some of the cool language features that are coming in new versions. Both are tools for developers, both have their advantages, both have situations where they're better than the other. If you really feel that strongly that one is better than the other, then you need stop your dosage of crazy pills OR find something truly important in life to care so much about.
  • Drew,

    "A comment like "they're both written in C" is just begging for flames. Mac, Windows, Unix, etc, they're all written in C or C++ at some level. That doesn't mean that they're not OS specific"

    Both the Apache web server and Oracle are examples of C(++) apps that is ported from Unix to Windows (from one OS to another). Why can not MS do what Oracle can do?

    Is it because MS developers are less smart and talented? Or is it because MS have to save on development?

    I remember some version of Office for Macintosh a while back. It worked, but very badly. The reason? Well the explanation was that "it was only basically a recompilation". So Microsoft had to go back and redo everything especially for Mac before the Mac users were satisfied.

    So undeniable some work is involved, but for a company of MS size, its peanuts.

    SQL Server for Unix for example, if they choose to port, would immediate kill Oracle (which at the moment account for only 20% of Oracles revenue, the rest is consulting).

    So, BEA, Oracle etc should be happy they are allowed a little space to play upon, protected from MS competition, not whine about that MS products only run on Windows.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • No no no no no
    Apache took a long while to get ported to every platform and the only reason it did was because you had people on every platform who cared about getting it there. If you take a look, it wasn't until the recent Apache 2.0 release that Apache was equally as well supported on Windows as on unix. Apache 1.3.x, the one that just about everyone in the world uses, doesn't run reliably on Windows because it uses a POSIX emulator. Every official Apache doc on the windows version says that it's not ready for prime time. Also, have you ever attempted to run Oracle on Windows? It's not well-supported, either. It's a memory hog. It is unreliable. It is not truly production ready. I do work for an Oracle reseller and have a good deal of knowledge about it. Oracle isn't interested in selling Windows licenses. The core platforms for them are Solaris and now Linux. That is what the majority of their sales are targeted towards.

    Just because C and C++ can be used on every platform doesn't mean that they're cross platform languages. That couldn't be further from the truth. Ever hear of the difference b/w "big endian" and "little endian"? If the fact that a program was written in C++ meant that it could easily be ported to other platforms, then we'd never have had a reason for Java, would we have?

    Until Windows itself runs successfully on UNIX, you will never see a major MS program run successfully on UNIX (natively). Every Windows program relies too heavily on the Windows APIs. MS has a great deal of resources but that doesn't mean they can do the impossible. I think even an MS representative wouldn't be as blind to the truth about where Windows is appropriate and where it is not as you are. Windows is a fine product. the reason so many people bitch about it is that it is so widely used. But it is far from perfect, and MS is far from perfect. They can't just snap their fingers and say "voila, now we're on unix because we're so powerful and have so much money". If that were possible, it would have been done by now and they wouldn't have had to scramble so hard to make up for the ground they lost to Java and J2EE in the marketplace.
  • protected working place[ Go to top ]

    Drew,

    And the Office suit? Word, Excel and so on. Are they not ported to Berkley Unix? (BSD on Apple). And please don't say that this is simple applications because they are not simple applications.

    This protected area of Unix (protected from MS competition that is) reminds med of a system in my country (Sweden). They have a large government owned company for disabled or otherwise handicapped people. They call it "protected working place".

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • Re: Protected Work Place.[ Go to top ]

    Rolf:
    First of all, it is Office SUITE no Office suit. :-)
    I've been following your posting with a bit of interest since I happen to be a former MS Developer, but I find your comments totally biased and it is sometimes funny to see how you defend your position (either throwing new facts into the discussion or by simply changing/modifying your point)
    I agree with the fact that MS has heaps of money. I agree that money can hire the smartest people you can find. So what? It is still very hard for me to explain how a software company as MS can produce buggy software, buggy patches and sell them as the the "ultimate" piece of software available on the world. I really admire MS marketing: They are superb! but have no respect for their developers.

    And if Unix is kind of a protected working place for handicapped people, come on!! you should thank god it is a Unix place... if it were a MS place you would be mourning all year for those handicapped who died... during the last "Protected Place" crash :-)
  • protected working place[ Go to top ]

    Rolf,

    I'm really not sure I know what your point is anymore. Is MS that important to you? If they're so great and everyone else is in the "protected place", then why do they have so much competition? What I can get from what you're saying is something like "Everyone should look out for Microsoft because no one can compete with them, they are the greatest, why even bother with Java or anything else because MS can easily beat it." If that's so, then why haven't they done it? If it's so easy to port everything to Unix, why hasn't it been done? What is Microsoft waiting for? Oh, and by the way, Office on Mac isn't a port; it's been written over again from the ground up, just like Internet explorer, with the Mac in mind. There's a big difference between porting something and rewriting it.

    Another poster pointed out an interesting thing about your arguments. They change constantly, throwing up new facts and arguments all the time. You may think that no one can win an argument with you but that's because no one is having an argument that you don't constantly change. If you make a single, clear, well-stated point, then maybe we can continue a friendly argument. So far, your approach has been what we call in my country "special".
  • Drew,

    "If you make a single, clear, well-stated point"

    Well single I don't know but I give you 4.

    1) I hate "the Big App Servers" and especially EJB
    2) I am reserved with O/R, can't find any use for it.
    3) I have a strong dislike of "officious, pompous, quasi-scientific people.
    4) I claim that MS make better software.

    I am just tired of discussing 1-3 so why don't we discuss 4?

    "how a software company as MS can produce buggy software, buggy patches"
    That seems to be the general view of the Java/Unix/Oracle guys.

    Ok, let us examine this (I do not have any shares in MS or ever even visited MS. But I don't like when people lie, sorry - even if it is perceived "as a good cause")

    Like a murder investigation we also need a "motive". So we have this case:

    MS have the best people,
    and the best leadership,
    and the most money,

    (In Pricewaterhouse Coopers survey, published January, based on 1000 CEO's opinions in 20 countries, Bill Gates is ranked first as company leader)

    So how it is possible that the company with the best people and leadership, and with more money still produce buggy software, buggy patches (or more buggy software and buggy patches than other companies? Where is the "motive"? When you have an argument you need to be logical..

    Then we have all this benchmarks that constantly put MS software on top.. OK I know that benchmarks can be questionable or even manipulated - but why can not some of Big App Servers come up on top at least 1 time? - to follow the law of chance?

    And then I add to this my own personal experience.. Consider my life when I was placed in Madrid - far from home - used to work with MS tools and SQL Server - the best piece of software ever made IMO - and was put to work with iPlanet and Oracle? Can you image the shock?

    So you see, both logic and personal experience leads me to the same conclusion:
     
    -the reason is called ENVY-

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • the vanity of everthing[ Go to top ]

    I could add that I am not particularly surprised by the conclusion
    - thorough cynical as I am.
  • Rolf: "And then I add to this my own personal experience.. Consider my life when I was placed in Madrid - far from home - used to work with MS tools and SQL Server - the best piece of software ever made IMO - and was put to work with iPlanet and Oracle? Can you image the shock?"

    I used to work with Microsoft Access -- the bestest mostest simplest database ever. Imagine my shock when I had to work with SQL Server! So complex and difficult! Oh, the travesty! The injustice!

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
  • Cameron,

    MS Access is the bestest mostest simplest (and you can add, fastest) - single user database – that's what it was designed for. A single user database with ANSI SQL functionality. That is something new instead of jokes like Filemaker which is what Access should be compared too. And as the fastest most complete single user database around it is extremely successful - used by hundreds of thousands of "Power Users" in the world ("Power Users": the word so hated by Unix admins). For its indented functionality - it have no peer.

    And how many beginners have not learned SQL by the "query by example tool" in Access (making it work and after turn to "View as SQL")?

    My god, aren't we critical today?

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • <Q>
    MS Access is the bestest mostest simplest (and you can add, fastest) - single user database
    Really? What about Sybase SQLAnywere, HSQLDB, MckoiDB, etc.
    Is MS Access database at all? What about store procs, triggers, etc.
  • Leonard,

    Why don't we start with some informal bench testing you and I. Test of enterprise software can be problematic and difficult but a single user database should be straightforward!

    Let's start by clocking importing of 100.000 posts. Later we can test easiness of installation, time for a first time user to get aquatinted, the query by example tools, integration with other desktop programs and so on..

    OK? What was the name again? HSQLDB? MckoiDB? KKJHDDYD?

    The last time I did this was when somebody claimed that the Saxon parser was as fast as MS XML parser. The poor, crappy, buggy MS shit parsed a 5 MB file in some seconds while the Saxon parser took 7 min.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • Are you not familiar with HSQLDB (Hypersonic SQL)? I guess it shows that you never try Orion, JBoss and a lots other java software since this database comes with many java apps. And since you didn't mention in your reply Sybase SQLAnywhere (ASA) it means you agree that it's better that MS Access. :))
  • poor, crappy, buggy MS Software[ Go to top ]

    The last time I did this was when somebody claimed that the Saxon parser was as fast as MS XML parser. The poor, crappy, buggy MS shit parsed a 5 MB file in some seconds while the Saxon parser took 7 min.


    Thank you for finally presenting something that can be quantified, and hence tested and found false.

    I regularly use Saxon to parse a ca 250 kb xml file (ca 10000 lines), the average time is about 35 ms. If it takes 7 minutes for you to parse a 5 MB file using sax, then I think the problem is with the Indian, not the Arrow...

    Most probably, the time is spent copying data (i.e dramatic increase in heap size paired with un-tuned (or non-existent) -Xms and -Xmx swithes) , but its hard to comment on that without seeing your code.

    Br - Johan
  • sight..[ Go to top ]

    Please Johan - I am talking of something difficult - XSLT transformations
  • Sigh... [was: sight..][ Go to top ]

    Please Johan - I am talking of something difficult - XSLT transformations


    Aha, then I should be able to help you since I have done a fair deal of that. The problem is of course that youre original post doesnt mention anything about XSLT. You claimed that parsing a 5MB xml file takes 7 minutes with SAX using Saxon, and I simply observed that it would require pretty lousy code to achieve that.

    Again you change the facts when challenged.

    Br - Johan
  • poor, crappy, buggy MS Software[ Go to top ]

    The last time I did this was when somebody claimed that the Saxon parser was as fast as MS XML parser. The poor, crappy, buggy MS shit parsed a 5 MB file in some seconds while the Saxon parser took 7 min.

    >
    > Thank you for finally presenting something that can be quantified, and hence tested and found false.
    >
    > I regularly use Saxon to parse a ca 250 kb xml file (ca 10000 lines), the average time is about 35 ms. If it takes 7 minutes for you to parse a 5 MB file using sax, then I think the problem is with the Indian, not the Arrow...
    >
    > Most probably, the time is spent copying data (i.e dramatic increase in heap size paired with un-tuned (or non-existent) -Xms and -Xmx swithes) , but its hard to comment on that without seeing your code.
    >
    > Br - Johan

    And just to clarify, when I say that I use Saxon to parse xml (as opposed to transforming) I mean AElfred, which used to be bundled with Saxon, but is now a separate download.
  • poor, crappy, buggy MS Software[ Go to top ]

    Johan,

    Often you accuse me of "shifting". That means that I have to think over every word carefully so it cannot be misunderstood, purposely or not.

    For example you could to somebody (to somebody who wishes a car), present a toy car. And when he/she protests - you say "but you didn't specify a real car!".

    Sax parsing is extremely simple and in many cases you just as well by writing a little c program to do the job.

    You should understand that I didn't mean Sax, that is obvious.

    Show me some heavy XSL work.

    And to the question: "Do you really dispute the fact that J2EE has been really successfull?"

    That too should be obvious by now!

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • poor, crappy, buggy MS Software[ Go to top ]

    Johan,

    >
    > Sax parsing is extremely simple and in many cases you just as well by writing a little c program to do the job.
    >
    > You should understand that I didn't mean Sax, that is obvious.
    >
    > Show me some heavy XSL work.

    I dont know if its that important in the big picture, but you did say that parsing a xml file of 5MB took 7 minutes using saxon. There is a sax parser coming with saxon, and I did actually believe that you were refering to parsing and not transforming. When it comes to comparing the performance of XSL transformers, its a bit like comparing the performance of regex engines, where one clever optimization in one engine might make it very fast at some things and another engine might have a clever optimization in some other area. Really hard to comment on without seeing the stylesheet you used in any case.

    >
    > And to the question: "Do you really dispute the fact that J2EE has been really successfull?"
    >
    > That too should be obvious by now!

    Well, if that is your true conviction, and not just a standpoint for the sake of arguing, then I dont know what to say. I´ll just stand as silenced as if someone declared, to my face, that the earth is indeed flat.

    >
    > Regards
    > Rolf Tollerud

    Br - Johan
  • poor, crappy, buggy MS Software[ Go to top ]

    Hmm... just another piece of anecdotal evidence we came to love so much in these posts...
    I had to do some reasonably complex conversions of 10MB+ files. I was trying Xalan, MS stuff and Saxon. Xalan came the worst off, MS stuff was fast, but with horrendous memory footprint, Saxon was as fast as MS (+/- 5% on most files) with about half of the memory footprint.
    Not that it means anything else than that Saxon was the best for my case.
    V.
  • please[ Go to top ]

    Vlad,

    Would you care to give me a copy of one of this 10 MB files? No?

    I though so.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • please[ Go to top ]

    I don't know how you Rolf, but my contract generally have something like customer confidentiality clauses (for better or worse).
    I probably could try to generate one with fake information, but even that would be very much frowned upon by the customer, given my past experience with them. I might ask their reps if you really really want to..
    Vlad
  • I don't know that I can say at this point. But here's a try.
    1) Great. Glad to hear you hate EJB. That's not really an arguable point, is it? You can't argue opinion.
    2) Not sure what you mean by O/R. Either way, it's still an opinion of yours. "I'm reserved." How can one argue that? It's another statement of opinion.
    3) Again, another opinion. Not too sure who you're referring to here. If by "officious, pompous, quasi-scientific people" you mean people who won't let groundless arguments stand, then guilty as charged.
    4) "MS make better software"
    OK, that's your point? Better than what? What category? Everything? Not too sure where to start.
    I'll try by saying that I use MS software every day. I develop in COM, Java, and .NET. I don't particularly care for VB/COM development because it's a poor environment. Badly written software. Buggy. That's from direct experience.

    I like both Java and .NET. I think that both have advantages over the other and both have places where I'd rather use one versus the other. I think that .NET was one of the best thing MS has done in recent years for their existing developer base. I don't see it as a threat to Java, but for Microsoft shops it's a definite boon.

    So if your main argument is that "MS make better software" and that everyone who thinks differently is envious of them, then I'd ask you what it is that I'm envious of. I have no desire to work for Microsoft. I use their tools just as I use the tools of many other vendors. I have no particular love or hate for them (except maybe VB6, though there was a time when I enjoyed working in that). They are companies out to make money. I am a consumer who gives them my money. That's the extent of our relationship. There's no passion involved, and certainly no cause for envy anywhere. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what you are stating people are envious of.

    I also think that the argument "MS have the best people, the best leadership, so they make the best software" is an indefensible one. There's no way to quantify anything about that statement. So if you're going to keep making blanket statements like that which are unprovable (beyond comparing biased, conflicting benchmarks from either camp), then I suppose there's no more point to arguing, is there?

    I get the impression that you find usability the most important thing about a piece of software. I can understand that view. Especially as a developer. But I believe that in many cases, it's not as important as other things. I grant you (from my own experience) that SQL Server is MUCH easier to use than Oracle. But once you get to a certain scale, usability isn't nearly as important as reliability and performance, which is why people end up using Oracle. Windows is much more user friendly than Linux but I've never had a Linux machine crash. My windows machines have crashed fairly frequently over the years. As a user, I can deal with the crashes because usability is high on my list. As a business owner, I can't deal with my web site or in-house servers crashing or not performing as well as I'd like. Usability isn't nearly as important in that case.

    Oh, and about lying: not so sure what people here are lying about. If someone who disagrees with you is automatically lying, then I think...well, at this point, I really don't know what to think. Signing off and marking you as "noisy".
  • Drew,

    "Badly written software. Buggy"

    Now we are back in old tracks again. If you want my opinion I say that iPlanet is 10 times buggier and badly written (at the very least).

    "I get the impression that you find usability the most important thing about a piece of software"

    And the TCP benchmarks?

    "..reliability and performance, which is why people end up using Oracle"

    According to Gartner MS SQL server is just about to pass Oracle as the second most used database in Europe..

    "I don't see it as a threat to Java"

    Is that so.

    The fact is that .NET is slowly overtaking Java by ca 2% a month.

    I can not prove it yet - but I will in the coming months.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • <rolf>
    4) I claim that MS make better software.

    I am just tired of discussing 1-3 so why don't we discuss 4?


    Microsoft was there at a right place at the right time when they licenced DOS to IBM. Licencing the software was brilliant. DOS was good enough for the purpose and since IBM was the only PC manufacturer, it was an exclusive deal. When the PC clones came, what else would they put on there but MS DOS. Little bit of luck and good thinking got Microsoft one hell of an edge over any other software company early on when PCs made their breakthrough.

    Microsoft is all about smart business decisions and marketing. It could not have done without the software but the software itself was never the beef in Microsoft's success. OS dominance, bundling, deals with PC manufacturers, etc. etc. make Microsoft big and powerful. Microsoft is partly so successful because they have created a perfect lock-in honey pot. Once you are in, you are not getting out - not easily anyway.

    Why wouldn't Microsoft produce the best software, you are asking. Where's the logic to all this 'bad' software? Well, the thing is that Microsoft is producing the best _selling_ software. Maybe you got these two things mixed up a little bit. But if you measure quality/goodness in sales records, then by all means, Microsoft is producing the best of all software in the world.

    If you just plainly look at MS software, there is not too much to cheer about it. The track record is quite patchy at times. But, Rolf my man, you are entirely correct in that Microsoft is making better (and more costly) sofware than earlier! :)
  • Rolf:
    Que barbaridades dices!!! :-) Since you had tha chance to work in Spain I guess it won't be hard for you to understand what I said in my mother tongue. Am I right?.

    You say:
    1) I hate "the Big App Servers" and especially EJB
    Should we extend your words to cover not only "Big App Servers" but Distributed Computing Technology, Highly Scalable Databases, reliable Operating Systems, Mainframes and so on??
    Anyways, if you don't like "Big App Servers" that is your prerogative. You can like (or dislike for what it matters) the guy your daugther is dating, but that DOES NOT mean he is not a good guy. Am I right?

    2) I am reserved with O/R, can't find any use for it.
    Well, the above could mean that you never had the chance to work a Fortune 500 company and solve the sort of problems Fortune 500 companies face everyday (technically I mean), they did not teach you OO technologies while at the university or maybe 500 reasons more.
    I am reserved about a lot of things but that does not mean they are wrong. Am I right?

    3) I have a strong dislike of "officious, pompous, quasi-scientific people.
    Esta es la mas grande tonteria que alguna vez he leido. So what? What is your definition for "officious, pompous, quasi-scientific people" ? Is it because you hate "to think" before "to code"? Come on mate!!! Could you be "scientific" enough to follow a clear line of thoughts when discussing with us, "quasi-scientific" people?

    4) I claim that MS make better software.
    That is really a tricky affirmation since to have "better" software implies that there MUST be a "worst" software. Isn't it? Do you mean everything MS make is better than the rest of software produced by other vendors?? Are you a MS shareholder/sales rep/executive by any chance? :-)


    PS. As I told you before, I used to be a MS Developer. When the time came for me to work with Oracle, It was not a shock at all. The architecture and some concepts where diferent or had diferent meaning than in SQL Server but after 1 week I was really enjoyning to work with Oracle in a Windows/Unix environment. Back in 99, I was lucky enough to work with a tool called FORTE for developing applications using a distributed computing approach, capable of partitioning an application so we can have some components running on VMS, some others in UNIX and some others in Windows. Again,It was not a shock whatsoever.

    So, I guess the reason you talk in the way you do is because: You are ... (Well, you know what you are)
  • Gracias por su poste profundo e informativo!
  • Sorry mate,
    It is "Gracias por tu posting profundo e informativo" but "posting" is really a non-spanish word, so it should be "Gracias por tus opiniones profundas e informativas".

    :-) Cheers mate!
  • One more for Rolf!!![ Go to top ]

    3) I have a strong dislike of "officious, pompous, quasi-scientific people.
    Back in my country, Microsoft approached the company I was working for, to sell some of their products. They offered us J++ to cover some of our development needs and the sales guy was really impresive. But the MS Technical Consultant helping the Sales guy was far more impressing: He gave us as a reason to pick J++ that "MS Java compiler is the only one to compile 1,000,000 lines of Java code per minute" WOW!!!! A second later I recalled that Java is an interpreted programming language. :-)))))
  • One more for Rolf!!![ Go to top ]

    Yes, the Microsoft guys are really stupid!
  • One more for Rolf!!![ Go to top ]

    Yes, the Microsoft guys are really stupid!


    I thought they are hiring the bestest people with their big dollars...
  • One more for Rolf!!![ Go to top ]

    <Roberto>Back in my country, Microsoft approached the company I was working for, to sell some of their products. They offered us J++ to cover some of our development needs and the sales guy was really impresive. But the MS Technical Consultant helping the Sales guy was far more impressing: He gave us as a reason to pick J++ that "MS Java compiler is the only one to compile 1,000,000 lines of Java code per minute" WOW!!!! A second later I recalled that Java is an interpreted programming language. :-)))))

    Do you know what javac for?
  • One more for Rolf!!![ Go to top ]

    Roberto!

    Could you point me to where I can get hold of this FORTE?
    It could be useful. Think I will test it on my next customer!

    Hopefully
    Rolf Tollerud
  • What is Forte ?[ Go to top ]

    FORTE is a distributed, object oriented, multi-OS system. Business applications developed using FORTE can be sliced into partitions, running in different OS environments and working together.

    FORTE was popular in early 90's for distributed applications before the evolution of Java. It is ideally suited for 3-Tier applications based on thick GUI. Latest version of Forte supports WebServices too!

    As of now, Forte and Forte AppServers are more rugged and scalable, with in-built Load Balancing and FailOver options. And applications are more easy to develop and deploy in FORTE than J2EE. Especially, the Server side Objects in Forte are much easier to develop than EJBs.

    FORTE was developed by Forte Systems, Inc. and this company was acquired by SUN Microsystems in 2000. And now it is called UDS and part of SUN ONE.

    More about Forte UDS in:
     http://docs.sun.com/db/prod/4413#hic
     http://softwareforum.sun.com/NASApp/jive/index.jsp?cat=9

    Cheers,
    Elango
  • One more for Rolf!!![ Go to top ]

    <Roberto>
    ...Java is an interpreted programming language


    Not exactly correct. Java is a hybrid language, it pre-compiles to object (byte) code. If it were an interpreted language, you'd be able to run the source code like you would an html document in a web browser. But your point is taken.

    cheers,
    Dan
  • Rolf,

    You say some really amazing things. SQL Server used to work just fin on Tru64 Unix, and every SQL Server admin I knew thought it was a travesty when they stopped that.

    I worked with the release team (when I worked at Unisys) with SQL Server (yes, I used to be a ms developer at Unisys and other companies after). In fact, I was one of the Comdex presenters for the SQL Server 7.0 release in New York. I even think SQL Server is probably the best product that MS makes (I like Visio too, but they didn't reall make that).

    However, there aren't many people that I've met that really believe that SQL Server would ever be an Oracle or even a Sybase ASE killer in the Unix environment. As much as I like SQL Server, if I was using Unix, and I had the choice, I'd take Sybase ASE 12.5 over SQL Server, and probably Oracle over Sybase. Hell, I'd be 50/50 as to whether or not I'd take Postgresql over SQL Server on Unix. On windows, however, I'd take SQL Server over the others. Oracle is a bit of a dog on Windows.

    Have you actually worked with various databases? Oracle, Sybase, DB2, Postgres, MySQL, etc?

    Jason McKerr
    Northwest Alliance for Computational Science and Engineering
  • Of course, that's all hypothetical anyway. But really...

    Jason
  • C# is not a rip of Java. Since M$ couldn't license Java, they developed implementation of Java in Windows without any license issues.. that's all folks..
  • .NET ripped off Delphi[ Go to top ]

    There's so much talk about .NET ripping off Java and of C# coming from Delphi, but here are the facts:

    Anders Heilsburg, chief architect of C# was the chief architect of Delphi.
    C# has the following keywords, right out of Delphi:

    virtual, override, using, etc.
    properties come right from Delphi not from Java Beans
    Windows .NET Forms is much like the Delphi VCL.
    Delegates are like enhanced Events in Delphi.
    The .NET dataset is derived from the Delphi TClientDataSet
    The implementation of data-aware controls if very similar

    So while there are similarities to Java and C, there are as many similarities to Delphi and in some cases, direct copies of it.

    Admittedly, in most cases the .NET implementation has enhanced the Delphi implementation. And the same goes with the Java features.
  • Java and .NET ripped off borland[ Go to top ]

    First lets be clear about one thing. C is that bases for C# and Java. Java was meant to be a better C++ and so was C#. C# borrowed more concepts from C++ and Delphi than it did from Java (enums, operator overloading, properties, name spaces, use of pointers (when needed), structs, delegates and other features that are new like attributes (truley awesome) and having methods explicitly implement and interface so that it is only visible when used in that interface. The only thing that Java has in common with C# is the syntax, which both stole from C++ and C. Other wise the lack of a header and some choice naming conventions like ToString() and HashCode() C3 swiped from Java but this is truley a small part of the total C# and .NET package. If you ever look at it (I worked with it for a year) you will see there are more differences than simularities.

    Also I would like to clear up what was stoled from Delphi by both Java and C#.


    >virtual, override, using, etc.

    Delphi has uses not using using is more like imports and C# using names spaces instead of packages. The file uses a name space where Delphi uses a unit.

    >properties come right from Delphi not from Java Beans

    Java Beans and WinForms came from the Delphi VCL. Borland had the VCL first and contributed the idea the lead architect of winforms also created the VCL.

    Nonetheless Java beans still do not even implement properties.

    Here is a Java property

    private String name;
    public String getName(){ return name;}
    public String setName(String value){name = value;}


    Here is a Delphi property

    private
    FName: String;
    public
    property Name: String read FName write FName;

    Here is a C# property

    private String name;

    public String Name {
    get {return name;}
    set {name = value;}
    }

    I think that the C# idea is closer to Delphi since it is coded as Name where as Java Beans only have the get and set. Personally I think that Delphi is still the best implementation because you can use methods or directly write to the private fields without affecting the users of the classes.

    >Windows .NET Forms is much like the Delphi VCL.
    Yes it is

    >Delegates are like enhanced Events in Delphi.
    In Delphi events are events (method pointers) but Delegates go a step further because they are objects not just method pointers.

    >The .NET dataset is derived from the Delphi TClientDataSet

    Big difference here. The .Net dataset holds a variety of tables and relationships between tables. The .NET dataset is actually a cached version of the database.
    In Delphi the dataset is an abstract base type used to represent tables or queries. The client dataset is actually a dataset meant to be cached (which it does have in common with .NET, but it is only a single result set.

    This ideas behind ADO.NET dataset is much more complex and better than the Delphi concept. This is all very foriegn from the statement and result set in Java, except that ADO.NET also uses commands (Statements) to execute the query.

    >The implementation of data-aware controls if very similar
    Not really. While they are similar that you can bind a control to a data field. In Delphi the data-aware controls can only be linked to a dataset.

    In .NET you can link a data aware control to any propery of an object so long as it has a changed event to allow the data field to hook up to it. You can also link to anything that implements IList (I think, it has been 4 months since I have done C# stuff, I am working on Java :-) )

    The reality is Delphi has been ripped off a lot, look at the architecture of the VCL and how they deal with windows, Look at the .NET framework and then look at Java's swing and you will see that .NET is a lot like the VCL. The answers for many problems in .NET and VCL were handled via inheritence (look at scrolling windows) instead of the decorator pattern as in Java.

    It is too bad that Delphi waited too long to be cross platform.
  • Some interesting, albeit nontechnical facts:

    Microsoft made 1 billion dollars in profit last year.
    Bea made 60 million, a drop in the bucket compared to Microsoft.

    The next 24 months MS is going to begin to release some powerful development tools.
    How can anybody compete with MS when they have so much money and resources!
  • What about IBM?
  • Here is a question.

    Can anyone mention one product that was created in so called M$ labs or R&D
    and is successful in the market.
  • Very superficial comparison[ Go to top ]

    1996 Microsoft releases ASP; in 1998 Sun releases JSP

    > 1997 Microsoft releases ADSI; in 1998 Sun releases JNDI
    > 1997 Microsoft releases MSMQ; in 1998 Sun releases JMS
    > 1997 Microsoft releases Microsoft Transaction Server; in 1998 Sun releases EJB
    > 1998 Microsoft releases MSXML; in 2001 Sun releases JAXP
    > 2000 Microsoft releases Queued Components; in 2001 Sun releases Message Driven Beans
    > 2000 Microsoft releases XML Web Services; in 2001 Sun releases Java Web Services Developer Pack

    First is correct, all others are flawed analogies.

    Both Java/J2EE & .NET technologies have their place and I am not against people arguing over their virtues but it would be nice if at least informed comment was being distributed around.

    E.g. ADSI allows access to a small number of windows related N&D services.
    JNDI lets you get to a much greater range of windows and non-windows N&D services and is built upon earlier work Sun, IBM, HP, DEC and others did with X/Open.

    SunFLASH Vol 67 #11 July 1994
    I am pleased to inform you X/Open today announced adoption of
    Federated Naming Service (XFN) as a "Preliminary
    Specification." SunSoft started advanced development of
    Federated Naming technology as early as 1990 and holds patents
    on the Federated Naming. In order to proliferate and ensure
    industry-wide acceptance of Federated Naming, we worked closely
    with DEC, HP, IBM, OSF, and Siemens Nixdorf in the development
    of the XFN specification and its submission to X/Open. This
    annoucement reiterates SunSoft's leadership position in
    defining networking technologies and cooperating with major
    industry players to solve Global 1000 customers heterogeneous
    enterprise computing needs.
    XFN is key to allowing enterprise-wide information access across
    heterogeneous network. The XFN specification defines a standard
    interface that provides access to and federation among multiple naming
    services such as ONC+ NIS+, DCE CDS, OSI X.500 and Internet DNS.
    Developers can take advantage of XFN and build applications that are
    portable because the underlying naming/directory services are not
    exposed.

    Ditto for all the other comparisons - you can't compare generic APIs with multi-vendor support with a single product offering.
  • Very superficial comparison[ Go to top ]

    E.g. ADSI allows access to a small number of windows related N&D services.

    > JNDI lets you get to a much greater range of windows and non-windows N&D >services and is built upon earlier work Sun, IBM, HP, DEC and others did with >X/Open.

    The point of the article is that Microsoft did not rip off J2EE. It is true that Sun did not copy Microsoft because that developed a solution that spans platforms. Microsoft equally did not rip off Sun, because they had an implemented solution first.
  • Agreed on JMS[ Go to top ]

    I agree on the JMS call. It's patently incorrect to state the JMS is in any way a "rip off" of MSMQ. MSMQ was derived from IBM's MQSeries. MQSeries and its competitors (Tibco et al) were the products that drove the creation of the JMS API. MSMQ "ripped off" MQSeries. JMS took MQSeries and others and came up with a common API, the same way that ANSI SQL became a common standard among database vendors.

    Also, I doubt anyone would be using EJBs if they were derived from MTS, since (in my experience) it failed so miserably. EJBs were derived from CORBA work. MTS was a product evolved from MS's DCOM, which attempted to do the same thing as CORBA.

    In both cases I'm sure that Sun was aware of the MS products on the market but those products were certainly not the drivers behind the Sun standards-making initiatives. If anything, MTS and MSMQ served as examples of how not to do things.

    Sounds like the author of the original article has a misunderstanding about where MS's products fit into recent history.

    Oh, and JNDI? Does MS have anything even remotely similar to JNDI at the moment? MS's problem with their products is that they develop APIs and the implementations. You get lock-in and changing interfaces as the product evolves (as anyone who tried to keep up with the ODBC-ADO-OLEDB chase can tell you). Sun works with the vendors of a particular product set (as with EJB, JMS, and others) and comes up with a relatively open API, leaving the implementation up to others. While MS has put out some powerful APIs, over the long run I've seen Sun's approach work better.
  • Sorta yes and no...[ Go to top ]

    Well there no doubt that the .NET environment is far better for design and management of the front end system. I can put a site up in half the time it would normally take in Java.

    Then again, I'd sure hate to own a site on .NET after it because a large multi-user system. EJBs are pretty cool for that.

    Of course Microsoft "took" everything they could from java, and I personally think they made it better. I totally commend them for doing it as I think SUN needs a run for their money. After all, the java JDK doesn't even have a string join() function or a file/dir copy/move. It's just stupid planning and short sited to leave this out.

    The bottom line is that over SUN did build the "right" architecture with a protected VM, J2EE web model, etc. So if MS did theirs similarly, then it's no different to me than Borland building JBuilder on Eclipse than IBM building WSAD on Eclipse. They're still different products even if the core is the same.

    If you would like to reply back directly, email me at leifashley at yahoo dot com. All comments welcome! ;)
  • Just posted an email to the web page hosting the original article. Text below (please Rolf, if you respond, do it intelligently):

    You most recent "Ask Chuck" column of February 26 has Chuck making some rather weak arguments about the way Java copies Microsoft. I believe that Chuck has gotten a little too caught up in the Microsoft camp. I've seen it happen on both sides of the fence, Java and Microsoft, and whenever it does, it leads to poor representations of the facts.

    The most basic fact about the entire Java vs MS debate is that both sides continuously copy one another. In most cases, the copying party makes improvements. I don't really care who copies who so long as the tools I need to use to get my job done keep getting better (I work in both worlds). To correct the provided timeline:
    -JDBC was a major improvement over the ODBC API. The original ODBC API was coupled pretty tightly to the Win32 API so it would have been pretty hard for Sun to copy it. They took the notion, though, and ran with it. Microsoft seemed to think the results were pretty good, too, since you can see how the updated ADO and OLEDB apis that followed were affected.
    -The only thing JSP stole from ASP was the acronym. The two technologies, while performing in the same problem space, take radically different approaches to solving the problem of putting code into a web page. Once again, MS seemed to like it, since you can see that the new ASP.NET model is much closer to JSP's precompiled, tag-heavy, code-behind-page approach.
    -ADSI and JNDI are in very different problem spaces. If you make any argument about what Sun copied for JNDI, you'd have to say that it copied the principles behind ODBC (again). JNDI is like an ODBC for naming services.
    -MSMQ is a copy off of IBM's MQSeries. JMS is a standard API for dealing with messaging systems from multiple vendors, such as IBM, Tibco, Vitria, webMethods, etc. All of these vendors had products that used Java, and Sun's attempt was (once again) to create an ODBC-like standard interface for dealing with these products, regardless of vendor. The API has largely succeeded but had nothing to do with anything in the Microsoft camp. It was based solely on the need to standardize an API for products that were already using Java heavily. Simply put, JMS was in no way affected by the release of MSMQ (which, by the way, is rarely used, while JMS and Java-based messaging products are used quite frequently).
    -Message Driven Beans (MDBs) also had nothing to do with anything Microsoft did. They were an attempt to make working with JMS in J2EE servers a little easier.
    -MSXML and JAXP have little to do with one another except that they were both attempts at a standard API within each technology for dealing with XML. Saying that one copied off of the other is like saying that Japanese copies off of Spanish because they're both ways of establishing a standard way of communicating.
    -They're all copying each other on web services. So far, MS has the lead in ease of use. Of course, they have a heavy part in creating some of the APIs.

    Lastly, the comparison between what each side produces that reads like "MS releases production-ready implementations while Sun releases reference implementations" is COMPLETELY missing the point of what Sun does. Sun creates the standard APIs so that multiple vendors can implement it. As part of the effort, they usually release a reference implementation. The reference implementation is never what's important or useful. The API is. That API allows many vendors like BEA, IBM, Oracle, Jboss, etc., to release implementations that are certainly production ready. The whole idea is the standard, leaving the choice of implementation (and all of the vendor support that goes with it) up to the customer. Microsoft, on the other hand, releases products, not APIs. The products have an API but they are not in the business of releasing a standard API and letting multiple vendors code to it. So the real way to put the issue is "Sun releases standard APIs leaving choice of implementation up to the customer while MS releases full products that can only be provided by MS". There are, of course, good and bad points to both approaches, but to truly weigh them, one should be presented with the facts in a more clear fashion.
  • a specification is only talk..[ Go to top ]

    My dear Drew,

    I could not care less about who copies most. What matters to me is whom who does the best work. And as you know, Sun doesn't even do the specifications anymore.

    I do not believe in the process of sitting behind your desk and construct large systems (alone or in a committee). That is the reason that ECMA for instance, never accept a standard for there is no working implementation! (applauds..) Ideas are easy to come by - a dime for a dozen - it is the doer that's count.

    So - you can't impress me by "talking" (=specifications). It is to me always the implementation that divides the real men (or women) from the "Quiche Eaters".

    To take just a small example, can you explain to me why the Unix world to this day not has produced a decent XML parser? (that is, one who performs of course.)

    The point is as I said before: "for the first time in computer history, -real- money is thrown at us developers. Microsoft is using hundreds of times the amount of money normally used for tools like this".

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
    (sorry, I am not more intelligent than this)
  • a specification is only talk..[ Go to top ]

    'So - you can't impress me by "talking" (=specifications). It is to me always the implementation that divides the real men (or women) from the "Quiche Eaters". '
    I think a lot of your comments indicate that your bias against UNIX and Java in an inability to get them to work. WHile, for the casual developer attempting simple tasks (like parsing XML), that might be a big deal, others know that there are complexities to be dealt with when trying to perform complex tasks. That's why those who deal with complex enterprise development use tools other than microsoft's. And we know who the quiche eaters are.

    'The point is as I said before: "for the first time in computer history, -real- money is thrown at us developers. Microsoft is using hundreds of times the amount of money normally used for tools like this".'
    Yes, and Microsoft is making sure that you throw hundreds of times more money back at them. At least in the Java world, I have a choice of a vendor and a price.

    I'm not even going to get into it with you on specifications because I sincerely doubt you've ever dealt with Java enough to know how the JSR specification process works (a process described by many in the industry as being flawed but still the best example of standards creation in the business). It's easy to reject standards when you don't need them because you've never left your comfortable wizard-driven Microsoft IDE but when you get out into the big boy world they are incredibly useful.

    Rolf, when you get to day 21 in your "how to be a developer in 21 days" book, work out in the real world for a few years and then come back with the conviction you have now. So far your conviction is misplaced, your points are weak, and your message is confused.

    It is entertaining, though. I wonder if that's what you're after....
  • made by a committee[ Go to top ]

    I am after nothing Drew. Just picture me as the ordinary guy in the street (type James Steward) who reacts when somebody in the old Soviet Union way turn black into white.

    Now I have to turn to page 18 in my Java book!

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • made by a committee[ Go to top ]

    who reacts when somebody in the old Soviet Union way turn black into white.


    ...said Joe McCarthy and looked for another future to ruin...
  • consolation[ Go to top ]

    BTW, you don't need to by afraid that Microsoft starts develop Unix Software for these simple reasons:

    1) Microsoft does not want to wake up the antitrust bear again.
    2) The Unix world certainly doesn't want Microsoft on their side of the fence.

    So that's makes is safe even in the future to sit on the safe side of the fence and throw pebbles at the bull.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  • consolation[ Go to top ]

    So that's makes is safe even in the future to sit on the safe side of the fence and throw pebbles at the bull.


    Ah, yes, the bull - good for two things - fucking with others and producing manure...just like MS.
  • Future of .NET[ Go to top ]

    This is an enormously entertaining (but huge) article on Microsoft's current strategy, why it's slowly losing, and what it means for its consultants.

    http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit029.html

    I thought it was relevant because it also explains how .NET fits within the overall strategy.
  • Mono faith is like OpenGL[ Go to top ]

    Mono's faith is like OpenGL

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/29555.html

    MS is all about propietory and monopoly
  • M$?[ Go to top ]

    A little something I read on the net, which proves why M$ will never take the server market over:

    - I spoke to one of our Sys Admins recently who'd just had to apply a security patch for Windows Media Player to a Windows Datacenter OS. *DATACENTRE*, for freak's sake! Can you imagine an OS *less* likely to be used for playing Media files on? But, he had to apply the patch becaause the *very* *presence* of Media Player made that system vulnerable. Aaand, the patch required a reboot... which took a big chunk of our system off line for about half an hour... Like he said, "that's another 30 minutes of our lives none of us are going to get back!"

    As long as M$ doesn't focus, we're "safe"... :)
  • Re: M$?[ Go to top ]

    Hopefully they used that 30 minutes to figure out why they installed an optional component like that onto a server in the first place...

    Mark
  • M$![ Go to top ]

    <Hills>
     Hopefully they used that 30 minutes to figure out why they installed an optional component like that onto a server in the first place...


    I guess they had a very good reason to do so... Sysadmins aren't allowed to be that stupid... :)
  • 2003 server cuts down on the number of cases needing a reboot by over half,
    and by default it only installs the base os.
  • What about Microsoft?

    NDS of Novell ---> Active Directory of Microsoft

    Windows as a Graphical User Interface... CP/M for MicroPC... I remember days when Borland C++ was the best tool for Windows development...

    Active Directory - very late acceptance of common industrial standards...

    May be JINI is based on Active Directory? What about CISCO Network Academy which includes 1 semestr of Java training? Routers, hubs, mobile phones,...

    Sun can't be competitor of Microsoft; Microsoft can't compete with BEA, IBM, Oracle, TheServerSide.com, CISCO, Motorola, ...

    .NET or J2EE - arias from different operas. Different market, different needs

    Each tool has own field of application and is the best.