|
GNOME & KDE with QT (which has a development environment which rivals vs.net IMO, and works on windows, linux, & mac without code changes), bundled in RPM (which is fairly standard across most of the major platforms) and tarball (for those who do not). worked with redhat, mandrake, debian & gentoo. probably others too, but those were the ones we worked with.
I'm not preaching linux, but what do most consumers do with an operating system??? check email, surf the web, and listen to music. linux has very nice apps for these (evolution, mozilla and xmms) in case you havent checked lately.
I earn my living and spend much of my free time developing in .NET. I'm not saying that everyone needs to run out and quit using any microsoft products, but people who are zealot linux users or zealot microsoft users are pathetic and useless... dont become one of them.
developing in one is not more or less painful than another... only if you dont know one platform better than another.
![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
/bb|[^b]{2}/
|
|
|
|
|
.NET with it's huge baggage of runtimes and other components is too far to be accepted as a real portable language especially in wake of tremendous success and popularity of Java. Although Java has captured most of tha market of embedded and handheld systems in form of applications, the OS still is largely written in conventional C language thanks to it's speed and close contact with low level programming paradigm. So for now .NET has many light years to go...
..._ _
I ( V ) MY INDIA
\ /
v
|
|
|
|
|
@ MadHatter wrote:
developing in one is not more or less painful than another... only if you dont know one platform better than another.
I could agree with that, but it is not the point. The guy who started this Linux discussion said: At least with linux the APIs don't change so drastically.
And that is simply false. APIs on Linux-based systems are far more volatile than Win32 API.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
|
|
|
|
|
The likelyhood of a GTK1.1 app not working on GTK2 is rather rare unless you don't keep depricated functions in mind. And most likely they'll have a new function that does about the same thing as the old one, so it's not hard to program. The hard part is mostly just trying to install the new versions of the APIs. Even that is getting easier with things like apt and such.
I just think once you get comfortable with linux it really isn't that hard to develop for it and I really don't think it's that hard to develop in a way that can cross both API versions and cross distributions. In fact, a lot of stuff works fine on most distributions and APIs. I think a lot of the stuff on my linux box isn't even written for my distribution. The biggest pain is when someone uses some obscure library which is just a sign of a bad developer. Too many people write software for linux and don't know what their doing and only test it on their own systems because they wrote the software for themselves and decided that someone else might find it useful. If you think linux development is that hard, then you probably use linux just to keep up with technology. You have to live it to know how to develop for it.
The big kicker... .NET 2k3 - $900, GTK (and most of the rest of linux) - free.
Most people don't install the .NET framework or know what it is. Everyone that uses linux knows what the GTK libaries are, and there are updaters that will install the GTK1 and GTK2 libraries for you. I don't know, but I believe you can't have .NET 1.1 and 2 frameworks installed simultaneously. But I don't like .NET anyway, so I refuse to develop for it.
If Google wrote their toolbar for linux/firefox, I'd never go back to windows because it's like the one thing that my line of work has a use for. no PR indicator makes it hard to compete in internet marketing. Instead I'm forced to use IE since emulators don't seem to like running both IE and the toolbar. So instead I play my games on windows and develop remotely to my linux box.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't agree more...
screw the masses.
...All they do is play video games written in c++ or ActionScript.
|
|
|
|
|
.net is ready.
if not, ask the millions of corporate users running WinForm apps on their machines. If not, ask the consultants who've made millions of dollars developing with the platform.
...oh, how long as java been out? 8, 9, 10 years? ask your average user if they know what the hell is java (other than coffee).
|
|
|
|
|
Ellery_Familia wrote:
ask the millions of corporate users running WinForm apps on their machines.
Huh? Oh, you mean the ones who work for Microsoft... but it can't be more than a million -- have you gotten an official count?  ;P
Ellery_Familia wrote:
the consultants who've made millions of dollars developing with the platform.
Huh? Oh, you mean the ones employed by Microsoft. Wait, they make millions of dollars?! Man, I gotta get that resume sent in! ;P
Ellery_Familia wrote:
...oh, how long as java been out? 8, 9, 10 years? ask your average user if they know what the hell is java (other than coffee).
Huh? You mean average users know about C#, VB.NET, ASP.NET, and Visual Studio.NET but don't have a clue about Java? Sun needs to get the word out, and I know a great way! They should find a way to add JVMs to cell phones. ;P
Regards,
Alvaro
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. - George W. Bush
|
|
|
|
|
you completely missed the point of my comment.
I dont work for MS and I have a few thousand users running WinForms (and a heck of a lot more running webforms). There are many other consulting companies out there are selling .net to their clients. It's a lot cheaper than other solutions.
...and about the millions of dollars, the money is out there buddy. (I wish I could share more on that  )
Average user knows nothing about .net, but neither about java... ask them what's the java thing on their cell phones for... and start counting how many "I dont knows" you'll get.
|
|
|
|
|
To me, no new Windows hosted application should be development with anything other than the .NET Framework.
Although the 1.1 framework is incomplete, those shortcoming can be easily overcome with temporary portions accessed via P/Invoke or COM Interop. The 2.0 framework is complete.
.NET provides the first decent API for Windows development. Holy cow - it's a single string implementation!!!! What a novel concept!
Just look at the features - same underlying API for Windows abd Web applications, XML support throughout, consistent IO, great DB support, object models consistent with component models, versioning, security...
It's all the right stuff for all the right reasons. The .NET framework class library raises the bar well beyond the Win32 API.
In addition - there just isn't anything that is going to be added to Win32 - it's finally going the way of DOS. This alone is reason enough to move forward to .NET development.
Dale Thompson
|
|
|
|
|
expect you apps are dialog based
or is there any cad-like? (just asking)
t!
|
|
|
|
|
no new Windows hosted application
I might be willing to agree with you.
But how many applications meet those requirements really? Doesn't apply to existing or legacy applications. Doesn't apply to cross-platform applications... and since it is becoming much easier to write cross-platform apps (Java, wxWindows, QT, etc.) when writing something new, cross-platform ought to be taken into consideration. Doesn't apply to web-based apps, and there are plenty of good development choices for them, including but not limited to .NET.
An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
drawitem and measureitem on a listview anyone? Sortable headers? ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH All custom work, when it's actually in the functionality of the original control it's wrapping.
|
|
|
|
|
If you were a user... would you download .NET packages, if you already had one? An application for home users cannot rely on a specific version of .NET.
|
|
|
|
|
In my work environment, I hear our Windows-based customers clammoring about .NET because of many of the safety features like automatic garbage collection as well as how easy it is to build applications with multiple languages. And no, I do not work in the web development market -- actually, I deal with a lot of robotics and manufacturing. My customers are desiring something that will add safety and allow them to get up and running quickly. Now how much .NET will really deliver on that remains to be seen -- but many of my company's customers certainly believe it.
|
|
|
|
|
Despite all the hoopla from MS, the framework is still an IUnknown platform for anyone who normally uses his computer like a toaster (i.e. 90% of the population ?).
If MS was really serious about it, computer, game magazines, and the likes would bear CDs with killer applications made on the .NET framework, just to push that new platform.
I consider .NET 1.0 and 1.1 as solid beta products. And we, developers, are testing it before the big launch under .NET 2.0 and Longhorn.
Obviously, I'm talking 'bout Windows Forms here.
In the meantime, unmanaged C++ will do for me, til at least 2007 or 2008... (more probably 2010)
|
|
|
|
|
... and aren't generics supposed to come out in 2.0? So there are quite a bit of goodies coming out in 2.0 that will make .NET development a better platform.
That being said, I'll be impressed if 2.0 is the verison that takes off. Historically, it has taken Microsoft until version 3.0 of anything really to get it right. 
An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
The masses hardly use .NET for anything except applications that were written with .NET, and I don't think companies are gearing up for .NET as much as people thing they are. Sure, .NET may make collaboration a little easier, but who needs their browsers and e-mail clients and publishing tools to be so inter-connected with the rest of the world? so much so that you couldn't disconnect them anymore?
The consumer world won't find any use for .NET because they don't share information the same way as the larger corporate world does. In fact, your averages consumer doesn't know enough about their computer to use .NET effectively.
I think it's almost scary what .NET is trying to do. Making things connect more easily can result in more dangerous criminal acts. Find a bug in someone's .NET financial software and you could be home free with large corporate accounts that you could sap dry.
I think there's a certain level of connectivity that just pushes things a little too far into the danger zone, and .NET is bringing us that much closer.
|
|
|
|
|
I would have voted the same if given the option, though I have a slightly different opinion. The masses don't need .NET, because there already is java and CORBA. The only person who needs .NET is Microsoft, so they can stay in the driving seat.;P
|
|
|
|
|
I am not talking about web apps - becuase to me that seems out of the context of this poll. The "masses" aren't running web servers, so they don't give a hoot what is on the server side, as long as it works in their browser.
But for desktop apps, obviously that issue of having the .NET redistributable on their machine is an issue. And before you say, "Oh, come on, they only have to download it once, and then they can run any .NET app they want". Not true. .NET is hardly "stable" in the sense that the .NET framework is still being actively developed. Won't VS 2005 come with .NET framework version 2? Well, then, everyone who has the dinosaur of version 1.0 is going to have to upgrade to run new apps depending on version 2's features. (And there's a high probability that a lot of developers won't take the time to write correct installer logic to check for this, and apps will fail miserably when run in the wrong framework, but I digress...)
Perhaps a several years in to the future, when new computers are being shipped with the .NET framework, the framework itself becomes pretty stable, and most people have upgraded their legacy machines, then will .NET become widespread on the desktop.
Just my opinion though. 
An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree completely. Web apps are irrelevant - ASP.Net is a joy to work with compared to the legacy version available (barely) using InterDev in VS6. But users couldn't care less what creates the pages they view.
The rest of the .Net experience is dependent upon having the Framework installed on the user's machine. MS marketing talks about the numbers growing, but in reality the vast majority of user machines do not have it and probably won't for a long time to come. Savvy sysadmins have probably installed the Framework on most corporate machines by now, but average users don't have it. Worse, there are currently two, soon to be three, completely incompatible versions out there. That's going to be a challenge for programmers, especially (as you mention) those who write installers. They simply won't do it right. Most don't even bother to check for which version of Windows is installed - now they have to check for the correct version of the Framework? Not likely...
When the current, stable version of the .Net Framework is ubiquitous, then the .Net platform will be viable.
"My kid was Inmate of the Month at Adobe Mountain Juvenile Corrections Center" - Bumper Sticker in Bullhead City
|
|
|
|
|
Well, anyone that uses windows update should have the .NET framework as it is on there.
Signature under construction.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I don't think it's listed as a "critical update", which means even when using Windows Update, you'd have to explicitly look for it and pick it in order to get it installed.
An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
But it is installed with the service packs, and is included in all new Windows XP installations, and is of course included in Win2003 Server. Recent figures suggest 70 million internet connected machines have Everett (.NET 1.1) installed, which is not a shabby base by any means.
Of course, come 2006-7, Longhorn itself will be a managed OS built on .NET itself, certainly by then the framework will be almost ubiquitous.
What needs to happen in the meantime is Microsoft distributing the .NET framework with Office, Internet Explorer, default Windows installations, service packs, and critical Windows Update installs.
Judah Himango
|
|
|
|
|
I have yet to see it on any machine not running XP, except my own. No one in his/her right mind will download the Framework without a broadband connection, and most people don't have one. Except for those few that have recently purchased new computers, nearly all small businesses and individuals I know are still using Win98/Me or NT, and are stuck on dialup connections. Unless they purchase a ridiculously overpriced Office product, they won't be using .Net for quite some time.
"My kid was Inmate of the Month at Adobe Mountain Juvenile Corrections Center" - Bumper Sticker in Bullhead City
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
