As a developer I definitely look down upon Microsoft’s strategy of exclusivity regarding the inability of other operating systems to run applications built using the .NET framework, but as an investor or an employee of the company it would most likely allow me to sleep better at night. The fact is, no other single software firm in the global market could survive doing what Microsoft has done with .NET, and while regulation is lax here in the United States, in Europe it’s a different story. As of today Microsoft has produced the court ordered source code it had avoided producing in the past, possibly avoiding a daily fine of 3 million euro, backdated to July. Whether or not this satisfies the European courts, or provides Sun Microsystems and Linux the information they need to remedy the compatibility issues remains to be seen.
It’s a given that in spite of this issue, KnowToys Inc. will continue to utilize .NET mostly because our databases were all built using Microsoft Access. The data stored through the use of our shipping application is grounded in Access and our reporting work is done using SQL, so to build applications in say, Sun Microsystems’ J2EE rather than .NET would be borrowing trouble in my opinion. This isn’t the case when we’re building from the ground up though, as there are considerable advantages to using J2EE depending on the situation.
The J2EE platform is free and built to be highly compatible, the idea being that you can program from anywhere and install it anywhere, regardless of the operating system running on the machine. This aspect exposes the fundamental high-level difference between the J2EE platform and .NET. On a functional level there’s a matter of training, and depending on the programmer’s background, the learning curve from one to the other and vice versa is a considerable hurdle, with .NET constituting the steeper of the two. Support for both is a wash, as Microsoft staffs support and the network of open-source contributors is very responsive in helping out the community when problems arise. The cost of formal training in .NET architecture application creation can be very costly.
My advice is that until our budget allows for training, we allocate our resources to where they can be most effective. Over time if we neglect the cultivation of skills within our staff, it will come back to haunt us. And even if Microsoft’s release of their operating system code and documentation enables others to run .NET platform applications, a working knowledge of J2EE will still be necessary at times.
Reference:
Meller, Paul. November 24, 2006, New York Times, “Microsoft Gives Europe Antitrust Documents”, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/24/technology/24soft.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Tanenbaum, A.S., & van Steen, M. (2002). Distributed Systems Principles and Paradigms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Farley, J. (2000). Microsoft .NET vs. J2EE: How Do They Stack Up? Retrieved November 22, 2006 from
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/java/news/farley_0800.html.
I love this! I did not know you were an IT kinda guy..I will have to ask you my dumb questions now, aren’t you happy you told us? 🙂
Good writeup..I have actually been following the European case, thanks for the update.
Open source rules,as a general rule correct? I of course don’t have a clue but I love FireFox and I love all the applications that you can add to the browswer and it loads faster than IE7 even with the tons of shit I have added to the browser.
I really was hoping the US Judges would take a clue from the European lawsuit..but apparently we are much too stupid to do that.
I am medicated up to my eyeballs so forgive me if I sound ignorant..
I’m a big fan of FireFox as well, using it right now. Currently I’m in the midst of earning a software engineering degree, so while I’m not officially an “IT guy”, I do feel that the Frink is at home inside my head at times.
Open source is great on a number of levels, though when it comes to networks on a corporate scale, it is extremely difficult to justify casting off Microsoft completely, as each round of new releases seem to bring with them additional hurdles for open source developers to cope with. The ability to run applications on a .NET framework, since many companies began their automation using Microsoft, is essential for many.
The example you used with FireFox vs. IE7 is a perfect one to use in highlighting an open source vs. proprietary product, and how the millions of dollars backing one can fail to produce something that users like you and I find to be as usefull as the free alternative.
Thanks for commenting on this! I’m hoping to get some IT chatter on the site over time as I post more and more of these.
Hey Al:
As an IT/tech guy, it would be interesting to know your slant on the internet neutrality debate. Don’t know how closely you’re following that.
It’s funny how much power a rinky dink database software like MS Access really has.
The main problem (as I see it) with Linux as the desktop right now comes down to the simple fact that there really isn’t a compatible open source alternative to Access. OpenOffice has some nice alternatives for Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook. But in the desktop database world Access really stands alone (don’t bring up Foxpro).
In my job we’ve got users who are using Access97 applications still. And it’s become a problem (I won’t even get into the issue of multi users in Acccess). The IT support staff can’t role out the Office updates across the agency. Not to mention that new work stations that connect to the old 97 dbs have to have Access97 installed instead of the newer Office2003, or XP. We’re in the process now of moving everything over to SQL Server with users accessing data strictly through a browser. That’s where Cold Fusion comes in. Me likes.
In my opinion (which is heavily biased), few application servers can compete with CF when it comes to rapid application development.
In the short amount of time I have right now to respond, I’ll try to make my theory on net-neutrality as simple as possible.
The simple fact that every single bit of information that passes through the networks of these ISPs is covered by a fee that is paid. I’ve got a cable connection that I pay for every month, and another fee for the service that houses deadissue. The argument made by telecom that their business has the right to be concerned about anything other than the electromagnetic pulses that travel through their hardware is ridiculous on a number of levels.
First of all, if the profits of those who pay for the service are to be fair game for telecom to skim, then why wouldn’t the same be true for any business out there using telephone connections to make money? If AT&T were to extract an extra payment from eBay based on volume, then what would prevent them from doing the same with a customer service call center operating in the same area as eBay’s servers? If both are maximizing the use of telecom’s hardware for the purpose of turning a profit, then what technically seperates the two in terms of their revenue being diverted into the provider’s pockets?
Simply put, if the service providers are unhappy with the amount of traffic being generated by outside providers through their hardware, then the matter needs to be taken up between the two providers and not the individual customers who have already paid their bill. If Comcast is generating heavy volume outward that is considered a burden to AT&T on the other side of the country, then it should be those two companies that work it out.
Contracts for service can be specific in terms of bandwidth and a total amount of use per month/week/day, but aside from that, once a customer has paid for the service, it is unfair to then allow the telecom company to expand the scope of what they’re providing a customer with the added value equaling nothing for the customer and only a boon to telecom’s bottom line.
They are under the false impression that by providing the hardware, that they are somehow involved with the content that materializes on the front and back end. In reality, it is the PC and server themselves that turn the electromagnetic signals into content…as far as the hardware (wires, routers, switches) are concerned, what is moving from one destination to another is nothing but raw material. So with this in mind, the service providers simply serve as a middleman, and have no right (in my opinion) to meddle in the affairs of their customers and/or how they use the service that is provided to them.
If they are getting hosed, then the answer is to renegotiate contracts with their customers, raise their rates, etc…which they are doing regularly anyway. While also consolidating their market share through mergers that are currently void of any regulatory intrusion that I can see. Judging by the stock prices of Comcast and AT&T over the past year, I can’t see how, besides having a GOP Congress to baffle and use like a puppet, they have any grounds whatsoever to make the claims they are currently making.
Business is good for these giants. Can’t fault them for seizing on an opportunity to make more money, but their claims were completely bogus from day one. It was all about being allowed to screw over customers, and of course a GOP Congress wasn’t about to get in the way of business hoping to do THAT!
I’m following you throughout this, having learned something, wondering whether the Cold Fusion magic will enter into my studies at some point. You’ve been pluging it for a while, and if it doesn’t come up in the meantime, at least I’ll have a “why don’t we ship with FedEx” idea in my back pocket once I’ve landed my first job.
Good response–clear even to the non-technical person what you’re meaning is. And I agree with it. But I also think you’re on to something more in these last few sentences. Yes, the people speaking against net-neutrality have a very obviously bad understanding of what the internet is and how it works. Comically so, if tragedy be comedy.
But to the shrewder GoPer, this is also an excellent opportunity to, in effect, legislate morality. Their regs become a privately assessed penalty on anything that the major telecoms find objectionable. And that can run the gamut from a political position to porn. And since we know how liberal these telecomm giants are, well, you can see how that would go.
So that’s an advantage to those who would sponser and pass the legislation–a payoff all the way around. The telecomms get some cash and the too-tight-right gets some proxy control over who does what on the “interwebs.”
I take it to be mainly about campaign contributions, but with the Sensenbrenners of the world still alive and thumping their way through the halls of Congress, I wouldn’t doubt what you’re suggesting here for a second.
Actually…now that I’ve let that sink in for a moment, with the Pentagon releasing the names of firms representing detainees in Guantanamo, a McCarthy-esqe sort of purging what makes being king a nuisance through use of the angry mob…sinister!
Great piece on the Pats game – – – excellent use of Dr. Thompson in the middle there. Bernie, if you’re reading this, check out Jim’s writing at this link right here:
http://borrowedsuits.blogspot.com/2007/01/end-of-football.html
Cheers.