How widespread is .Net among home users?

[Daniel O'Connell]

Sure anything can be hacked. But, you shouldn't be making it easier to
hack. The easier it is, the more hackers there will be, the less money
software will make.

It only takes one. They publish the hacks and your out of luck anyway. So
what if its cracked in 5 hours instead of 10. If you app took 6 months to
write in C++, but only 4 in C#...well, those 5 hours probably don't matter
in the least. *MOST* people cannot read source code and modify it in any
meaningful way. Anyone who can is quite capable of finding a website with a
pre-made crack, which in the case of most large software products, will be
available before the product hits the commercial market.

 

[Jim Hubbard]

It only takes one. They publish the hacks and your out of luck anyway.
True.

So
what if its cracked in 5 hours instead of 10.

You could make several more sales in the extra 5 hours. If you (like MS)
sell a CD for several hundres dollars, those extra sales are something you
don't want to throw away. You'll need the money to upgrade your MS OS.

If you app took 6 months to
write in C++, but only 4 in C#...well, those 5 hours probably don't matter
in the least.

In that scenario, that would be true.

*MOST* people cannot read source code and modify it in any
meaningful way. Anyone who can is quite capable of finding a website with a
pre-made crack, which in the case of most large software products, will be
available before the product hits the commercial market.

Also true. I just don't think you need to make it any easier than it is
already.

The only way to prevent theft of your software *is* to sell it as a service
and keep some functionality on the server, accessible via the internet with
a username/password. Even then, you can only make sure that only one person
at a time uses the software - not that more than one aren't sharing a single
username/password.

While .Net is well-suited for this, I think that getting users to go for it
will take some time. And, let's not forget that getting the .Net framework
out there is the first step. Ironically, it is also the first place
Microsoft stumbled.

Jim

 

[Daniel O'Connell]

You could make several more sales in the extra 5 hours. If you (like MS)
sell a CD for several hundres dollars, those extra sales are something you
don't want to throw away. You'll need the money to upgrade your MS OS.


In that scenario, that would be true.
with

Also true. I just don't think you need to make it any easier than it is
already.

The only way to prevent theft of your software *is* to sell it as a service
and keep some functionality on the server, accessible via the internet with
a username/password. Even then, you can only make sure that only one person
at a time uses the software - not that more than one aren't sharing a single
username/password.

While .Net is well-suited for this, I think that getting users to go for it
will take some time. And, let's not forget that getting the .Net framework
out there is the first step. Ironically, it is also the first place
Microsoft stumbled.

I would have liked to see a better distribution, but considering I see small
apps all the time that expect a specific version of IE, aspecific service
pack, directx, or a number of other runtimes, but the problem is
distribution, not IP protection.
I don't agree with most of your analogies. I feel your arguments are
bordering on the "need to find a crack" boundry. It is unreasonable to
believe that your sales will only happen before a crack is issued, or that
people who want to steal it will buy it because they don't have a way around
the protection. That is not going to happen. It is simply not possible to
stop the theft, and its plain stupid to spend additional months(and
considerable money) working on software simply because your worried about it
being stolen. It is still going to be stolen in a few days, and the people
who are intent on stealing it will wait until its available, no one needs
any software so badly that the delay time will matter. If they don't want to
pay, they are not going to pay, and delaying the cracking for any reasonable
period of time is not going to change that. I'd say if you can delay it for
a year it might matter, but considering native code probably won't delay it
any more than a couple of hours, if that, the argument really just doesn't
stand up. There is no valid theft protection issue here, your software, at
release, may as well be considered stolen already. In the end, actually,
..NET software may well be a boon. Due to the manner in which code signing,
etc works, for non admin accounts, the patch to create the crack would
atleast have to be substantially larger, as you'd have to modify all
provided assemblies, not just a few bits.

I personally hear very few complaints about the framework. Most people I've
personally distributed it to found that it was already on their systems(I
assume its from winupdate, but I don't know), and once *ONE* framework app
is installed, the framework download is no longer an issue. On the plus side
its nice to get apps that don't force you to install the runtime over and
over, unlike the way C++ and VB app installers behave. The aggregate
bandwidth loss from downloading msvcrtXX.dll over and over again must be
considerable by this point, well beyond 20 meg per machine.

I don't want to come across as a total ass, although I know I'm close to
that. I just don't find myself agreeing with your arguments.

 

[Scott M.]

I love the idea if a smaller EXE. But, the problem as I see it is

getting people to adopt the new framework and install it. That shouldn't be
required for users. It should (as it is in Installshield) be automatic for
them. The only problem is when the user is still on a 56k modem and an AOL
account - they'd be better off ordering a CD.

If you are running a web application, then there is nothing for anyone to
download.

The idea that a programmer should be well-versed in multiple languages
means that s/he will be great in none of them. It seems to me that the
*real* reason behind a common code base is to reduce the work required by MS
support teams. Remember, MS is controlled by shareholders....not
programmers.....not Bill......not anybody with an iota of knowledge about
what it really takes to succeed financially from a software vendor
standpoint (other than that of Microsoft).

I don't agree with this last comment. I believe that this allows a
programmer NOT to have to have knowledge of the other languages. The class
library is not a language.

I have to disagree. The goal is not to write software. The goal is to
make money. Unless you are a newbie to programming or an Open-Source
proponent or independently wealthy you probably write code for a living.

Making the code base less secure makes programming less profitable.
Sure, I know, you can crack anything and copy the functionality of anything
if you are a good coder. But, there's no need in making it as easy as
running a MS-supplied decompiler. The easier it gets to crack the code, the
less money you make. The more complex it is to write code, the fewer people
you have putting out software....the fewer reasons there are to upgrade to
your OS....the more expensive the available software will become.....the
more attractive alternative OS's become.

I too would like the source to be more secure. But obfuscators take care of
this issue.

Don't be fooled. .Net was written for Microsoft's benefit, not yours or
mine. It just wasn't well thought out. Like removing the ability to change
code while it was running in VB (which MS is attempting to bring back in the
next VB.Net release). End users (non-technical end users especially) were
not consulted in any numbers (if at all). And, they definitely weren't
listened to.

Actually, "Edit and Continue" has been in VS.NET since the beginning. It's
just not turned on (I don't know why), but in the Options, you can turn this
feature on.

VB.Net has left a huge hole for non-programmers who want to write simple
applications. Add to that the expense of the MS OS vs Linux, and you have
an opportunity to lead Linux forward based on cost (non-programmers work
cheaper and the OS is cheaper) and ease of use - dumb it down!

Do non-programmers develop?

 

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

That is one thing MS has made easier........no messy choices to make.

There possibly could be languages that can be implemented for .NyET
which could enforce a different way of looking at programming, since
they cannot mere be macro preprocessors for C#. I've seen attempts
to develop APL and Scheme compilers for .NyET, but perhaps the .NyET
"platform" is still too wobbly and inherently deficient to complete
them...