Is DevX Microsoft Biased?

[Randy]

Does anyone else think that DevX and Fawcette clearly favor Microsoft technologies
in favor of alternatives?

The latest poll asked "As a Java developer, which feature of the .NET IDE
do you most covet?" DevX should really look at some of the MANY IDEs available
to Java developers and see that most of the features of VS.Net are already
available.

I also remember getting some VS.Net beta disks with my Java Pro subscription.
Back then I think DevX was still a part of Fawcette were. No more Java Pro
for me!

DevX should just change it's tune and become a site for M$ only technology
since that is what pays their bills.

[MarkN]

I agree somewhat with this and was going to say something in response to Lori's
post on IBM and Rational.

I don't come to Devx for Java info. I check out the Java discussions here
(ain't much) but seldom any of the other Java info. I might see something
interesting in a newsletter but very seldom.



"Randy" <blah@blah.com> wrote:
>
>Does anyone else think that DevX and Fawcette clearly favor Microsoft technologies
>in favor of alternatives?
>
>The latest poll asked "As a Java developer, which feature of the .NET IDE
>do you most covet?" DevX should really look at some of the MANY IDEs available
>to Java developers and see that most of the features of VS.Net are already
>available.
>
>I also remember getting some VS.Net beta disks with my Java Pro subscription.
>Back then I think DevX was still a part of Fawcette were. No more Java Pro
>for me!
>
>DevX should just change it's tune and become a site for M$ only technology
>since that is what pays their bills.
>

[Lori Piquet]

Randy,
DevX is wholly independent of any vendor (as well as from Fawcette). We plan
our coverage of each technology according to the needs and demand of our
readership. We do have a significant reader base in Microsoft technologies,
so those are important to our editorial charter. However, you might be
surprised to know that month-to-month the number of articles that we
commission is frequently heavier on the Java side.

This week's poll question was my idea and the idea was generated by a thread
that I was reading on The Server Side (a discussion site for J2EE
developers) where some of the participants were talking about certain
features of the .NET IDE that they thought were nice.

Historically, I think you'll find our poll questions reflect the full gamut
of the technologies that we cover. Sometimes they are solely about Java
technology, other times Web technology, other times .NET, etc. I'd hate for
us to have our editorial motives judged by a single question. Please note
that one of the suggested answers to the question is "I don't need any of
the so-called 'features' of .NET."

Also, though we do now count Microsoft among our advertisers (for many years
they did not advertise with us), it is hardly true that the company "pays
the bills." We have far more advertising clients than Microsoft and the
majority of these are interested in reaching Java developers.

The editorial staff is never, ever influenced by the ebbs and flows of the
advertising clients. We listen to our readers and no one else.

Lori Piquet
Editor-in-chief
DevX


"Randy" <blah@blah.com> wrote in message news:3df7846f@tnews.web.devx.com...
>
> Does anyone else think that DevX and Fawcette clearly favor Microsoft
technologies
> in favor of alternatives?
>
> The latest poll asked "As a Java developer, which feature of the .NET IDE
> do you most covet?" DevX should really look at some of the MANY IDEs
available
> to Java developers and see that most of the features of VS.Net are already
> available.
>
> I also remember getting some VS.Net beta disks with my Java Pro
subscription.
> Back then I think DevX was still a part of Fawcette were. No more Java Pro
> for me!
>
> DevX should just change it's tune and become a site for M$ only technology
> since that is what pays their bills.
>

[MarkN]

I think that to be fair (and maybe this is what he was talking about) the
poll should include, "My Java IDE has all these". Which only goes to show
(along with your comment about Websphere) that Devx is pretty much clueless
about Java and its surrounding technologies.

How about next month having the following poll: "I wish VS.Net included one
of the following features from My Java IDE: Refactoring, Unit Testing, Easily
Finding Classes with Intellicense, Not having to access a menu or shortcut
to expand the code Window ....."


"Lori Piquet" <lpiquet@devx.com> wrote:
>Randy,
>DevX is wholly independent of any vendor (as well as from Fawcette). We
plan
>our coverage of each technology according to the needs and demand of our
>readership. We do have a significant reader base in Microsoft technologies,
>so those are important to our editorial charter. However, you might be
>surprised to know that month-to-month the number of articles that we
>commission is frequently heavier on the Java side.
>
>This week's poll question was my idea and the idea was generated by a thread
>that I was reading on The Server Side (a discussion site for J2EE
>developers) where some of the participants were talking about certain
>features of the .NET IDE that they thought were nice.
>
>Historically, I think you'll find our poll questions reflect the full gamut
>of the technologies that we cover. Sometimes they are solely about Java
>technology, other times Web technology, other times .NET, etc. I'd hate
for
>us to have our editorial motives judged by a single question. Please note
>that one of the suggested answers to the question is "I don't need any of
>the so-called 'features' of .NET."
>
>Also, though we do now count Microsoft among our advertisers (for many years
>they did not advertise with us), it is hardly true that the company "pays
>the bills." We have far more advertising clients than Microsoft and the
>majority of these are interested in reaching Java developers.
>
>The editorial staff is never, ever influenced by the ebbs and flows of the
>advertising clients. We listen to our readers and no one else.
>
>Lori Piquet
>Editor-in-chief
>DevX
>
>
>"Randy" <blah@blah.com> wrote in message news:3df7846f@tnews.web.devx.com...
>>
>> Does anyone else think that DevX and Fawcette clearly favor Microsoft
>technologies
>> in favor of alternatives?
>>
>> The latest poll asked "As a Java developer, which feature of the .NET
IDE
>> do you most covet?" DevX should really look at some of the MANY IDEs
>available
>> to Java developers and see that most of the features of VS.Net are already
>> available.
>>
>> I also remember getting some VS.Net beta disks with my Java Pro
>subscription.
>> Back then I think DevX was still a part of Fawcette were. No more Java
Pro
>> for me!
>>
>> DevX should just change it's tune and become a site for M$ only technology
>> since that is what pays their bills.
>>
>
>

[Phil Weber]

> Does anyone else think that DevX and Fawcette clearly
> favor Microsoft technologies in favor of alternatives?

Randy: I work for Fawcette. If you look at Java Pro magazine, I think you'll
have a difficult time finding any pro-Microsoft bias. (Obviously, Visual
Studio Magazine and .NET Magazine are going to favor Microsoft
technologies.)

> I also remember getting some VS.Net beta disks with
> my Java Pro subscription.

That's because Microsoft, as an advertiser, paid to include the disks with
the magazine. Fawcette does not censor its advertisers; do you think it
should? Perhaps you'll recall that VSM included demo copies of Delphi with
one issue. Does that make it biased toward Borland?
--
Phil Weber

[Lori Piquet]

Mark,
That questions seems reasonable to me. We rotate the vote on Tuesday nights.

We'll use your suggestion next week. I think a good addition would be add
another option: "Real Java programmers don't use IDEs."

As to my comment on WebSphere, I only meant that it has not captured the
market share that IBM would like. I think it's a disappointment to them that
they haven't beaten BEA. And that JBuilder continues to win most popularity
contests done through Java magazines and polls.

Lori


"MarkN" <m@n.com> wrote in message news:3df793ee$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
>
> I think that to be fair (and maybe this is what he was talking about) the
> poll should include, "My Java IDE has all these". Which only goes to show
> (along with your comment about Websphere) that Devx is pretty much
clueless
> about Java and its surrounding technologies.
>
> How about next month having the following poll: "I wish VS.Net included
one
> of the following features from My Java IDE: Refactoring, Unit Testing,
Easily
> Finding Classes with Intellicense, Not having to access a menu or shortcut
> to expand the code Window ....."
>
>
> "Lori Piquet" <lpiquet@devx.com> wrote:
> >Randy,
> >DevX is wholly independent of any vendor (as well as from Fawcette). We
> plan
> >our coverage of each technology according to the needs and demand of our
> >readership. We do have a significant reader base in Microsoft
technologies,
> >so those are important to our editorial charter. However, you might be
> >surprised to know that month-to-month the number of articles that we
> >commission is frequently heavier on the Java side.
> >
> >This week's poll question was my idea and the idea was generated by a
thread
> >that I was reading on The Server Side (a discussion site for J2EE
> >developers) where some of the participants were talking about certain
> >features of the .NET IDE that they thought were nice.
> >
> >Historically, I think you'll find our poll questions reflect the full
gamut
> >of the technologies that we cover. Sometimes they are solely about Java
> >technology, other times Web technology, other times .NET, etc. I'd hate
> for
> >us to have our editorial motives judged by a single question. Please note
> >that one of the suggested answers to the question is "I don't need any of
> >the so-called 'features' of .NET."
> >
> >Also, though we do now count Microsoft among our advertisers (for many
years
> >they did not advertise with us), it is hardly true that the company "pays
> >the bills." We have far more advertising clients than Microsoft and the
> >majority of these are interested in reaching Java developers.
> >
> >The editorial staff is never, ever influenced by the ebbs and flows of
the
> >advertising clients. We listen to our readers and no one else.
> >
> >Lori Piquet
> >Editor-in-chief
> >DevX
> >
> >
> >"Randy" <blah@blah.com> wrote in message
news:3df7846f@tnews.web.devx.com...
> >>
> >> Does anyone else think that DevX and Fawcette clearly favor Microsoft
> >technologies
> >> in favor of alternatives?
> >>
> >> The latest poll asked "As a Java developer, which feature of the .NET
> IDE
> >> do you most covet?" DevX should really look at some of the MANY IDEs
> >available
> >> to Java developers and see that most of the features of VS.Net are
already
> >> available.
> >>
> >> I also remember getting some VS.Net beta disks with my Java Pro
> >subscription.
> >> Back then I think DevX was still a part of Fawcette were. No more Java
> Pro
> >> for me!
> >>
> >> DevX should just change it's tune and become a site for M$ only
technology
> >> since that is what pays their bills.
> >>
> >
> >
>

[MarkN]

"Lori Piquet" <lpiquet@devx.com> wrote:
>Mark,
>That questions seems reasonable to me. We rotate the vote on Tuesday nights.

Sounds good to me.

>
>We'll use your suggestion next week. I think a good addition would be add
>another option: "Real Java programmers don't use IDEs."

That would be one too. I do use a Java IDE and it is missing nothing when
compared to VS.Net. I use VS.Net and VS (Classic ?) too.

>
>As to my comment on WebSphere, I only meant that it has not captured the
>market share that IBM would like. I think it's a disappointment to them
that
>they haven't beaten BEA. And that JBuilder continues to win most popularity
>contests done through Java magazines and polls.
>

I really didn't want to sound to critical but it probably sounded that way.
No one is perfect and I am far from it.

I don't know of any vendor who has captured the market share they would like
to.

As for JBuilder winning popularity contests - they are what they are. I
don't think they really prove anything. Eclipse has really gained popularity.

[Karl E. Peterson]

Phil Weber <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
> Perhaps you'll recall that VSM included demo copies of Delphi
^^^
Ahem! You misspelled "VBPJ". HTH!

> with one issue. Does that make it biased toward Borland?

Well, they also crowned it "Editor's Choice" in one issue, didn't they?

Later... Karl
--
[Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]

[MarkN]

"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
> > Does anyone else think that DevX and Fawcette clearly
> > favor Microsoft technologies in favor of alternatives?
>
>Randy: I work for Fawcette. If you look at Java Pro magazine, I think you'll
>have a difficult time finding any pro-Microsoft bias.

Did you even consider an non-MS solution for your project that you were discussing
in the VB.Net forum? Do you, or anyone on staff have enough knowledge in,
lets say Java, to do that?

>(Obviously, Visual
>Studio Magazine and .NET Magazine are going to favor Microsoft
>technologies.)
>
> > I also remember getting some VS.Net beta disks with
> > my Java Pro subscription.
>
>That's because Microsoft, as an advertiser, paid to include the disks with
>the magazine. Fawcette does not censor its advertisers; do you think it
>should? Perhaps you'll recall that VSM included demo copies of Delphi with
>one issue. Does that make it biased toward Borland?

To be fair, I have seen Java ads in MS specific technology mags.

[mxc]

I agree. My perception is that DevX is not so hot on technologies other than
MS's. This is a perception of mine which is created by experience of using
the site. For example it used to take ages for there to be updates to the
java section but there was always new stuff on the MS side of things.

Of course you can produce statistics to prove me wrong but all I am saying
that this is a perception I have and I think it is shared by many others.


"Randy" <blah@blah.com> wrote:
>
>Does anyone else think that DevX and Fawcette clearly favor Microsoft technologies
>in favor of alternatives?
>
>The latest poll asked "As a Java developer, which feature of the .NET IDE
>do you most covet?" DevX should really look at some of the MANY IDEs available
>to Java developers and see that most of the features of VS.Net are already
>available.
>
>I also remember getting some VS.Net beta disks with my Java Pro subscription.
>Back then I think DevX was still a part of Fawcette were. No more Java Pro
>for me!
>
>DevX should just change it's tune and become a site for M$ only technology
>since that is what pays their bills.
>

[MarkN]

>To answer your question, we did consider a Java-based CMS (FatWire), but
>since we don't have Java expertise on staff, we decided to go with what
we
>know.

That is what I figured. That is too bad.

[Phil Weber]

> Did you even consider an non-MS solution for your project that
> you were discussing in the VB.NET forum? Do you, or anyone on
> staff have enough knowledge in, lets say Java, to do that?

Mark: That's a different issue, IMHO. I understood the original poster to be
accusing FTP and DevX of *editorial* bias in favor of Microsoft. I have no
influence over FTP's editorial direction, so my personal bias is irrelevant.
And DevX has apparently been moving *away* from MS technologies on the back
end (see http://devilm.com/resume.doc ), so if internal IT decisions are an
indication of bias, DevX would be biased *against* MS, not for it.

To answer your question, we did consider a Java-based CMS (FatWire), but
since we don't have Java expertise on staff, we decided to go with what we
know.
--
Phil Weber

[Phil Weber]

> That is too bad.

Mark: Why? Sounds like a pro-Java bias. ;-)
--
Phil Weber

[Karl E. Peterson]

Phil Weber <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
>> That is too bad.
>
> Mark: Why? Sounds like a pro-Java bias. ;-)

Sounds like he's suggesting you (collectively) are not practicing what you preach --
best tool for the job, and all that -- eh?

Later... Karl
--
[Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]

[MarkN]

"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
> > That is too bad.
>
>Mark: Why?

That your (and those working with you ???) skill set is so limited.

>Sounds like a pro-Java bias. ;-)

Could be. :) Could be an MS bias on your part thinking that I had Java
in mind. :) x 2

[Phil Weber]

> Sounds like he's suggesting you (collectively) are not practicing
> what you preach -- best tool for the job, and all that -- eh?

Karl: Right. My question is, Why is Java a better tool for this job? We
don't need cross-platform; what else does Java offer that .NET doesn't?
--
Phil Weber

[MarkN]

And people usually preach "best tool for the job" and what they really mean
is the tool they know or pick from the tools they know.

"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
>Phil Weber <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
>>> That is too bad.
>>
>> Mark: Why? Sounds like a pro-Java bias. ;-)
>
>Sounds like he's suggesting you (collectively) are not practicing what you
preach --
>best tool for the job, and all that -- eh?
>
>Later... Karl
>--
>[Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]
>
>

[MarkN]

"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
> > Sounds like he's suggesting you (collectively) are not practicing
> > what you preach -- best tool for the job, and all that -- eh?
>
>Karl: Right. My question is, Why is Java a better tool for this job? We
>don't need cross-platform; what else does Java offer that .NET doesn't?
>--
>Phil Weber
>
>

>We don't need cross-platform

Phil, can borrow your crystal ball? I need to know something.

>what else does Java offer that .NET doesn't?
Check out Apache.org and Sourceforge for an answer.

[MarkN]

I saw your response. So, not knowing other platforms, how can you tell was
or wasn't better or superior? How can anyone then?

BTW, one can be knowledgeable and maybe expert on more than one thing. Unfortunately
it seems the majority aren't.

"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
> > That your...skill set is so limited.
>
>Mark: I can't be an expert at everything. It makes the most sense to focus
>on one platform at a time (see
>http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LordPalmerston.html ). If the Java
>solution had been vastly superior, I would have either learned Java, or
we
>would have brought in outside expertise. As it happened, .NET provided
>everything we need, and allowed us to leverage our existing resources. Not
>"too bad" at all.
>
>Did you see the question I posted in response to Karl's message?
>--
>Phil Weber
>
>

[Karl E. Peterson]

Hi Phil --

> > Sounds like he's suggesting you (collectively) are not practicing
> > what you preach -- best tool for the job, and all that -- eh?
>
> Karl: Right. My question is, Why is Java a better tool for this job?

I don't think that was what he was suggesting. Rather, that you stuck with what you
know, instead of determining the answer yourself. Funny how that can come back to
bite. <g>

Later... Karl
--
[Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]

[Phil Weber]

> That your...skill set is so limited.

Mark: I can't be an expert at everything. It makes the most sense to focus
on one platform at a time (see
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LordPalmerston.html ). If the Java
solution had been vastly superior, I would have either learned Java, or we
would have brought in outside expertise. As it happened, .NET provided
everything we need, and allowed us to leverage our existing resources. Not
"too bad" at all.

Did you see the question I posted in response to Karl's message?
--
Phil Weber

[Phil Weber]

>> what else does Java offer that .NET doesn't?
> Check out Apache.org and Sourceforge for an answer.

Mark: OK, touché. We only evaluated build v. buy; didn't consider "steal."
;-) Had we had existing Java expertise, an open source solution may have
been the best option.
--
Phil Weber

[Phil Weber]

> So, not knowing other platforms, how can you tell
> was or wasn't better or superior?

Mark: I wasn't talking about platform superiority, I was talking about
*product* superiority. We evaluated a couple of (very expensive) Java-based
content management systems, and concluded that they weren't vastly superior
to (equally expensive) MS-based solutions. We ended up deciding it would be
more cost-effective to develop our own.

To answer your question, however, I know enough about Java (the platform) to
know that it's functionally very similar to .NET. Other than cross-platform
(which is not an issue for us for the foreseeable future), Java didn't seem
to offer much advantage. As I've admitted elsewhere, we neglected to
consider open source, but since we don't have existing Java expertise, even
that would have cost us more (in training, time or consulting) than .NET.

And none of this has anything to do with the original poster's allegation of
editorial bias. ;-)
--
Phil Weber

[MarkN]

"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
> > So, not knowing other platforms, how can you tell
> > was or wasn't better or superior?
>
>Mark: I wasn't talking about platform superiority, I was talking about
>*product* superiority. We evaluated a couple of (very expensive) Java-based
>content management systems, and concluded that they weren't vastly superior
>to (equally expensive) MS-based solutions. We ended up deciding it would
be
>more cost-effective to develop our own.

I'm with you.

>
>To answer your question, however, I know enough about Java (the platform)
to
>know that it's functionally very similar to .NET. Other than cross-platform
>(which is not an issue for us for the foreseeable future), Java didn't seem
>to offer much advantage. As I've admitted elsewhere, we neglected to
>consider open source, but since we don't have existing Java expertise, even
>that would have cost us more (in training, time or consulting) than .NET.
>
>And none of this has anything to do with the original poster's allegation
of
>editorial bias. ;-)

I don't know enough about all the goings on with DevX and FTP and how they
relate, etc ... so I will [have to] believe you. It does seem to add fuel
to the fire though.

Thanks for being candid.

[MarkN]

"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
> >> what else does Java offer that .NET doesn't?
> > Check out Apache.org and Sourceforge for an answer.
>
>Mark: OK, touché. We only evaluated build v. buy; didn't consider "steal."
>;-) Had we had existing Java expertise, an open source solution may have
>been the best option.
>--
>Phil Weber
>
>

That is why I am always looking and studying both MS and non-MS technologies.
There is no way one can know all technologies. But they can be open mined
and know more than one. And should. But like I said before, most aren't
and don't. And thus there are Microsoft shops and IBM shops, and etc. "The
best tool for the job" as a rule never happens. I don't think your experience
is the exception. Not from my experience. The days are gone when knowing
one tool was sufficient. The old days of only JCL, COBOL and IMS (for example)
are gone. Plus with the internet and all the other info available, the ability
to find answers is more important having a gazillion years experience with
one tool. I do it time and time again. Someone posted a question in the
Java section on MySQL. I've never used it but I do know Oracle, DB2 and
SQL Server. I downloaded the manual and found the answer in a couple of
minutes. You might say the majority people can't do that. I would say they
probably shouldn't be doing this then. The computer field (or whatever you
want to call it) is like the old west. We have many "Snake Oil Salesman",
vetenarians, people who know how to gut animals (and maybe stuf them) but
few real doctors [who work on humans].


The biggest advantage of Java is its community and unfortunately, it is the
most overlooked advantage and the one you overlooked.

[Larry Serflaten]

"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote
> We ended up deciding it would be
> more cost-effective to develop our own.

Let's mark that one on the calender, and see how it fares a year from now!

<g>
LFS

[Phil Weber]

> Let's mark that one on the calendar, and see how
> it fares a year from now!

Larry: OK. ;-) The software licenses alone would have cost more than twice
my annual salary, then we would have had customization and deployment costs
on top of that.
--
Phil Weber

[scott]

"MarkN" <m@n.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>To answer your question, we did consider a Java-based CMS (FatWire), but
>>since we don't have Java expertise on staff, we decided to go with what
>we
>>know.
>
>That is what I figured. That is too bad.

Going with what you know is the way 99.9% of projects determine their technologies.
If you don't do that, you're wondering around in the dark trying to figure
out the technology as well as trying to figure out what the users want.
Reducing risk by using a technology that you can produce in is a no brainer.
Use a tool that works for you. Good idea.

[scott]

the best tool for the job is one that gets it done. they all do 99.9% of the
same thing using different syntax. if you require something in that .1%
then you'll be forced to use a specific tool. but you should be wondering,
why am I doing something that 99.9% of the projects out there don't require
(ie the tools don't support it for a reason).


"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
>Phil Weber <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
>>> That is too bad.
>>
>> Mark: Why? Sounds like a pro-Java bias. ;-)
>
>Sounds like he's suggesting you (collectively) are not practicing what you
preach --
>best tool for the job, and all that -- eh?
>
>Later... Karl
>--
>[Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]
>
>