.NET is .NOT according to this article
IS .NET ON THE WAY OUT?
Puzzling... We in the blogosphere realize that web services not only exist but can operate across many paltforms. That Microsoft would appear to be dropping the .NET framework is if true yet another Microsoft misstep. NGSCB may turn out to be the next hot potato they toss a few megabucks at and then drop when the fancy takes them. The oxymoron 'Microsoft Security', and all that...
So now it's April 2003 and I'm hearing that .NET is dead--that Microsoft will continue downplaying both the name .NET and the technologies behind it. You can find hints all around that this ".NOT" strategy might be happening right now. The 64-bit versions of Windows Server 2003 (once called Windows .NET Server, by the way) contain absolutely no .NET bits at all: No .NET Framework and no ASP .NET. Exchange Server 2003, the company's next major messaging server, contains no .NET. Office 2003, the premier office productivity suite, contains XML functionality only in the high-cost business versions and contains few native .NET features. In the biggest year ever of new product introductions from Microsoft, few if any of its products promote .NET, its supposed vision for the future.
See also Standards: Doomed to Repeat Itself?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: .NET is .NOT according to this article.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://kennethhunt.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/778
3 Comments
Search
The Open Prosthetics Project
Open Source Ecology
Safari Online
invest in kevlar
chris harrison
Mike Erdely
Andrew W. Moore
Talking Out Loud with ASB
ducea
Andrew Baker
*scottstuff*
Ask Bjorn Hansen
Joe Topjian
John Sequeira's Weblog
Team Murder
defective yeti
postneo
Ben Hammersley
Chez Chrissie
The Frosty Mug Revolution
Jeremy Zawodny's blog
Lucas Gonze
Eric Norlin
slashdot
John Vu
Net Observer
Books Observer
Sterling
Bill Buxton
Melanie Rieback
My point was that .NET which was touted by Microsoft as the greatest thing since sliced bread was not living up to the promise.
Weblogs have been interacting with services for sometime, RSS, RDF, Pings and Trackbacks, etc etc.
I think that .NET is an example of a Microsoft 1.0 Project. Anything from Microsoft in the first revision should be adopted with great caution.
Just proof that Microsoft doesn't innovate but rather iterates through to a stable product.
Huh? I'd played with this a couple years back. (It's not done yet?) Seems that everyone that had a service to offer wanted $$$ to access that service. Most had minescule charges but they were charges. Very few people were providing services for free which weren't already available elsewhere on the Internet.
Another, much simpler explanation: Office, Windows, Exchange, .NET framework are on a multi-year schedules which means that it takes time (a lot of it) to add anything to those products. If you add synchronization problems (you cannot start adding .NET framework until it's actually done and shipped) it's not that hard to believe that Microsoft simply didn't have the time and resources to integrate .NET technologies into their other products.