OT -- objections to .NET

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark Warner
  • Start date Start date
M

Mark Warner

The recent discussions about the NASA program as well as my research
into some of the Gmail poppers has brought up the subject of dot NET. Up
'til now I've avoided downloading it, but frankly, I can't remember why.
I recall it being viewed by some as another insidious M$ attempt to
introduce yet another proprietary format; I believe there were also
other concerns relating to DRM.

I'm not a raving Microsoft-phobe. On the other hand, I would prefer not
to give Gates & Co. any more control over my computer than absolutely
necessary. Hence my preference for freeware wherever practical (though
I'm not yet ready to make the move to Linux; it'll happen eventually).

Are the objections to dot NET another Chicken Little scenario, or are
there legitimate concerns that those of us who tend to be distrustful of
(but not overly paranoid about) Microsoft should be aware of?
 
The recent discussions about the NASA program as well as my research
into some of the Gmail poppers has brought up the subject of dot NET. Up
'til now I've avoided downloading it, but frankly, I can't remember why.
I recall it being viewed by some as another insidious M$ attempt to
introduce yet another proprietary format; I believe there were also
other concerns relating to DRM.

I'm not a raving Microsoft-phobe. On the other hand, I would prefer not
to give Gates & Co. any more control over my computer than absolutely
necessary. Hence my preference for freeware wherever practical (though
I'm not yet ready to make the move to Linux; it'll happen eventually).

Are the objections to dot NET another Chicken Little scenario, or are
there legitimate concerns that those of us who tend to be distrustful of
(but not overly paranoid about) Microsoft should be aware of?
Click to expand...

The dot net in this case is just the dot net framework which basically
is the new and improved visual basic runtime. Personally i have no
objection to downloading and installing it.
 
Mark said:
I'm not a raving Microsoft-phobe. On the other hand, I would prefer not
to give Gates & Co. any more control over my computer than absolutely
necessary. Hence my preference for freeware wherever practical (though
I'm not yet ready to make the move to Linux; it'll happen eventually).
Click to expand...

Hence your preference for freeware??

Don't you mean open source? Bill Gates could give you freeware, and it
could completely take over your computer.
 
Mark said:
The recent discussions about the NASA program as well as my research
into some of the Gmail poppers has brought up the subject of dot NET. Up
'til now I've avoided downloading it, but frankly, I can't remember why.
I recall it being viewed by some as another insidious M$ attempt to
introduce yet another proprietary format; I believe there were also
other concerns relating to DRM.

I'm not a raving Microsoft-phobe. On the other hand, I would prefer not
to give Gates & Co. any more control over my computer than absolutely
necessary. Hence my preference for freeware wherever practical (though
I'm not yet ready to make the move to Linux; it'll happen eventually).

Are the objections to dot NET another Chicken Little scenario, or are
there legitimate concerns that those of us who tend to be distrustful of
(but not overly paranoid about) Microsoft should be aware of?
Click to expand...

Which brings up this point:

I have come to the conclusion that not all people that demand freeware
are doing so for the same reasons that you or I might. I happen to agree
with your dislike for the way M$ try's to control just about everything
they can. It's greed (BG sets the standard), laced with a power trip,
AFAIAC.

Anyway, I see quite a few people that think that all programs should be
free. Writing programs is hard work and continually supporting them is
just as hard/harder. If a program is good, and the people who wrote it
are honest people, I have no problem buying it.

As far as .NET is concerned, it's the same crap that M$ has been handing
out since NT started so nothing new there. Their goal is to get you so
tied into their environment that you have no other options. Think about it.
 
VH schreef:
The dot net in this case is just the dot net framework which basically
is the new and improved visual basic runtime. Personally i have no
objection to downloading and installing it.
Click to expand...

..NET = "a new visual basic runtime" ?
Not really... ;-)

One can better compare it to a Java virtual machine + the Java class
library, or the Python interpreter + standard modules, or something like
that.

My main problems with .NET is its size: a 35 MiB download for simple
users, a (minimum) 150 MiB download for developers, and the possible
patent problems in the future.
 
JanC said:
VH schreef:




..NET = "a new visual basic runtime" ?
Not really... ;-)

One can better compare it to a Java virtual machine + the Java class
library, or the Python interpreter + standard modules, or something like
that.

My main problems with .NET is its size: a 35 MiB download for simple
users, a (minimum) 150 MiB download for developers, and the possible
patent problems in the future.
Click to expand...
More accurately, .NET is Java with the spelling changed. It is
theoretically possibly to write a program that will convert .NET
bytecode in Java bytecode, and vice-versa.

Of course, as >NET, like Java, can be de-compiled to give very nearly
the original program, kind of like enforced OSS!!!

Cheers,
Gay B-)
 
"Mark Warner" <[email protected]> wrote:
Click to expand...
The recent discussions about the NASA program as well as my research
into some of the Gmail poppers has brought up the subject of dot NET. Up
'til now I've avoided downloading it, but frankly, I can't remember why.
I recall it being viewed by some as another insidious M$ attempt to
introduce yet another proprietary format; I believe there were also
other concerns relating to DRM.
Click to expand...
I'm not a raving Microsoft-phobe. On the other hand, I would prefer not
to give Gates & Co. any more control over my computer than absolutely
necessary. Hence my preference for freeware wherever practical (though
I'm not yet ready to make the move to Linux; it'll happen eventually).
Click to expand...
Are the objections to dot NET another Chicken Little scenario, or are
there legitimate concerns that those of us who tend to be distrustful of
(but not overly paranoid about) Microsoft should be aware of?
Click to expand...

It is a proprietary format. In eutopia if you have it installed and
everyone wrote .Net apps the downloads would be much smaller and all
of the runtimes would already be on your machine. That would be MS
eutopia though.

It's really a pretty nice development environment. The price is huge.
They are giving XP Pro and the .NET development environment to
students through the MS Academic Initiative. I think it's clear that
they want to get a generation of programmers who learned in this
environment out on the streets.

Right now it is perfectly benign. The .Net runtimes and the
development environment uninstall just like any other quality program.

What the future holds is the big question. MS could place the
environment in future versions of the OS and create a situation in
which only .NET apps run. You don't have to be a phobe to view past
decisions and actions of MS and wonder the implications of this new
"tool."
 
Mark Warner said:
The recent discussions about the NASA program as well as my
research into some of the Gmail poppers has brought up the subject
of dot NET. Up 'til now I've avoided downloading it, but frankly,
I can't remember why. I recall it being viewed by some as another
insidious M$ attempt to introduce yet another proprietary format;
I believe there were also other concerns relating to DRM.
Click to expand...

Whenever it is possible, I prefer relying on programs (freeware or
not) that don't need any proprietary resources, eg :
- programs not requiring visual basic runtimes
- programs not requiring .NET framework

I downloaded the NASA World WorldWind program and noticed, during
its installation, that it required the .NET framework : after a bit
of thinking (putting in balance the benefit of program vs the "bind"
to M$ technology), I stopped the installation.

It is the same kind of state of mind which makes me visit non-flash
websites whenever possible.
 
Antoine said:
Whenever it is possible, I prefer relying on programs (freeware or
not) that don't need any proprietary resources, eg :
- programs not requiring visual basic runtimes
- programs not requiring .NET framework

I downloaded the NASA World WorldWind program and noticed, during
its installation, that it required the .NET framework : after a bit
of thinking (putting in balance the benefit of program vs the "bind"
to M$ technology), I stopped the installation.

It is the same kind of state of mind which makes me visit non-flash
websites whenever possible.
Click to expand...
Thread hi-jack....This is also like the apps that use the msi installer?
 
The recent discussions about the NASA program as well as my research
into some of the Gmail poppers has brought up the subject of dot NET. Up
'til now I've avoided downloading it, but frankly, I can't remember why.
Click to expand...
its just a fear of the unknown. just look at all the corliss
troglodytes around here that are simpering the same song about .net.
 
VH schreef:


.NET = "a new visual basic runtime" ?
Not really... ;-)
Click to expand...

Functionally it is. It wasn't so long ago that people were
complaining bitterly about freeware utils that requires
VB runtimes.
One can better compare it to a Java virtual machine + the Java class
library, or the Python interpreter + standard modules, or something like
that.

My main problems with .NET is its size: a 35 MiB download for simple
users, a (minimum) 150 MiB download for developers, and the possible
patent problems in the future.
Click to expand...

dotnetfx is ~23MB and you only have to download it once.
 
FWIW, at work we just installed an updated program that was
converted from VB to dot net and it loaded noticeably faster
and ran smoother. The software company representative said
that dot net is much nicer to work with.
 
REM said:
I think the current version is 1.1. If you download v1.0 you'll be
prompted to update it. It has some files that are vulnerable to the
jpeg overflow exploit.
Click to expand...

Ummm, ok, thanks.

I just read on /. that the first jpeg virus is on the loose. People are
now DOS'ing the originators site. Yeee-hawww!
 
VH schreef:
Functionally it is. It wasn't so long ago that people were
complaining bitterly about freeware utils that requires
VB runtimes.
Click to expand...

Just like they complain about Java then, I guess.
dotnetfx is ~23MB and you only have to download it once.
Click to expand...

You forget SP1 that has some security & other bugfixes...
 
VH schreef:
FWIW, at work we just installed an updated program that was
converted from VB to dot net and it loaded noticeably faster
and ran smoother.
Click to expand...

Probably because they had to rewrite some really ugly code that they
didn't understand anymore after years of changes upon changes... ;)
The software company representative said that dot net is much nicer to
work with.
Click to expand...

That's true most of the time, VB became an adult. :-)
 
Mark Warner said:
The recent discussions about the NASA program as well as my research
into some of the Gmail poppers has brought up the subject of dot NET. Up
'til now I've avoided downloading it, but frankly, I can't remember why.
I recall it being viewed by some as another insidious M$ attempt to
introduce yet another proprietary format; I believe there were also
other concerns relating to DRM.

I'm not a raving Microsoft-phobe. On the other hand, I would prefer not
to give Gates & Co. any more control over my computer than absolutely
necessary. Hence my preference for freeware wherever practical (though
I'm not yet ready to make the move to Linux; it'll happen eventually).

Are the objections to dot NET another Chicken Little scenario, or are
there legitimate concerns that those of us who tend to be distrustful of
(but not overly paranoid about) Microsoft should be aware of?
Click to expand...

I have read somewhere in a programming newsgroup that the vb.net runtimes
are 25 megs. That's all I needed to know.

dos-man
 
I've been a scathing critic of Microsh!t attitudes, policies, products for
years. Then I discovered and learned .NET - and I think it's wonderful. Not
perfect, of course, but at last something that, from this developer's POV at
least, is highly praiseworthy. I even liked it enough to volunteer on the
Microsoft vb.net newsgroup for long hours.

Such a complete turnabout feels very strange but one that I'm glad has
happened. I understand, however, how many see .NET as a threat, another
encroachment ... or whatever. The scope of .NET is vast, the amount to be
learned is vast, the ambitions of Microsoft for this technology ... well,
you get the picture - and that will be seen as a threat too. But there's
much to be gained as well.

:-)
 
Back
Top