ASP.NET requirements? This CAN'T be true

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scott Lee via .NET 247
  • Start date Start date
S

Scott Lee via .NET 247

(Please pardon me if this is a duplicate --- not sure if messageposted)

Hello,

I have been working my tail off developing an ASP.NETapplication. Now that the project is nearing completion, ananti-microsoft type has complained that "much of .NET in a webserver environment is based on ASP (active server pages) whichwe forcibly disable, and which is one of our key selling pointsfrom a security standpoint as ASP has been an Achilles heel interms of security," and ".NET is neither cheap nor secure"

It is my understanding that ASP.NET neither requires that ASPpages are enabled in order to run ASP.NET applications, nor doesit mandate that additional royalties be payed to microsoft.

Also, it is my understanding that the .NET framework is free toinstall on any properly licensed Windows machine, be that XP orServer 2003, etc.

I have argued that the only costs associated with ASP.NETapplications are the web server (os and IIS), and the copy ofvisual studio .net that we bought to write the application, andthat only plain HTTP is needed to run the application. Am Imistaken??

Please, if you can, provide me with solid evidence so that I canproperly argue my case.

Thanks,

Scott
 
Scott said:
I have argued that the only costs associated with ASP.NET applications are the web server (os and IIS), and the copy of visual studio .net that we bought to write the application, and that only plain HTTP is needed to run the application. Am I mistaken??
Click to expand...

AFAIK, you are correct.
Please, if you can, provide me with solid evidence so that I can properly argue my case.
Click to expand...

Proving something isn't true is a lot harder than proving it is. Ask
your anti-MS guy to give you some documentation about his claims. I
don't have any documentation that specifically refutes the person's
claims, but I've never seen anything to support it, either.

Good luck!
 
FAQ for .NET
http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/support/faq/default.aspx

EULA for .NET Framework 1.1
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...en-us/dnnetdep/html/dotnetfxredisteula1_1.asp

Deployment Guide for .NET Framework
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...en-us/dnnetdep/html/dotnetframedepguid1_1.asp

As long as you have a properly license copy of Windows and accept the EULA,
..NET is free.
ASP and ASP.NET are two different applications, see FAQ.
The Web Matrix program at www.asp.net is a free tool where you can create
ASP.NET applications in VB, C# or J#. The main difference with the Matrix
program and Visual Studio .NET is Matrix doesn't create "code-behind" dll's,
it's all source files. Get a copy of it and you'll see what I mean.

Good luck on that anti-microsoft type person. :)


(Please pardon me if this is a duplicate --- not sure if message posted)

Hello,

I have been working my tail off developing an ASP.NET application. Now that
the project is nearing completion, an anti-microsoft type has complained
that "much of .NET in a web server environment is based on ASP (active
server pages) which we forcibly disable, and which is one of our key selling
points from a security standpoint as ASP has been an Achilles heel in terms
of security," and ".NET is neither cheap nor secure"

It is my understanding that ASP.NET neither requires that ASP pages are
enabled in order to run ASP.NET applications, nor does it mandate that
additional royalties be payed to microsoft.

Also, it is my understanding that the .NET framework is free to install on
any properly licensed Windows machine, be that XP or Server 2003, etc.

I have argued that the only costs associated with ASP.NET applications are
the web server (os and IIS), and the copy of visual studio .net that we
bought to write the application, and that only plain HTTP is needed to run
the application. Am I mistaken??

Please, if you can, provide me with solid evidence so that I can properly
argue my case.

Thanks,

Scott
 
Back
Top