Companies Using .NET - Page 14


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 196 to 208 of 208

Thread: Companies Using .NET

  1. #196
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: Companies Using .NET


    <snip long rabbling post>

    I think you're so far gone, you don't even remember what we were talking
    about. The original node for this part of the thread was....

    ---

    > .NET , Passport
    >, My Services, etc. are all pretty well linked together .
    >I have read
    >several press releases over the past year from Microsoft and all of these
    >things are a part of their .NET initiative.


    ---

    ...to which I replied...

    ---

    No, there is no link whatsoever. AFAIK, Passport and .NET My Services are
    simply XML Web Services. At most, they're applications of .NET, not .NET
    itself. As an analogy, DOOM is an application for DOS, it is not DOS itself
    These are two different things. IOW, Application <> Platform. Further, Passport
    and .NET My Services may not even be implemented using .NET. That is to say
    that XML Web Services are platform independent. You can, for example, create
    XML Web Services using VB6 and SOAP toolkit...no .NET involved at all. Now,
    I don't believe I've heard Microsoft indicate which platform Passport and
    .NET My Services were created on. If they're creating using .NET, then they're
    simply applications of .NET. If they're created using VB6 or VC6, then .NET
    was not involved at all.

    Microsoft has done a very poor job explaining .NET to the public.

    ---

    You have yet to provide a *single* cite that disagrees with my above statements.
    Further, you have consistently demonstrated your inability to distinguish
    between an application and a platform. You have consistently demonstrated
    your inability to distinguish the difference between technology and marketing.


    So, again, I ask you...

    - Do you understand the difference between an application and a platform?

    - Do you understand the difference between marketing and technology?

    Please, don't dodge these questions again.

    I have provided *several* cites regarding the difference between the marketing
    of .NET and the actual .NET technology. For example...

    ---

    Avoiding Confusion - the Role of the .NET Enterprise Servers

    Microsoft has already released several products, which they describe as part
    of the .NET Enterprise Server family. More of these are coming, and most
    will be released by the time this book is published. Some of the marketing
    literature for these products emphasizes that they are part of Microsoft's
    .NET strategy.

    However, it is important that you understand the difference between these
    products and the .NET Framework, which is the focus of this book. The .NET
    Enterprise servers ARE NOT built on the .NET Framework. Most of them are
    successors to previous server-based products, and they use the same COM/COM+
    technologies their predecessors did.

    ---
    The above quote is from Introducing .NET, Chris Ullman et al, Wrox Press
    (page 11).

    I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but one more time...

    - Do you understand the difference between an application and a platform?

    - Do you understand the difference between marketing and technology?

    I don't mind discussing these issues with you, but there's no point in continuing
    this discussion if you're going to keep ducking these questions....

    /Pat

  2. #197
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: Companies Using .NET


    >> > Even Rob Teixeira has admitted that your claim is
    >> >false.

    >
    >> No, there is no contradiction between my statements and Rob's.

    >
    >No, his statement flatly contradicted yours, as stated. You claimed
    >"there is no link whatsoever." He acknowledged *one* of the areas of
    >linkage, while ignoring another.


    That's about as bold a lie as they come. Rob Teixeira and I agree on this
    point and Rob even told you so in his last post...

    "And if you read on, you'd see that the only 'link' I cited was the name
    or
    marketing designation, which incidently, is what Patrick said."

    /Pat

  3. #198
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Companies Using .NET

    On 28 Nov 2001 19:41:05 GMT, "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com>
    wrote:

    >Look, I'm the last one to think that MS is squeaky clean in it's prior business
    >practices.


    That's great news. At least you haven't got your head so far in as
    some I won't care to name here.

    > I think MS' defense in the cases in question was seriously flawed


    You're right. Bill Gates' "testimony"? Ha! That video on how to
    "uninstall" IE? Huh? I've read at least two books (maybe there was a
    third - I read so many, I can't remember just this minute) on the
    pursuance of that trial, and there is so much in black and white that
    cannot be refuted because it took place in a court of law. Well, I've
    got a pretty good idea just how seriously flawed their defence was,
    and how at the start they were all so complacent.

    >(to which I must add that I feel the prosecutions' handling of the case was
    >equally flawed, which could have turned into a disaster for the tech industry
    >in general).


    Firstly, it is widely accepted that David Boies did an outstandingly
    brilliant job. To say that they didn't make some mistakes would be
    stretching the truth, but to say that their handling was "equally
    flawed", I do not agree with you on this point. "Somewhat flawed" I
    would have let you take home and keep; but "equally flawed", no way!

    Secondly, what is this "disaster"? So a company found guilty is
    permitted, with just a slap on the wrist it seems, to carry on
    regardless, because it's more important to avoid a tech disaster than
    uphold the law? By letting Microsoft off the hook, depending on the
    outcome of the nine states against the ruling, a message is sent to
    all other companies: Break the law and then use the "disaster for the
    tech industry" defence. The law, surely, is more important than
    keeping people's jobs going? Otherwise those jobs are being maintained
    fraudulently, no? If 100,000 jobs go to the wall, what is more
    important - the jobs or the law? Fundamentally, it comes down to
    whether one truly believes in and respects democracy for its own sake
    and won't try to bend it to suit a particular stock holding.

    In any case, if there were any kind of tech disaster of which you
    speak, I believe that America and the rest of the world would bounce
    back quite rapidly. Because they would be forced to look at
    alternatives. Sure, there'd be panic for a week or two, maybe een a
    month or two, but then stock holders would realise that there are
    many, many other companies in the world in which to invest, and your
    tech disater could be turned around into a tech triumph for a few
    startups only too eager to compete on a level playing field at last.
    Plus, the VCs would start loaning them money again.

    MM

  4. #199
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: Companies Using .NET


    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >On 28 Nov 2001 20:01:35 GMT, "Patrick Troughton"
    ><Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Microsoft has done a very poor job explaining .NET to the public.

    >
    >No, from their point of view they have done an excellent job! They
    >have allowed .NET to become *the* buzz word of the year


    I agree .NET is the buzzword of the year (and deservedly so), and from this
    perspective they have done a great job. To clarify, my comment was from a
    technology perspective.

    /Pat



  5. #200
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Companies Using .NET

    On 28 Nov 2001 20:01:35 GMT, "Patrick Troughton"
    <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:

    >Microsoft has done a very poor job explaining .NET to the public.


    No, from their point of view they have done an excellent job! They
    have allowed .NET to become *the* buzz word of the year without having
    to actually come clean about it. What a brilliant marketing ploy!
    Remember that adage "never apologise, never explain"? Well, that sums
    up the whole .NET initiative. By keeping its purpose vaguely web
    servicy, vaguely Passporty, vaguely My Servicesy, a bit SOAPy, a bit
    XMLy, and so on, Microsoft can bend us, the unsuspecting public, into
    any form it likes, like one of those balloons in the market the man
    bends into the shape of a dog.

    But they're not going to make any real money from Passport, or from My
    Services, or from selling the .NET framework (this I believe they will
    be giving away anyway, no?), whereas from web services, if they play
    their cards right, they could stand to make a mint, especially if
    those web services have the Microsoft seal of approval. You can guess
    at some typical slogans: "Choose a web service authorised by Microsoft
    and you'll know it will work." The authors of the web service will pay
    a license fee to Microsoft for each time it is used. And perhaps the
    end user will also pay for each use, too, as a thank-you to Microsoft
    for taking the trouble to provide those authors with the wherewithal
    to market their product as a Microsoft-authorised web service.
    Potentially, huge amounts of money here. Like I say, brilliant, if you
    like that sort of thing, which I don't.

    MM

  6. #201
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Companies Using .NET

    In article <3c05429f$1@147.208.176.211>,
    "Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> writes:

    <snip gratuitous insults>

    > The original node for this part of the thread was....


    > ---

    Interesting that you chose not to credit this part. It was posted by
    james" <jamesw2@mesh.net>:

    > > .NET , Passport, My Services, etc. are all pretty well linked
    > > together. I have read several press releases over the past year
    > > from Microsoft and all of these things are a part of their .NET
    > > initiative.


    Now, notice that james said nothing about "technical" linkages, or
    about what was used to write/compile what, or the like. But he did
    *explicitly* address the strategic linkage described in the press
    releases and statements of M$ executives (including Bill Gates).

    > ---


    > ..to which I replied...


    > ---


    > No, there is no link whatsoever.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Notice the wording. Not "No technical linkage." Not "No linkage except
    strategic, marketing, and organizational." Instead, it is the
    absolute - and absolutely incorrect - "no link whatsoever."

    > AFAIK, Passport and .NET My Services are simply XML Web Services.


    .... absolutely irrelevant to the strategic linkage James addressed ...

    > At most, they're applications of .NET, not .NET itself.


    .... absolutely irrelevant to the strategic linkage James addressed ...

    > As an analogy, DOOM is an application for DOS, it is not DOS itself
    > These are two different things.


    .... absolutely irrelevant to the strategic linkage James addressed,
    unless you can show that *both* sets of relevant executives proclaimed
    them to be critical parts of a joint initiative and the organizations
    were combined to create a division tasked with promoting that
    initiative ...

    > IOW, Application <> Platform.


    .... absolutely irrelevant to the strategic linkage James addressed ...

    > Further, Passport and .NET My Services may not even be implemented
    > using .NET.


    .... absolutely irrelevant to the strategic linkage James addressed ...

    > That is to say that XML Web Services are platform independent.


    .... absolutely irrelevant to the strategic linkage James addressed ...

    > You can, for example, create XML Web Services using VB6 and SOAP
    > toolkit...no .NET involved at all.


    .... absolutely irrelevant to the strategic linkage James addressed ...

    > Now, I don't believe I've heard Microsoft indicate which platform
    > Passport and NET My Services were created on.


    .... absolutely irrelevant to the strategic linkage James addressed ...

    > If they're creating using .NET, then they're simply applications of
    > .NET.


    .... absolutely irrelevant to the strategic linkage James addressed ...

    > If they're created using VB6 or VC6, then .NET was not involved at
    > all.


    .... absolutely irrelevant to the strategic linkage James addressed ...

    > Microsoft has done a very poor job explaining .NET to the public.


    .... True, but absolutely irrelevant to the strategic linkage James
    addressed.

    > ---


    > You have yet to provide a *single* cite that disagrees with my
    > above statements.


    Wrong. I have provided several cites which disagree with your
    characterization of "no link whatsoever" - especially in the original
    context of James' discussion of the strategic linkage. I have cited
    statements of various Micro$oft executives - including Bill Gates -
    which discuss the strategic linkage James addressed. I also cited
    descriptions of the Micro$oft corporate reorganization which were
    explicitly designed to support that strategic linkage (according to
    Micro$oft).

    > Further, you have consistently demonstrated your inability to
    > distinguish between an application and a platform.


    Wrong. You have simply and consistently demonstrated your inability to
    understand and address the nature and impact of strategic linkages
    among different parts of the initiative.

    > You have consistently demonstrated your inability to distinguish the
    > difference between technology and marketing.


    Not at all. But you have consistently demonstrated your inability to
    comprehend the impact of strategic, organizational, and marketing
    forces on the form and use of the technical products.

    > So, again, I ask you...


    > - Do you understand the difference between an application and a
    > platform?


    Yes. And once again, I ask you...

    - Do you understand the difference between a strategic linkage and
    a momentary technical linkage?

    > - Do you understand the difference between marketing and technology?


    Yes.

    - Do you understand which parts of the organization shape the design,
    release, and licensing of *both* applications and platforms in
    Micro$oft?

    > Please, don't dodge these questions again.


    I haven't been "dodging" them at all. You, OTOH, have been dodging the
    issue that James raised in the original post: the strategic linkages
    between the products he enumerated. Please stop dodging that issue and
    address it directly.

    > I have provided *several* cites regarding the difference between
    > the marketing of .NET and the actual .NET technology. For example...


    *None* of which address the strategic linkage between the products and
    initiatives in question, and seemingly all of which address products
    from groups outside of Eric Rudder's rather than the relevant groups
    which are *within* his group. In particular, you seem to favor
    addressing Paul Flessner's group (as does your "example").

    > ---


    > Avoiding Confusion - the Role of the .NET Enterprise Servers


    > ---
    > The above quote is from Introducing .NET, Chris Ullman et al, Wrox
    > Press (page 11).


    As opposed to the statements from *directly involved* Micro$oft
    executives - statements which emphasize the strategic linkages between
    the products in question.

    > I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but one more time...


    > - Do you understand the difference between an application and a
    > platform?


    Yes. Do you understand the difference between "a combination of
    strategic, organizational, and marketing links" and "no link
    whatsoever"?

    Do you even understand the difference between "Strategy and Business
    Development" and Marketing?

    > - Do you understand the difference between marketing and technology?


    Yes. Do you understand which one is "in the driver's seat" regarding
    the nature, release, and end use of a product - especially at Micro$oft?

    > I don't mind discussing these issues with you, but there's no point
    > in continuing this discussion if you're going to keep ducking these
    > questions....


    That is just the point - you are the one ducking and dodging the
    relevant issues raised by James and me.

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  7. #202
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: Companies Using .NET


    <snip even longer, not on topic, rambling post>

    LOL! James never even used the phrase "strategic linkage"! That's something
    you just invented 20 posts into this thread! Wow. You finally realized you
    lost the argument, now you want to change what the argument was about....heheh.

    My original two points were, and still are....

    1) Platform <> Application. Specifically, that Passport and .NET My Services
    are at best, applications of .NET, not .NET itself. This has proven to be
    correct.

    2) Marketing <> Technology. Specifically, Microsoft is marketing certain
    products as part of .NET even though they don't actually use .NET. This,
    too, has proven to be correct.

    Unlike you, I have not attempted to change my original statements. Rather
    I have explained and backed them up with *numerous* cites while you have
    provided *none*.

    For example, in the book "Professional .NET Framework" by Wrox Press, it
    says....

    "Many of the .NET Enterprise Server products are already familiar to you,
    and have product life cycles that were initiated prior to the .NET initiative,
    so it's important to realize that, to some extent, Microsoft is putting a
    new spin on its products. SQL Server 2000 for example, was released well
    before .NET. It was not built on .NET."

    ....if you don't believe me, you can see for yourself by going to your local
    bookstore, picking up a copy of the book and turning to page 18.

    As I said in my last post, I don't mind discussing this, but as long as you
    keep ducking questions and avoding the issue, there is no point in continuing.
    We're just going around in circles and I'm running out of different ways
    to say the exact same things over and over again. And I'm sure the rest of
    the newsgroup is getting sick of this pointless argument.

    That said, this will be my last post on this thread. Respond if you want,
    but I won't reply back.

    Good-bye.

    /Pat

  8. #203
    Jay Glynn Guest

    Re: Companies Using .NET

    Have you not been listening at all. I just spent 2 days giving presentations
    and demos at Microsoft. I created and used about 2 dozen different web
    services and guess what, I didn't have to pay anyone a dime. Mike listen
    carefully.. You do not, I repeat you DO NOT HAVE TO PAY in order to create
    and use a web service. Write it down Mike and refer to it aften. Maybe you
    could just print out this message. One more time Mike just to make sure.


    **** YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PAY TO USE OR CREATE A WEB SERVICE ****



    > But they're not going to make any real money from Passport, or from My
    > Services, or from selling the .NET framework (this I believe they will
    > be giving away anyway, no?), whereas from web services, if they play
    > their cards right, they could stand to make a mint, especially if
    > those web services have the Microsoft seal of approval. You can guess
    > at some typical slogans: "Choose a web service authorised by Microsoft
    > and you'll know it will work." The authors of the web service will pay
    > a license fee to Microsoft for each time it is used. And perhaps the
    > end user will also pay for each use, too, as a thank-you to Microsoft
    > for taking the trouble to provide those authors with the wherewithal
    > to market their product as a Microsoft-authorised web service.
    > Potentially, huge amounts of money here. Like I say, brilliant, if you
    > like that sort of thing, which I don't.
    >






  9. #204
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Companies Using .NET

    In article <3c05a072$1@147.208.176.211>,
    "Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> writes:

    > <snip even longer, not on topic, rambling post>


    Interesting...refuting your claims item by item is somehow "not
    on topic?" Looks more like an attempt to distract readers from
    how badly off-target your claims were.

    > LOL! James never even used the phrase "strategic linkage"!


    In fact, his description of the linkage was "all of these things are
    a part of their .NET initiative" - which *describes* a strategic
    linkage. Do you really think the readers here are so stupid as to fail
    to recognize that, or are you just hoping that your attempt to hide
    from the specifics of the previous post will keep them from seeing it?

    > That's something you just invented 20 posts into this thread!


    Nope. I addressed it from my first reply to your "no link whatsoever"
    claim. As I discussed in the post you are trying so desperately to
    hide from. And there have not been that many posts from my first reply
    to your "no link whatsoever" claim last Monday to the current post.

    > Wow. You finally realized you lost the argument,


    LOL!!! Nice try, but your clear attempts to hide from the facts
    discussed in my last two posts mark you as the one who has come to
    such a realization. Instead of trying to factually refute my (well
    supported) statements, you just try to pretend they don't exist.

    > now you want to change what the argument was about....heheh.


    Nope. The "argument" was about James' statement that ".NET , Passport,
    My Services, etc." are linked together by virtue of being parts of
    Micro$oft's .NET initiative (IOW a strategic linkage), as indicated
    by Micro$oft press releases and public statements by relevant Micro$oft
    executives. And your response that there was "no link whatsoever"
    between them. Your red herrings about "technical linkages"
    notwithstanding, you have yet to post anything which refutes James'
    original point.

    > My original two points were, and still are....


    > 1) Platform <> Application.


    Which is still completely irrelevant to the *fact* that the things in
    question are linked by virtue of being parts of Micro$oft's .NET
    initiative (strategic linkage).

    [...]

    > 2) Marketing <> Technology.


    Which is still completely irrelevant to the *fact* that the things in
    question are linked by virtue of being parts of Micro$oft's .NET
    initiative. But it does seem to highlight your apparent inability to
    differentiate between "Strategy and Business Development" and
    marketing. And your apparent inability to understand that both of
    those drive the development, characterists, release, and use of the
    "technology" rather than the other way around.

    [...]

    > Unlike you, I have not attempted to change my original statements.


    While you have simply attempted to *hide* from your original statements
    (and mine), I have repeatedly quoted your statements and mine. From the
    beginning I have been addressing and refuting your incorrect "no link
    whatsoever" statement, while you have been trying to change that
    statement into something more limited.

    > Rather I have explained and backed them up with *numerous* cites
    > while you have provided *none*.


    Interesting that you keep retreating to that tired attempt at a lie,
    while trying to hide from the previous posts which clearly refuted it.
    Those so-called "points" have nothing to do with your claim that james
    was wrong to state that things were linked by virtue of being parts of
    Micro$oft's .NET initiative, and that there was "no link whatsoever"
    between them. And your "cites" have addressed a product (.Net Enterprise
    Servers, under Paul Flessner) which is not part of the organizational
    structure (under Eric Rudder) that unites the things James cited, rather
    than addressing the relationship (/linkage) between those within Eric
    Rudder's group.

    OTOH, I have cited statements by Bill Gates, Jim Allchin, Eric Rudder,
    and Tom Button which verify the strategic linkages in question, as
    well as the organizational restructuring that placed those things (but
    not .NET Enterprise Servers) together under Eric Rudder.

    [yet another "Enterprise Server" cite snipped]

    > ...if you don't believe me, you can see for yourself by going to
    > your local bookstore, picking up a copy of the book and turning to
    > page 18.


    But what has that got to do with the linkages between those things
    falling under Eric Rudder's group - the things addressed in James'
    original post? You keep trying to duck the fact that Paul Flessner's
    group is not a part of Eric Rudder's group, and that the linkages
    James cited are within Rudder's group. You might as well be arguing
    that VB.NET and ASP.NET are not linked because some authors have
    described a distance between them and XBOX.

    > As I said in my last post, I don't mind discussing this, but as long
    > as you keep ducking questions and avoding the issue,


    Neither of which I am doing. The issue was your "no link whatsoever"
    claim in response to James' statement of linkage by virtue of being
    parts of Micro$oft's .NET initiative (strategic linkage, supported by
    organizational linkage). No matter how much you duck, dodge, or throw
    red herrings, in the end you cannot escape the fact that strategic,
    organizational, and marketing linkages are absolute refutations of the
    claim that there is "no link whatsoever".

    > there is no point in continuing.


    Certainly not as long as you continue to try and hide from my responses
    (marking your refusal to quote and address the points therein with
    childish insults) rather than addressing them.

    > We're just going around in circles and I'm running out of different
    > ways to say the exact same things over and over again.


    The point being that "the same things over and over again" *still* do
    not address James' statement of strategic linkage (by virtue of being
    parts of Micro$oft's .NET initiative). Or your own "No, there is no
    link whatsoever" response to his statement. Perhaps if you would
    address the original point rather than mindlessly repeating yourself,
    the discussion could move on to the more interesting points concerning
    such existing linkages. Or, of course, you could simply admit that you
    were wrong to make such an absolute claim in the first place - that
    there are linkages after all, but not (narrowly defined) immediate
    technical linkages.

    > And I'm sure the rest of the newsgroup is getting sick of this
    > pointless argument.


    They have not been slow to express such tiredness in the past, so it
    seems pointless to speculate why they have failed to express it in
    this case. I prefer not to claim to read their minds.

    > That said, this will be my last post on this thread.


    Probably just as well, given your repeated refusal to address the
    original issue (James' statement of strategic linkage by virtue of
    being parts of Micro$oft's .NET initiative and your own "No, there is
    no link whatsoever" response to his statement) or the evidence which
    supports James' statement.

    > Respond if you want, but I won't reply back.


    IOW you know you were wrong in the first place, but you can't bring
    yourself to admit it or correct your original "no link whatsoever"
    claim.

    We'll see whether you stick to it.

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  10. #205
    Phil Weber Guest

    Re: Companies Using .NET

    > I'm sure the rest of the newsgroup is getting sick of this point-
    > less argument. That said, this will be my last post on this thread.
    > Respond if you want, but I won't reply back.


    Pat: Thank you! It takes maturity to abandon a pointless argument in the
    face of continued baiting. I, for one, applaud your decision to do so.
    ---
    Phil Weber



  11. #206
    Kathleen Dollard Guest

    Re: Companies Using .NET

    Rob,

    There are times that my attempts at satire arrive a little too subtle.

    I am glad that you took the opportunity to point out with clarity the point
    that I attempted to make in satire. It is very exciting to see MS opening
    up, and challenging themselves on every front. It is exactly the opposite of
    what IBM, et al, did in the 1980's.

    MS's current efforts are at an open dynamic marketplace where you too can
    play ball at a new level. If the argument that openness is an effort to take
    over the world makes sense, then you should be afraid, but not exactly of
    the external. .

    It is my belief (stated clearly as opinion here), that MS is wed to PC
    growth at a very deep level, and that they know they can not alone take PCs
    to the next level of expansion. Their route to profitablity is not to take
    over the world, but to continue what they always have of riding the growth
    they work to inspire. Very exciting new steps are out there, including the
    XBox and other hardware innovations, as well as .NET.

    Unfortunately I was out of town and just now able to clarify my post.

    Kathleen
    ..



  12. #207
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: Companies Using .NET


    "Kathleen Dollard" <kathleen@mvps.org> wrote:
    >Rob,
    >
    >There are times that my attempts at satire arrive a little too subtle.


    Actually, having seen the flavor of your previous posts as well as your book,
    I was sure that was the case. I just didn't want to leave any room for other
    (intentionally unnamed) people to start using your material as more kindling
    for their posts.

    >I am glad that you took the opportunity to point out with clarity the point
    >that I attempted to make in satire. It is very exciting to see MS opening
    >up, and challenging themselves on every front. It is exactly the opposite

    of
    >what IBM, et al, did in the 1980's.


    I'm very excited about this for a number of reasons. Primarily, because it
    now forces MS to write decidedly superior software in order to remain afloat.
    In a sense, they've shown they are now committed and have layed all the cards
    on the table.
    But more importantly, I've felt for years that other companies have heaped
    a bunch of nonsense allegations on MS. Certainly, MS has made what I consider
    some serious errors in the past, including the blatent stealing of code -
    stuff I would prefer to not see again. However, this has now become the banner
    call for these other companies, when the truth of the matter is that their
    lack of ability to compete with MS stems far more from the fact that their
    own products lack the quality they attribute to MS products.
    So in essence, MS has not only layed all the cards on the table, but has
    also called everyone else's bluff. From now on, lack of openess and lack
    of standards can't be used as excuses by anyone.

    >MS's current efforts are at an open dynamic marketplace where you too can
    >play ball at a new level. If the argument that openness is an effort to

    take
    >over the world makes sense, then you should be afraid, but not exactly of
    >the external. .


    Exactly.
    In the end quality matters more than concepts like open source and open standards.
    Now, everyone will be forced to put up or shut up.

    >It is my belief (stated clearly as opinion here), that MS is wed to PC
    >growth at a very deep level, and that they know they can not alone take

    PCs
    >to the next level of expansion. Their route to profitablity is not to take
    >over the world, but to continue what they always have of riding the growth
    >they work to inspire.


    It's a very cyclical set of phases. Software driving hardware, followed by
    hardware driving software, and so on and so on..
    We'll see whether or not this latest manuever kickstarts the PC market again.

    >Very exciting new steps are out there, including the
    >XBox and other hardware innovations, as well as .NET.


    I have to say (as someone who was formerly very close to MS hardware) that
    I didn't think very much of MS hardware a few years ago. However, I'm *very*
    impressed with the XBox from a hardware perspective. If the quality that
    went into that is indicative of MS' new direction, including things like
    software, then I think we're in for a good ride.

    -Rob

  13. #208
    stever Guest

    Re: Companies Using .NET

    getting back to the initial purpose of this thread--

    looks like MSFT's bCentral, at least the Listbuilder component, is using
    ASP.NET now (.ASPX pages appear).






Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center