C#, XML, SOAP. Is The Internet Gonna Be The Microsoft Network in 10 Years?

[fist]de_psIRE

This is my first post, so bear with me or ignore me.

Ive been readin up a bit on the Microsoft combination of XML, SOAP and the new C# and it looks like they're tryin to convert the internet into the old Microsoft Network with pay-per-use Windows Apps (the .net project), complete web-sites that dont provide external links. I dont like it one bit, if they were to get a hold of the isp market aswell as the OS market (ie Microsoft Office only available if Microsoft is yr ISP) the freedom that created the internet would be gone.

Ne1 Have ne ideas on the subject?

Shiminay

2 words...

Open

and

Source


They'll never take *all* the web, but I can see your point. A vast majority of services that we currently take for granted are quite possibly gonna go down this road. There's a beta of Visual Studio.NET flying around our office and while I've only have a quick look - it's got all this pre-built stuff that'll make development very centralised on the whole internet area (and owning the internet area).

Interesting times ahead...

---

All the best,

Dav
@B^)

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Prepare yourself - The Beefy King stirs from his slumber...</font>

[honey i] violated [the kids]

Snaggle

Both XML and SOAP are open standards, regardless of Microsoft's use or involvement in them. There are more non Microsoft products that support both of the above than Microsoft products who do. Microsoft C# at the moment is nothing special, you can like it to a poor man's Java at best.

I wouldn't worry about Microsoft trying to lock down the Internet, remember Compuserve? They were massive, until the Internet came along and Compuserve tried to make everybody use their proprietary gear and now who uses them? In case you're thinking that everything Microsoft touches turns to gold, what about MSN, remember when every new windows installation had a setup MSN button? Who uses that?

[fist]de_psIRE

As i think i implied, i really don't know my stuff, Ive just read a few articles and spoken to a few people and its made me interested.

So C# is pants at the moment, but isnt it so incredibly similar to Java that an expert java programmer could pick it up in a few days? And with Microsoft's control over Internet Explorer they could very easily make C# a more attractive package, avoiding the monopoly issue as they have produced software to make the two compatible (technically compatible, realistically uncompatible). This makes C# the language of choice to be as widely compatible as possible???

Its my opinion that, ok they've had a few flops, but if u look at how fast they rolled out IE to compete and swallow Netscape, isnt it feasible that the same copycat modus operandi will work here???????

Loomer

Big Words make Loomer something something

kayos

I think ppl are getting the wrong end of the stick here. The whole thing with .NET is that it will have Internet functionality built in from the start as opposed to bolting it on later (even Java is guilty here). Another big thing with .Net is that all Languages have the one run time (this is called the Common Language Runtime or CLR for short). Nothing to special you say but the whole thing abot the CLR is its open to other companies to addin support for their programming lang. eg there is all ready some one doing the port for COBOL to the CLR and it aint microsoft. Also the idea behind the CLR is to be platform independent again the linux version is already in the pipe lines (Corel are doing this me thinks). When you compile .Net managed code you only really compile down to a IL which the Runtime then compiles down to the proper native byte code. So if you develop an app in Windows you can bring it straight away onto a Linux box that has the CLR and it runs (again I could be wrong here but this is what I took my reading material to mean). ADO and XML are built into the CLR as well which reduces the dependices for a target machine all you need is your platforms CLR. I think it will really work well. I have the Beta installed at home and I am messing around with it and I most say I really like it and I cann't wait to start proper dev work in it.

Just my two cents worth

kayos.Net

Void

.NET is a standard. People will be able to develop .NET servers to run on Linux/Mac/Whatever. It's just another attempt to solve to built a programming "Tower of Babel". Whether it's a good thing or not...

Hobbes

Tower of babel where MS own the keys.

MS and open standards doesn't exist. Only time you'll see the two in a sentance.

Derek Bell

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by [fist]de_psIRE:
So C# is pants at the moment, but isnt it so incredibly similar to Java that an expert java programmer could pick it up in a few days? And with Microsoft's control over Internet Explorer they could very easily make C# a more attractive package, avoiding the monopoly issue as they have produced software to make the two compatible (technically compatible, realistically uncompatible). This makes C# the language of choice to be as widely compatible as possible???

Its my opinion that, ok they've had a few flops, but if u look at how fast they rolled out IE to compete and swallow Netscape, isnt it feasible that the same copycat modus operandi will work here???????</font>

Microsoft have had their failures, too. E.g. MSN.

Hobbes

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by [fist]de_psIRE:
Its my opinion that, ok they've had a few flops, but if u look at how fast they rolled out IE to compete and swallow Netscape, isnt it feasible that the same copycat modus operandi will work here???????</font>

Oh yes, the famous IE from out of nowhere. Actually the core code of IE when it was released was licensed from another company called Spyglass.

When MS released their IE browser for free, they put Spyglass out of business overnight. After all what's the point of all the customers renewing thier licenses if they can get the exact same thing for free from MS.

So that is the kind of state of the art innovation you can look forward too.

I recall on /. some time back they tried to figure out what Microsoft actually "Made". You would be surprised at how little was orginally from microsoft.

Void

A civilised discussion concerning Microsoft?? What next!?

Hobbes, SOAP is a Microsoft led open standard project isn't it?

Also, I would contend that DirectX is a good example of M$ innovation (exception proving the rule?). Apparently, the DX developers had to endure serious internal hassle when they first started off (theres some book about their struggle within M$). Lamentably, OpenGL is the main casualty, but it wasn't evolving fast enough to keep pace with the technology, survival of the fittest etc.

Hobbes

There is a good page on SOAP + .NET written by the CEO of Sun. Goes into how unoriginal SOAP is.

MS version of open standards leaves a lot to be desired. I'm sure you will find a few examples if you did a search for open standards and microsoft on /. The term "Embrace and extend" changed to a dirty term thanks to MS.

As for DX beating OpenGL. Go read the DOJ vs MS finding of facts. Basically MS attempted to kill off OpenGL because they saw that it would mean that developers could easily port thier games to other platforms, and if they could do that then they could have thier customers move away from Windows. Ok you won't find the OpenGL bit there, but you will see similar happenings and also information the motives behind DX.

Also if you look through some game site archives you will see a large number of the gaming industry petitioned MS to support OpenGL over DirectX and MS just basically told them 2GFT.

ecksor

Relying on slashdot and sun microsystems for a decent analysis of microsoft technologies is as bad as relying on microsoft for your info. They don't exactly present the most balanced view.

Hobbes

The Sun mircosystems one was a rebuttel on MS making false accusations about thier software and how it is better then Suns Java. It actually makes for an intresting read and while the Sun CEO was able to debunk all of MS claims, MS have yet to answer the questions he put forward regarding soap.

As for /. , while readying -1, 0 moderated posts of Natalie Portman beowulf clusters is not going to be much help, the 2+ comments are, and the actual stories themselves tend to point back to realible information.

Snaggle

What exactly was so innovative abot DX?

Void

DX is a unified multimedia API. Pretty much the only one on the PC. I really think DirectX is one of the best things M$ have ever done. No other platform has anything comparable (cept consoles...different story). D3D is *better* than OpenGL since DX6 (debatable, but definitely nowadays, OpenGL still rules for beginners though, much cleaner). OpenGL's main advantage turned out to be it's main weakness: being multi-platform. To get anything new implemented into the OpenGL standard took ages, because of all the bureaucracy. An early example (wait for Geforce3 DX8 stuff to start being used in games...) of how good DirectX is, is Severance, a pretty new game. It has the best lighting system I have ever seen, proper dynamic shadows and stuff. This is not to mention the rest of the DX suite, apparently DirectPlay is very good in DX8. I don't know about DirectSound though, lots of gamedevs are still using other libraries (OpenAL anyone?).

Still, it would be nice if that Fahrenheit collaboration (SGI + M$) had come about, it wasn't just M$ who torpedoed that project, SGI had a part as well.

Hobbes

Are you on crack? DX graphics suck. I run DX game on my GeForce2 32MB and then run the same game in OpenGL there is a massive difference in speed+quality of graphics of OpenGL over DX8.

Heck, even CounterStrike you can't use decals in DirectX.

So DX will look great on GeForce3. This is a typical MS sales ploy. Claim that they are building for future tech so everyone holds off buying the current tech and then kill it at a later date.

DX was invented to "Lock in" the developers to MS operating system and kill off other platforms. That isn't innovation, I don't care how flashy they make if they are making it at the expense of others. Why do you think MS told the developers to F' themselves when it came to OpenGL. MS is even pulling the Embrace+Extend stunt with OpenGL+XBox.

Did you know that Intel had a state of the art graphics system set up years before 3D cards became mainstream and MS killed it because it was a threat to them. Intel were going to release it for free and thanks to MS the project got canned (all in the findings of fact document).

"DX is a unified multimedia API." for windows. It is not the only one on a PC (assuming your PC can install other operating systems).

Snaggle

Even if I were to believe all the buzzwords and marketting catchphrases, I still don't see anything innovative there, just prettier packaging at best. 3D acceleration was there before DX, dynamic lighting and shadowing was there before DX, sound was there before DX, aren't you supposed to do something new to be innovative?

Hobbes

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Snaggle:
aren't you supposed to do something new to be innovative?</font>

I suppose finding new ways to kill your competition while screwing over the consumer would be considered innovative?

Snaggle

I don't think Microsoft have any new competition killing tactics, they just happen to have the influence/money to do it well

Greenbean

"Are you on crack? DX graphics suck." Hobbes bollix. Opengl is now dated. Dx is a unified multimedia api, ie it does all the multimedia features for all the hardware on windows.

Directx is now even simpler to program for with dx8, its got all the spangly bells and whistles that opengl doesn't and I guarantee you todays games wouldn't look so good if it weren't for it. Halflife is the last game I remember being worth switching to opengl for.

My main problem with directX is the way they seem to have worked in unison with nvidia to get them a monopoly. So now we have nvidia cards having and knowing about the newest dx features and being made for them. For an api it seems pretty screwed that it makes features that work on only one type of card (eg geforce #).

jmcc

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Void:
.NET is a standard. People will be able to develop .NET servers to run on Linux/Mac/Whatever. It's just another attempt to solve to built a programming "Tower of Babel". Whether it's a good thing or not... </font>

I am not sure that it is a real standard. It looks more like another M$ attempt to extend and commoditize existing open standards. The theory being for M$ that they will break other implementations and force people to pay royalties to M$.

What really irritates M$ is that their "languages" are not the most popular. As everything is moving netwise, this is causing a loss of control for M$ over the situation. Just look at how successful ActiveX was. :-) M$ was always a desktop company - the NT operation was an attempt to get into the *nix market and that largely failed due to the stability and security issues. M$ has to do something fast as its markets are being eaten away either by technological changes or users switching to other systems. The PDA/handhelds market is really putting the wind up M$ as well.

Regards...jmcc