|
Sponsored Links
Resources
.NET Research Library
Get .NET related white papers, case studies and webcasts
|
News
News
News
|
Messages: 62
Messages: 62
Messages: 62
Printer friendly
Printer friendly
Printer friendly
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
XML
XML
XML
|
 |
Debate: Does the .NET community need open source?
An ongoing issue in the .NET world is the role of open source. What are the benefits and/or detractions of open source software in general, and the necessity (or not) of a healthy vibrant open source community in .NET. On one side it breeds innovation and reach; but others argue that cost is more than just money, and that the innovation isn't really there.
The debate centers around two key points: what benefits the open source approach offers the community as a whole (both individual developers as well as companies), and whether .NET needs an active community to thrive as a platform. While these two points are related, they're not identical.
At one level, open source adds to a community in fairly obvious ways--if developers can get their hands on high-quality code without paying money for it, it means less development time spent on projects, quicker time to market, all the benefits of the "buy" part of the "buy vs. build" decision... without having to spend any money. This is clearly not open to debate. What is, however, is some of the assumptions implicit in that statement:
- Is the code of high quality? Certainly we could point to the rapid growth of Linux as a data point, but operating systems are different from enterprise libraries and tools, enough to perhaps distort the success of Linux as a justification. In this respect, I point to the open-source implementations of O/R mapping (Hibernate/NHibernate) or build tools (Ant/NAnt) or unit testing (JUnit/NUnit) and their widespread success, and note that these tools, free or no, would never have achieved the kind of ubiquity they currently enjoy, particularly in the Java community, had they not been able to deliver the needed performance, scalability and features desired by enterprise developers. While not all open source projects are of this kind of high quality, certainly neither are all commercial projects.
- Is there an IP concern? Recently there's been a rash of lawsuits centered around IP ownership issues with respect to open source projects, and the legal mess that results is frightening even to the most hard-bitten lawyer. The problem is more insidious though--does a developer who works on an open source project that his place of employment uses have an IP conflict? It seems that this is just a question of time before these issues are resolved--we're just moving too quickly and it's too early in the realm of copyright law over software to have all the answers yet, and I point out that this problem is hardly constrained to open source.
- Is the code really free? Just because I can download the source doesn't mean the code is really free--there are maintenance and update costs, but this is hardly any different from purchasing a third-party component library.
More importantly, there are several key benefits to having an open source community that a commercial entity like Microsoft just can't replicate:
- Innovation. Developers are running into problems with their tool chains all the time--tools don't work the way they expect, or don't do what they need, or in some cases just plain don't exist. This is the "itch" that Eric Raymond refers to, and developers live to scratch that "itch". Better yet, they can do so without waiting for a vendor to make something that falls under a release schedule. Look at build tools--NAnt was available easily a year or two before MSBuild came out, even in a beta capacity. Ant (which has .NET build tasks) has been out even longer.
- Competition. Let's be honest: there are hardly any competitors left in the Microsoft tools and frameworks arena, and competition breeds innovation and benefits users. While one could argue that Java is that competition, I'd prefer to see competition on a smaller, more granular scale--replacing my entire enterprise suite just to take advantage of a different persistence approach is really not a practical alternative. Replacing my ADO.NET code with NHibernate or some other call-level API is much more approachable.
- Interest growth. Not all people interested in a topic are willing to invest money into said topic just to "kick the tires" and try it out. An open-source project (like Mono, for example) gives developers interested-but-only-interested in .NET a chance to try various things out.
- Reach. Will Microsoft ever write a CLI implementation for the Amiga? Highly doubtful--but if an open-source implementation of the CLI exists (like Mono), it offers a base from which a dedicated (or employed) Amiga developer could develop an Amiga CLI, thus broadening .NET's reach to a new platform. Would this same developer consider doing the work if it meant starting from scratch? Hardly. Will the Amiga CLI represent a significant market share for .NET? Hardly, but why surrender even a single user without a fight if it costs relatively nothing to Microsoft or the community as a whole?
There's clearly more to say on the topic, but I promised to keep my opening remarks to under fifteen pages. :-)
|
|
|
Message #137919
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Open source .NET benefits
Since I am to be the Counterpoint to Ted’s Point, I get the dubious honor of saying “Ted, you ignorant $@&#” :-).
As is often the case, things which at first glance appear to be a benefit can often be a problem waiting to happen. In regards to the statement "if developers can get their hands on high-quality code without paying for it, it means less development time, quicker time to market...", I think this point is clearly open for debate.
"Paying for it" entails more than the trouble and cost of coughing up money for the latest tools or third party components.
- First and foremost, in a market driven industry we cast our vote for the product which most meets our needs and desires with every dollar we spend. Without our dollars, we lose our vote. How then do we influence the feature set and functionality of a new product? If NUnit doesn’t provide the ability to automatically generate test scripts using .NET reflection, how do I get that feature into the product? Send an email to the author(s) and hope they have the time to implement it? Write it myself? No, I do it by joining in with other developers in purchasing a product like Paragon Software’s .Test tool. Then, when it is clear that enough people want automatic script generation, the developers who create NUnit may implement the functionality. That is the power of voting with our dollars.
- Paying for an item implies, both figuratively and legally, a contract between the buyer and seller. If the seller creates a product that violates copyrights or intellectual property rights, THEY are clearly to blame and not the hapless customer who chose to build on that software to support their enterprise or create their products. If there is no clear, legal distinction between the provider of the open source software and its user, then any other company wishing to enforce its copyrights has no choice but to go after the end users.
- By purchasing the right to use a piece of software, as opposed to using software whose source code is in the public domain, we help to secure the products and enterprises we build. If my company uses operating system software to which the entire world has access to the source code, how secure can my network really be? Just because an environment is largely untested and therefore fewer holes are found, does not make it secure.
Right now, if a company chooses to use Windows over Linux or .NET over Java it is because there is some part of that product’s functionality that they want badly enough to pay for it. Can the same be said for open source? If an enterprise had to buy Linux, would it? Or are we so consumed by getting something for nothing that we’re willing to accept whatever we can get?
While I’m not quite enough of an anti-open source zealot to say that there is no benefit to an open source community in .NET, I think that there are some fundamental misconceptions about open source’s benefits.
- Innovation. Most of the open source products in the world are "freeware" versions of products that are commercially available. While there are certainly some open source tools out there that are good products, their requirements come from the features of existing tools. Products like Ant or NAnt may have come out before MSBuild, but I don’t think they represent innovation so much as evolution. Before Linux, there was Unix. Before Mono there was the .NET CLR. Even Ant and NAnt grew by enhancing the functionality of the MAKE utility that’s been around for many, many years.
Innovation on the other hand is the creation of a product for which there is currently no demand. A product whose features and functionality so surpass existing paradigms that they are revolutionary. When I think of innovative products I think of AppSight Black Box, Longhorn, and even Microsoft Bob. Yes, that's right Microsoft Bob. These are products not built on the shoulders of its competitors but on educated guesses and market research and so carry the risk of complete and total failure. In Bob's case we know how it turned out but I suspect that the other products will meet with much better fates. - Competition. At what point did competition in the software industry become Microsoft vs. Open Source? While Microsoft may have successfully squashed any commercial competition to its operating systems, there is still plenty of competition taking place on other fronts. Microsoft is making a rather large push for team collaboration in Visual Studio 2005 but Borland’s StarTeam is available today. SourceGear's Vault product has been competing with Visual Source Safe for several years now. Microsoft does not need open source to foster competition in this industry.
I agree with Ted that there is much more to say on this topic and now that we have gotten the ball rolling, we’d like to hear what you think. Post your comments to this news posting and tell us how you see open source’s future in the .NET world.
|
|
|
Message #138025
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
culturally the .NET world just isn't ready for open source
One thing I've been pondering as a result is why hasn't open source taken off in the .NET / Microsoft world when it has been so popular in other places? I think open source is driven by a culture of innovation. People don't like what they see so they want to do it better, or cheaper.
I think the the .NET development crowd does not have innovation ingrained as deeply in their culture as the Java camp does. I am not referring to Microsoft itself, I think the .NET platform is innovative and Indigo is quite the vision. I am referring to the average developer who is used to looking to and waiting for Microsoft to produce the tools, the patterns and practices, the platform, even the OS. There seems to be a culture of simply doing it the Microsoft way.
Contrast this with the Java world in which the platform, patterns, tools, etc, are all produced collaboratively, and where developers seem to take it upon themselves to produce better solutions to things and open source is generally their mechanism for doing so.
I think the .NET world could definitely benefit from a strong open source community, but to get there we have some large ingrained cultural issues that need to be dealt with, how could this be done?
Floyd
|
|
|
Message #138028
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
culturally the .NET world just isn't ready for open source
See earlier reference to the definition of Innovation. Innovation in my opinion, does not mean better or cheaper.
However, I do think that you are correct in the view that Open Source hasn't caught on in the Microsoft .NET world. One possible reason is that developers in this space are very product centric. I've known several companies who's goal was to create a product that either sold a billion copies or enough to get Microsoft to buy them outright, ala Lookout. With that sort of focus on creating marketable, income generating products there is less incentive to share source code or innovations with other developers. This is a good thing though because it allows us consumers to pick and choose who is doing the best job.
|
|
|
Message #138031
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Questioning your assumptions
"If NUnit doesn’t provide the ability to automatically generate test scripts using .NET reflection, how do I get that feature into the product? Send an email to the author(s) and hope they have the time to implement it? Write it myself? No, I do it by joining in with other developers in purchasing a product like Paragon Software’s .Test tool"
You're assuming that, just because you have asked for a feature to be included, it should be included. Even if you wrote it yourself, there's no guarantee it would make it into NUnit (it actually has little to do with NUnit, so it's not a great example). Open-source does not mean "anything goes". Ironically, the classic FUD-based argument against open source software is that anyone and everyone can and does decide what code goes into the product, which is nonsense. Taking the NUnit example again, it's actually a very conservative project, and much effort is put into keeping it stable, simple and effective.
"How then do we influence the feature set and functionality of a new product?" [I apologise for the bogus quote ordering]
Exactly the same way as with closed-source software. What if I want Microsoft to add an "Inline Method" refactoring to Visual Studio? I don't even have the option of implementing it myself, and given their development schedule, it's not going to be in until at least the Orcas release (2006? 2007?). With open source software I, or a group of developers, *can* implement features and submit them back to the project, and if they don't make it into a release, I can at least use them myself, and distribute them to anyone who wants them.
Jim [user of and contributor to open source software]
ThoughtWorks
|
|
|
Message #138038
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Questioning your assumptions
"How then do we influence the feature set and functionality of a new product?" [I apologise for the bogus quote ordering]Exactly the same way as with closed-source software. What if I want Microsoft to add an "Inline Method" refactoring to Visual Studio? I don't even have the option of implementing it myself, and given their development schedule, it's not going to be in until at least the Orcas release (2006? 2007?). With open source software I, or a group of developers, *can* implement features and submit them back to the project, and if they don't make it into a release, I can at least use them myself, and distribute them to anyone who wants them. I hate to do this, Jim, but it's not exactly as simple as that, either--for example, if I do what you suggest above, and fork my own release of the code, I'm now responsible, if only to myself and the people I gave the release to, for folding any further changes from the main trunk back into my private little branch. That's generally far too much work for me to consider, all just because I want to add a new feature or modify an existing one. Plus, we have the same kind of long development cycles in the open-source community as we do in the commercial world--witness the fact that Apache Axis has been around for 2, 3 years, and we're still at a 1.1 release. This isn't bad, mind you, but let's not pretend that the open-source community is as nimble as its proponents claim it to be nor as anarchic as its detractors claim it to be. Only the smallest projects can release something every month or so. (And let's not go down the road of using daily builds--most companies I work with, at least, grow VERY frightened every time that subject comes up. Microsoft only gives daily "dog food" builds to people they consider to be very friendly, and they do this for very good reasons.)
Also, if I *really* don't like the way Visual Studio or Eclipse behaves, I can always write a VSIP that enables different functionality or extends current funcitonality--for example, it's not all that farfetched to imagine a Boo VSIP for Visual Studio or a Groovy Eclipse plugin that can extend and change VS and Eclipse, without requiring source modifications.
Now, ask me if I'd prefer Visual Studio to be open-sourced or close-, and I'll say that I'd love it if it were open-sourced; there's a few things I'd love to change about how VS works. But ask me again if I've ever gone into Eclipse's source base in order to fix the things that I don't like about it, and I'll have to admit that I've never bothered because I just don't have the time to learn a sourcebase that's, what, twenty-something megs in size?
I love the fact that Eclipse exists, but I really can't see myself tearing into it unless a significant chunk of my development life requires it. I'm far more interested in
|
|
|
Message #138039
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Does the .NET community need open source?
In some cases, the opensource equivalent is superior to what MS comes up with. Example: log4net vs logging application block.
.Net doesn't need open source, just as software development doesn't need .Net. Open-source makes it easier and better though. Just like what .Net does for software development ;)
|
|
|
Message #138041
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
.NET open source community just as strong! (DonXML Demsak)
DonXML Demsak of Donxml.com notes:
I’ve participated in a bunch of open source .Net projects (under various roles), and I am very happy with the .Net open source community. Could we always use some more volunteers, sure what volunteer program couldn’t? But I think the .Net side of the open source community is just as strong as the Java side. I’ll even contend that the .Net open source community is even stronger that the Java community, because, for the most part, the .Net community does its thing without the support of large companies, which gives the community more of a grass roots feeling. Since .Net is a relatively new framework, and it isn’t always easy to gain .Net experience at the workplace, I’ve always suggest to people that want to learn .Net that they should volunteer on an open source project that interests them. It is a great way to learn .Net (from experienced .Net developers), without the cost of going to a training school, and their new experience in .Net will be with something that they find interesting to them. The final result is that they will have experience in a segment of the industry that they enjoy, and should help guide them into employee positions that leverage that new knowledge.
Where can you go to find open source .Net projects? The 2 big locations are SourceForge and GotDotNet Workspaces.
|
|
|
Message #138044
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Does the .NET community need open source?
While Log4Net may be superior to the Logging Application Block, that is in no way an endorsement of open source. The AppSight Black Box commercial software so completely and totally blows away anything that Log4Net can do that they're not just in different leagues, they're playing different games. So if Microsoft doesn't make the product, or the right product, the answer is not necessarily open source.
|
|
|
Message #138050
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Does the .NET community need open source?
Ted: What are the benefits and/or detractions of open source software in general, and the necessity (or not) of a healthy vibrant open source community in .NET . On one side it breeds innovation and reach; but others argue that cost is more than just money, and that the innovation isn't really there. This question applies to any platform; I guess you're playing the devil's advocate a bit here, but the debate is worth it.Ted: what benefits the open source approach offers the community as a whole [?] The open source approach offers the community the tools to reach pragmatic and efficient software engineering, where developers can concentrate on implementing functionalities (no bullshit).
I've been setting-up "best practices" (as everyone call them, so I'll use the word) such as continuous integration, unit testing in Java, .Net or C++.
I wouldn't have such a good chance to let the customer switch to those innovations without using open source products, or at least not so closed from what I wanted to reach (efficiency + pleasant way of work)
For the .Net part, I'm especially talking about :
- CruiseControl.Net
- Log4Net
- Nant
- NUnit and its children
- NUnitAddin
- NMock
- NDoc
- ...
There's more to add of course, including not open-source but free for open-source use software (eg: jira), and other everyday usage tools.
Now I have my team doing unit tests in a fully IDE integrated, with step-by-step debugging for unit tests, and having their code integrate automatically with the unit tests checked, published in a well-defined place, with up-to-date documentation, packaged (sure, every single IDE editor is working on this those days).
The benefit is that it leverage my team's practices, at low cost. I have a setup which I can reproduce quickly in another place, without buying new licences and going through the decision-makers circuit.
Of course cost/time spent can grow according to several factors :
- if I want something faster than it is planned, or something that the mainstream doesn't want. It often happen to be something which is not so useful, except if I'm a very clever guy.
- if I detect that I should spend some time proposing a patch, but generally I do that if I think it deserve it, and if I estimate that I'll earn more time in exchange in my everyday work
- if I'm not well organized in the way I update versions of tools/frameworks I depend on. Of course projects involving few or no unit tests, or using bad processes will suffer a lot from this.
- dramatically, if I didn't properly benchmark the tool before (does it fit my needs in an acceptable way, is it backed by an effective support, won't the next version break everything, is it going to be maintained and will evolve long enough?)
Most of these factors applies to commercial software as well.
To me (apart the IP topic, but it's more critical on frameworks/libraries than on tools), open source is just a part of the market, but most of the time and if properly choosed, it's more like a good commercial product. It's as well a product for which I can interact on the feature set (I mean, I'm actually *doing* it). If I don't get what I need from open source, I have a look at the rest of the market.Paul: If NUnit doesn’t provide the ability to automatically generate test scripts using .NET reflection, how do I get that feature into the product? Send an email to the author(s) and hope they have the time to implement it? Write it myself? No, I do it by joining in with other developers in purchasing a product like Paragon Software’s .Test tool As usual in software development, I'll try first looking for something else that may do the job. The automatic test generation doesn't seem to be well covered in open source, sure, or at least I don't know a well known project which does so, but other topics find evolutions which are of interest : see mbunit and other derivatives from nunit for instance.
As well, writing to the authors actually works. If my idea is good enough (which means, successfully reach the level of convincing people it's worth it), developers will naturally tend to implement it.Paul: By purchasing the right to use a piece of software, as opposed to using software whose source code is in the public domain, we help to secure the products and enterprises we build. If my company uses operating system software to which the entire world has access to the source code, how secure can my network really be? Just because an environment is largely untested and therefore fewer holes are found, does not make it secure. I don't agree with this, and know that most of the people I know won't, as well. Opening a system surely means exposing its internals, but at the end means more peer reviews, by talented resources you don't have to employ yourself, more communications about detected flaws, faster fixes, and finally more security in the system itself, despite exposure of the inner parts.
Apart from the last two quotes, conclusion is, at my level, that open source is making my team work better and in a more comfortable way, at a fairly acceptable cost, with the best practices we need (=the benefit).
From what I see around me, more and more people are moving to nunit, nant, cruisecontrol and others open source tools, so I guess my view is somehow shared by other people.
I think what's been missing somehow to develop the community is personalities, but it's really starting to emerge as products get more widespread (I'm especially thinking about Lutz Roeder, Jamie Cansdale, Ian MacLean, Mike Roberts, Owen Rogers, Jonathan de Halleux, more could be added).
|
|
|
Message #138051
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Does the .NET community need open source?
I don't think Microsoft, and as a subset .Net, can be competitive without an open source and JCP-style community. .Net open source is were Java was several years ago in my opinion. .Net open source projects have the advantage of porting Java successful open source projects and Java community specifications. To truly innovate and produce a better struts, hibernate or JSR and not just a port will be an uphill battle. Could you ever see .Net surpassing the Java community.
With the delay of Longhorn, Avalon, Whidbey? and others, the .Net community needs to rely on something other than Microsoft to release the pressure and frustration developers are feeling right now. ASP.NET 2.0 is style behind JSP
I think third world development will decide the fate of Microsoft commercial-software-only strategy. Those that can't afford commercial software will make do with comparable knock-offs and incrementally innovate them in the process.
|
|
|
Message #138052
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Open source .NET benefits
Just some replies to Paul's points:First and foremost, in a market driven industry we cast our vote for the product which most meets our needs and desires with every dollar we spend. You're talking about a capitalist democracy. In the Open Source sphere, we also cast our votes for our preferred products - but not necessarily with the dollars (or pounds) in our pockets, rather in our willingness to invest time and effort into a product. A commercial product gains its momentum from sales and revenue. Without them it will die. An open source product depends on the time and effort expended by the community to enhance and maintain it, and without this, it will surely fade into obscurity. This is a mirror image of what happens in the commercial sphere, except the "currency" is not monetary, but rather in terms of time and mindshare. The implication that a lack of monetary return implies a lack of motivation is clearly disproven.If my company uses operating system software to which the entire world has access to the source code, how secure can my network really be? Oh come on. You do know Microsoft, right? Look at the track record of Linux, Apache, etc. when it comes to security. Admittedly they have a lower volume, but they do have a much better track record so far.Microsoft does not need open source to foster competition in this industry. I think the facts would indicate otherwise. What a silly talking point. Did you write your initial argument in a hurry? ;) I hope your followups have a bit more substance. If there is no clear, legal distinction between the provider of the open source software and its user, then any other company wishing to enforce its copyrights has no choice but to go after the end users This is a terms of contract and legal issue, right? And I think we could debate till the cows came home on the legal subtleties involved there.Before Linux, there was Unix Unix was the defining example of open source in action, in an academic setting. Open source is based on the academic/scientific model of collaboration. Wven the commercial fork (AT&T) ended up taking a lot of useful code from the BSD version.
|
|
|
Message #138056
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Open source .NET benefits
Thanks for the feedback Rory.
I'm glad you brought up the time and effort involved with the support of an open source project. This amount of time can be considerable as any developer of an open source product could attest. This reminds me of my favorite anti-Linux quote, "Linux is only free if your time has no value". As I would bet that your time does in fact have a value, you could then extrapolate just how much money the support of an open source project is going to cost the community as a whole. At what point would it become more cost effective to just buy something?Oh come on. You do know Microsoft, right? Look at the track record of Linux, Apache, etc. when it comes to security. Admittedly they have a lower volume, but they do have a much better track record so far. Sorry Rory, but I don't agree and neither do many security experts. Most people see the release of a new patch for IE or Windows as further proof of the insecurity of the platform. But what they don't realize is that what they are seeing is the END of a security vulnerability, at least if they apply the darned thing. If you read this paper you'll see that the primary point at which a user is at risk is after the vulnerability has been publicly exposed but before the fix is available. Microsoft has a significantly better record than Linux for turnaround of fixes from the point of public exposure. The problem Microsoft has had is in getting users to apply the patches in a timely manner. As an example, I blatantly violated the corporate policy of a client by installing the latest patches via Windows Update to my desktop computer. But when Slammer ripped through the corporate lan and took the entire company down for 3 days, my desktop and productivity was not affected.What a silly talking point. Did you write your initial argument in a hurry? ;) I hope your followups have a bit more substance. Well, I'm certainly trying. :-) The part of the statement that I take issue with is that Microsoft "needs" an open source community for .NET to thrive. Certainly I won't say that there aren't some benefits to a strong open source community, but the adoption of .NET is proceeding just fine without the level of open source support that Java currently has. The real question is, are there products and tools available to support .NET developers (by Microsoft and others) or is there such a gap that only open source can fill it. I don't think that gap is there.
|
|
|
Message #138061
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
NUnit, or your money is no good here
I'm sure I've got the threading all messed up on this but...
Someone mentioned voting with their dollar by choosing to buy a unit testing tool instead of using NUnit. As one of the authors of NUnit I personally don't care where your dollars go because they are never going to go to me. I do however care if people hate the product or think it is flawed (and I know it is far from perfect). But money and marketing can't influence the direction of NUnit.
That is actually one of the powerful things about open source. NUnit is a tool for doing test driven development. Generating tests, or a gui to build tests (trust me that gets asked for a lot) don't fit too well with TDD. The NUnit authors can stay true to our goals and not bend to market pressure. If you want a feature that we don't think fits with our goals and can find it in a commercial product that's great! Of course, unlike commercial products, you could also write it yourself or search for a fork. There are lots of issues with forking but at least you have the option. But for the people who want it to stay as true to TDD as possible and not be a testing framework for all seasons it's nice to know we can do that and not worry much about the competition.
I think the .NET community needs open source as much as every other development community. It gives you options. If we always waited for microsoft we would still be waiting for a unit testing tool and a build tool for another year. O/R mapping might come along in 06 but it might not. When would we have a mock object framework? That isn't in their plan as far as I know. If we always wait for commercial projects we will often wait a long time.
Of course that isn't always true. ReSharper adds refactoring to VS.NET now so we don't have to wait for Whidbey.
|
|
|
Message #138065
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Open Source Security: the Myth of A Thousand Eyes
If my company uses operating system software to which the entire world has access to the source code, how secure can my network really be? Oh come on. You do know Microsoft, right? Look at the track record of Linux, Apache, etc. when it comes to security. Admittedly they have a lower volume, but they do have a much better track record so far.
John Viega (co-author of several security books and frequent speaker on security topics) gave a talk at FOO camp last weekend about the myths of open source security, that the "thousands of eyeballs" involved in open source projects produces secure software--in particular, that most developers (not just in open-source projects, but in all projects) aren't qualified to do a security review of code. (For example, how many people here understand the exploitable integer attack?) The thing that open source does provide is the ability to allow even qualified professionals to look at the source, but how many of those people will do so without some kind of fiscal renumeration?
That last statement may cause people to question my position on the debate, so allow me to clarify: I believe that a vibrant and healthy open-source community is important. I also believe that it cannot *replace* the commercial vendors. We need to be paid in order to justify spending the time, at least if we want to avoid having to use phrases in the workplace like "Would you like fries with that?" In the end, a careful balance is what works best, for both developers and companies.
|
|
|
Message #138079
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Nice to see some activity on serverside.net...
Usually total count for any topic never exceeded 3.
Probably the first post which created some participation.
Ricky Datta
|
|
|
Message #138094
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Nice to see some activity on serverside.net...
This looks like a troll for Mircosoft PR types.
I can’t buy Paul Ballard’s argument that it feels good to spend money on software, feels good to fear lawsuits, and feels secure in closed source ignorance. His arguments are designed to slow the loss of mindshare of those .Net developers who happen upon this site. Here is another slant on “why opensource” other than the threat to Microsoft this thread is taking.
A great personal experience I had was creating a Sourceforge project many years ago. The goal was not based on fortune or fame but simply sharing my ideas. I didn’t want, what I thought was innovative at the time, to die in some never to be deployed corporate project.
When you start an opensource project, all of a sudden the threshold of quality of your code and process is expected to be world class and not the hack of a prototype you think is publishable. Looking at the way other opensource projects were organized first with shell scripts, then Ant, then Junit, and then with Maven showed me how to organize my own corporate projects and build in quality up front. Seeing incremental release management, how designs are refactored, branched, and moved forward without fear of losing marketshare by not being backwards compatible is a great thing. Innovaton and quality. Very motorcycle maintenance. Alas, my project like many Sourceforge projects sits there with 0% activity but it will still be there the next time I have a wild idea ready to publish.
Opensource also has vibrant philosophies and cultures. The philosophies may be expressed in license types such as Apache-style and LGPL. The cultures are amazing such as apache.org, sf.net, codehaus.org, opensymphony.com, jboss.com, eclipse.org, and java.net among others. Sun, Apple, and IBM have successfully worked opensource into thier core business models. And now BEA too.
I am interested in what .Net has to offer. But right now I am in the camp of love Java but hate Sun, love the Mac but hate Apple (better since Scully), and love .Net but hate Microsoft.
Opensource means I don’t have to wait for Microsoft to tell me what to do. I don’t have to wait for Whidbey. I don’t have to wait.
|
|
|
Message #138100
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Re: culturally the .NET world just isn't ready for open source
I think the .Net world isn't just ready for open source, it is actively using, supporting and promoting it. Have a look at this as an example: http://csharp-source.net/. I'm using open source products on my current project. They are brilliant additions to the project. I often promote their usage at community events and team members on my project have contributed back features and fixes to these open source projects.I think the the .NET development crowd does not have innovation ingrained as deeply in their culture as the Java camp does. That is a huge generalisation, but I suppose we are talking about the big picture view here. I would suggest that some sections of the Microsoft developer community have 'innovation ingrained' deeper than others. If you created a graph that had innovation on the x-axis and number of people on the y-axis you'd get a nice bell curve (as you almost always do). Microsoft's developer community probably has just as many high innovation people as the Java developer community, but the higher number of lower innovation (read: use Microsoft tools and get the job done just fine with those) developers shifts the overall bell curve towards the 'low innovation' end of the scale.
Microsoft developer's (as a generalisation) seem to be happier using the brilliant tools that Microsoft provides than Java developers are with any one company. I don't think that is a black mark on the community, I think that is a credit to the company that creates the high quality products that enable that environment.I think the .NET world could definitely benefit from a strong open source community, but to get there we have some large ingrained cultural issues that need to be dealt with, how could this be done? As I mentioned previously, I believe we already have a strong open source community.
- Problems are often solved using open source - witness NUnit, CruiseControl.Net, NHibernate, OJB.Net, and others.
- Patterns are often produced collaboratively - The patterns and practices group within Microsoft collaborates with the community and gives away guidance for free (http://www.microsoft.com/resources/practices/default.mspx). Besides this, patterns are often technology agnostic and I'm sure there are many .Net developers out there that, like me, contribute to and use patterns adapted from the Java world (since it has had more time to build up a library of pattern examples).
- Platforms are often produced collaboratively - witness Mono (http://www.scruffles.net/blog/archive/000039.html)
What problems are you seeing with the .Net community culture? Do you see the presence of a strong and active company like Microsoft as having a stifling (negative) effect? If there was a similar company in the Java world, do you think this same thing would occur?
- Chris
|
|
|
Message #138103
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Reality vs Empty talk
For all those questioning the value of open source, I would ask the following. "have you ever discovered a bug in a product, be it Sun, IBM, Oracle or Microsoft?" I'm gonna bet the answer is yes. Given the answer is most likely yes, my next question is this, "How long does it take to get fixed? 1 month, 2 months or 6 months?"
Having found bugs in websphere, weblogic, iis, tomcat and a couple of other products, the only cases where the bug was resolve in less than a week was jakarta projects. How long did it take for me to fix it? In the case of jstl and tomcat, 2-3 hours. How long did it take to get committed to CVS? 1-2 days when the developers are free. that was one reason I became a committer on Jakarta JMeter. As an active developer on JMeter, we don't always committed patches within a hour? Generall, if it is a critical bug, usually someone will check the patch or debug it within a week. Enhancements often take a couple of weeks, since they are lower priority.
In terms of innovation, I ask this, "does IIS have session replication?" Tomcat 5 already has delta session replication and it works well. It's not the best in the world, but several tomcat developers have been working very hard. Does IIS or Microsoft application server support JBoss style stateful session replication? Although one can use DTC on .NET, lets be honest. DTC is not the same thing as session replication for stateful transactional applications.
As the author of Dingo, i can say open source does provide real innovation. is it revolutionary? Nope, it's not revolutionary. Incremental improvements is much more sustainable than rapid shifts, and real revolutionary innovation is really hard to do. to my knowledge, no schema compiler on the market provides the type of plugin features Dingo provides. there are plenty of applications with similar plugin architecture, but AFAIK no schema compiler currently provides it. I didn't come up with the architecture magically. I took good ideas from eclipse, jmeter and other projects to make a flexible schema compiler. I also like to write parsers and compilers in my free time, so I may be a bit odd in that respect.
quite frankly, I don't use the "sorry boss, we can't do feature X, because there's a bug in product Z." I believe it is my problem when something doesn't work, because ultimately I am accountable for delivering software. Open source provides the highest level of flexibility and allows me to do my job to the highest quality I can achieve. does this mean i have to understand the technology at a deep level? Sure it does, but that is how I measure professionalism. it's not enough to just code up some classes. every programmer should take the time to understand the technology they are using thoroughly and go the extra mile to make sure the code they deliver is the highest quality they can deliver. Are all open source projects deligent and high quality? hell no, but like commercial software is any different. Atleast with open source software, you have all the proof in front of you. with closed source, not only have you lost your money for crappy product, but often you get blamed by company Z. Of course, that happens every where including open source.
|
|
|
Message #138105
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Re: culturally the .NET world just isn't ready for open source
That is a huge generalisation, but I suppose we are talking about the big picture view here. I would suggest that some sections of the Microsoft developer community have 'innovation ingrained' deeper than others. If you created a graph that had innovation on the x-axis and number of people on the y-axis you'd get a nice bell curve (as you almost always do). Microsoft's developer community probably has just as many high innovation people as the Java developer community, but the higher number of lower innovation (read: use Microsoft tools and get the job done just fine with those) developers shifts the overall bell curve towards the 'low innovation' end of the scale. Interesting. That may be, but if you compare the sheer # of open source projects in the Java space compared to the usual suspects that always get mentioned in defence of .NET open source, I think that would suggest that the graph for the Java camp would be further to the right than the .NET camp. I don't think that is a black mark on the community, I think that is a credit to the company that creates the high quality products that enable that environment. I never said it was, and you're certainly right. Perhaps Microsoft does too good a job, and that's why there is less need for people to roll up their sleeves and do it their own way. :)I think the .Net world isn't just ready for open source, it is actively using, supporting and promoting it.. That is good to hear. Perhaps the problem then is that there are not enough forums in which .NET open source are discussed / widely promoted. I don't see much on most developer forums. TSS.NET is one of the few communities that regularly has open source project announcements. In the absence of a multitude of .NET projects and discussions about open source .NET around, it is easy for one to form the impression that there is not an active open source community here. Perhaps this thread is a step in the right direction then. :)What problems are you seeing with the .Net community culture? Do you see the presence of a strong and active company like Microsoft as having a stifling (negative) effect? If there was a similar company in the Java world, do you think this same thing would occur? I am not labelling the status quo as a problem, but pointing out that the current culture (as I percieve it) is simply used to recieving tools and guidance from MS and thus people are less prone to go out and innovate themselves via open source. I think it stems from a feeling of not OWNING the platform. Since MS controls the platform, people simply do what MS says. In the Java world ownership of the future of Java is shared amongst many, so I think that causes a sense of ownership and responsibility among it's users to, which in the end translates into a more vibrant and active open source community, where people go out and create their own innovations to improve Java.
This is certainly a generalization, but is my 30K foot view.
If there were a similar company in the Java world, would this occur? Definitely. There is nothing about Java as a language that causes people to innovate more; if one company owned Java and was the source of all tools and guidance for Java, I'm sure the culture of it's users would be similar.
|
|
|
Message #138109
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
misconception
Ok, I think some of these generalizations are false for large enterprise apps that have to provide high availability and high scalability. It's much easier to write a great IDE, if you're targeting the most common tasks, like winforms. If you're building high performance server applications, most of the time you need to write custom tools to fit the exact needs.
there's a higher number of excellent java server tools in open source, because of the type of applications java is used to solve. there are fewer .NET developers in open source, because typically .NET is not used on systems that have to provide 2K concurrent requests/queries. by system, I mean a either a cluster of servers or a single large mainframe or high end unix box.
the nature of building high performance custom applications is completely different than something like building a simple GUI with winforms. even microsoft admits that DCOM/COM+ does not scale to global scale, whereas corba and J2EE do provide that level of performance for the top 5 financial firms in the US. to put it simply, the elete developer in .NET is a very different programmer than a guru in distributed java systems. the depth and breadth of knowledge is atleast an order of magnitude.
|
|
|
Message #138111
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Open source .NET benefits
The real question is, are there products and tools available to support .NET developers (by Microsoft and others) or is there such a gap that only open source can fill it. I don't think that gap is there. I'm not a .NET expert that it would seem that there is a need for open source here. What do .NET developers do if they want to build a real object oriented business model? MS has been dragging it's feet with ObjectSpaces for years. Clearly there was a need for OJB.NET and NHibernate. Many other good examples have also been given in this thread.
Peter Lin's last comment on this was also superb.
Floyd
|
|
|
Message #138114
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
misconception... leading to another one?
If you're building high performance server applications, most of the time you need to write custom tools to fit the exact needs.there's a higher number of excellent java server tools in open source, because of the type of applications java is used to solve. there are fewer .NET developers in open source, because typically .NET is not used on systems that have to provide 2K concurrent requests/queries. Makes sense to me (as a Java guy), but speaking of generalizations, I am sure there are a lot of people who would be up in arms about the generalization you just made, that .NET is generally not used on enterprise-scale applications... :)
|
|
|
Message #138116
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
.NET is not just a pretty face
typically .NET is not used on systems that have to provide 2K concurrent requests/queries. by system While .NET is certainly the tool of choice for Windows GUIs, I can tell you that the last two projects I personally worked on were for high throughput systems with more than 30,000 end users. The project included either a web or Windows based GUI, but the server side components were all .NET.
I'd also point readers to the this page for financial industry specific information on how .NET is being used in high performance applications.
|
|
|
Message #138117
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Another comment about server side support in .NET
there's a higher number of excellent java server tools in open source While I don't have the time or inclination to actually count the number of java server tools, much less to try to weed out the excellent ones from the merely adequate, I think it is safe to say that there are many companies that provide tools for Microsoft and .NET based server support BESIDES Microsoft. Some of these include Veritas, NetIQ, BMC Software, Compuware to name just a few.
If there is a single message that I'd like to get out about Microsoft vs. Open Source, it's this. Microsoft is NOT the only maker of tools and technologies for the .NET world and therefore open source is not THE single answer to everything and anything that might be missing in its products. While berating Microsoft for not providing this feature or function in its products many people seem to not notice that there are hundreds of other companies out there filling in those gaps with stable, tested commercial software. What is it about open source that makes it "better" than these tools? Just the fact that you don't have to pay for it?
|
|
|
Message #138133
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Another comment about server side support in .NET
What is it about open source that makes it "better" than these tools? Just the fact that you don't have to pay for it? The fact that you don't have to pay for it up front; this means that I can experiment and research with the technology, on my own clock (no 30-day windows in which I have to get all my questions answered).
The fact that open-source projects are often (not always, but often) more nimble and responsive than commercial projects. Most commercial toolkits have to take marketing and advertising considerations into account when scheduling a release--no open source project does (that I know of). When it's ready, it ships.
The fact that those who are interested can spelunk the source code for the library or tools and learn something they didn't know before. (I often wish the FCL source were widely available for the same reason--Anakrino and Reflector are great, but the comments associated with source are often the most insightful part of the codebase. Rotor is a Godsend in this respect.)
And the fact that open source allows projects like the Rotor research projects hosted by Microsoft Research a few years ago to take place--how could Chris Sells indulge in his fantasy of deterministic finalization without Rotor?
Remember, open source doesn't always mean "free". What's the phrase? "Free, as in (blank), not free as in beer?" (Somebody please fill in the blank for me.)
|
|
|
Message #138144
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Another comment about server side support in .NET
Remember, open source doesn't always mean "free". What's the phrase? "Free, as in (blank), not free as in beer?" (Somebody please fill in the blank for me.) Speech. :-)
Now, this is a very interesting debate. And it's great to see a debate about open-source that is keeping firmly on practical issues and steering away from religious issues. In fact, I sometimes wish that there was a lot more traffic on this site, as frequently some of the Java-based debates can become a little religious, and tiresome.
To me, "open source" doesn't just mean software that I can obtain for free. I don't even think of open source in the same way along the same lines that say, Richard Stallman does (which is a more political view). Open source to me is a way of working and collaborating with others, and reaping common benefits from the results. It really is the scientific method applied to software development.
In the academic world, you can collaborate on research with peers from other institutions, and reference or incorporate pre-existing works in the field. During the research process, you have the ability to study an existing body of work created by others. The entire process is designed to aid, not to impede, innovation. And right now there is a massive open-source infrastructure in place built atop this model, ranging from wizened early-Unix C hackers up to enthusiasts of new and innovative technologies. And the cross-pollination is really exciting. For instance, the guys who created Groovy (a dynamic language built on top of the JVM) gained inspiration from Perl and Ruby, among other sources, and if they wished, they could have dived into the Ruby or Perl source any time they wished.
Of course we still need commercial software, if there is no equivalent in the open sphere. I quite happily pay for Clover, for instance, because a) it's a superb product, and b) there is no free product of an equivalent quality. And there are many more examples.
So at the end of the day, it's a pragmatic decision. There are pros and cons for each approach. Personally though, I think the open source approach has many more pros than cons.
|
|
|
Message #138156
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
.NET is not just a pretty face
typically .NET is not used on systems that have to provide 2K concurrent requests/queries. by system While .NET is certainly the tool of choice for Windows GUIs, I can tell you that the last two projects I personally worked on were for high throughput systems with more than 30,000 end users. The project included either a web or Windows based GUI, but the server side components were all .NET. I'd also point readers to the this page for financial industry specific information on how .NET is being used in high performance applications.
30K end users is not the same as a system that gets 2-10K concurrent requests/queries a second for 24/7. we're talking systems that handle 5million+ end user type systems. Just to clarify the difference. also the number of end users mean nothing if it means a total of 4 concurrent requests/second for 10 hrs a day.
|
|
|
Message #138159
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Questioning your assumptions
Ted,
"[forking is] not exactly as simple as that, either"
Not always, but it can be. The point is, surely, that you have a choice, as you state in a later message. Rotor is itself a fork of the main CLR. And weren't generics proven in Rotor with Gyro before they were added to the main CLR?
"we have the same kind of long development cycles in the open-source community as we do in the commercial world"
Sometimes, but often we don't. As you say (again, in a later message), open source projects don't have the same concerns as commercial projects.
"if I *really* don't like the way Visual Studio or Eclipse behaves, I can always write a VSIP that enables different functionality or extends current funcitonality"
Sure, but VSIP has its limitations (I have it on good authority that a Visual Studio engineer, when shown ReSharper, said they didn't know how the hell Jetbrains did some of the things it did). And what if there's a bug? Wait for a service pack, right?
"I'm far more interested in..."
In? In? Your post got truncated :-)
Anyway, we'll probably end up violently agreeing.
Jim
ThoughtWorks
|
|
|
Message #138168
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Another comment about server side support in .NET
.Net developers need to drive open source not Microsoft. But much like you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink, .Net developers may not see the value in the pool of resources in front of them. I think they do but threats and vaporware teasers from MS pull on the virtual bridle.
I'm hearing a mix of business and technical cases for/against opensource from this thread. I think the opensource business model prevents Microsoft from promoting it. I predict they will come out with some face saving "glasnost" once they cross some tipping point.
I listened to a dotnetrocks webcast where the developers of dotnetnuke were interviewed. An opensource portal project that has gained a significant user base. The interviewers were naturally expecting ASP.NET 2.0 and Whidbey compliance. The dotnetnuke developers felt that while they were working with MS on Whidbey compliance they felt thier product offered more enhanced feaures than what ASP.NET 2.0 had to offer. There was an uneasy silence as the interviewers wrestled with the concept of breaking ranks.
|
|
|
Message #138185
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
.NET is not just a pretty face
30K end users is not the same as a system that gets 2-10K concurrent requests/queries a second for 24/7 30K End users COULD be the same as a system that gets 2-10K concurrent requests depending on the actual load. My point is that because .NET has great tools for Windows GUI development, you shouldn't assume it's not being used in high throughput systems.
|
|
|
Message #138191
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
PR fluff
typically .NET is not used on systems that have to provide 2K concurrent requests/queries. by system While .NET is certainly the tool of choice for Windows GUIs, I can tell you that the last two projects I personally worked on were for high throughput systems with more than 30,000 end users. The project included either a web or Windows based GUI, but the server side components were all .NET. I'd also point readers to the this page for financial industry specific information on how .NET is being used in high performance applications.
Over the last two years I've seen plenty of claim on .NET magazine and other Microsoft resources. I took a look at the list in the link you provided. Most of them are client side applications, which is totally different than a high availability server application. Of the ones that look like serverside deployments, the details are vague and half truths at best. In the cases where Microsoft or a MS partner claims .NET is doing great, my own experience after a couple of weeks of research reveals the systems are "value-add" services that aren't sub-minute or sub-second realtime. Just because Sql Server is being used for data warehousing and getting feeds from Oracle, or DB2 doesn't make it the same thing as a system that has to handle 2K transactions per second.
I've primarily worked on medium to large server applications, so I'm not an expert. Some of programmers I know work on systems that have to handle upwards of 1Tb of data per week with 10K concurrent requests/queries a second. In my mind, anything less than 10 concurrent requests per second average over a 24hr period is small. Everyone has different definition of large. It just happens that people who really work on large systems consider microsoft's definition of large to be tiny.
|
|
|
Message #138195
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
.NET is not just a pretty face
30K end users is not the same as a system that gets 2-10K concurrent requests/queries a second for 24/7 30K End users COULD be the same as a system that gets 2-10K concurrent requests depending on the actual load. My point is that because .NET has great tools for Windows GUI development, you shouldn't assume it's not being used in high throughput systems.
You're absolutely right and I agree with you that being strong in GUI does not mean .NET is not being used for high throughput server applications. I will glady eat my words when someone shows me a high availability transactional systems written in .NET with cold hard facts and not PR fluff. From the benchmarks I've ran over the last two years trying to figure how best to build a HDA server application in .NET, I've come to the conclusion you have to bypass COM+, ADO.NET and just about everything that is performance sensitive. The same is not true of the open source java world. There are plenty of java open source projects that get excellent scalability under C5K conditions.
But it's by no means cheap. You have to spend a lot of time to learn each project and quickly figure out if it really is appropriate. My biased experience is to go to the source and read through the critical components. If they aren't well written, I move on. With closed source products I don't have that option in many cases. Sure I can sign up for the shared source thing, but I don't want to sign away my life to figure if application server X can handle the needs.
|
|
|
Message #138197
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Open Source is a broad category
It is hard to compare "Open Source" to "Closed Source" for me.
I want to work with the best possible tools. Often these tools come from the open source world, however often they come from the commercial world.
The Good"Wow this open source project is innovative and is moving like a fast train (e.g. Spring)"
"Wow this closed source project is innovative. I really like how they have given us open APIs so I can build my own modules (e.g. ReSharper)" The Bad"Wow this open source project looks great"
(4 months later)
"Hmm, the project leaders have moved on to something else, and this project has stagnated"
"Wow this closed source project really locks me in" I try to take things on a case by case basis. I love the fact that open source comes from a different perspective than commercial entities.... but you have to be careful :)
Dion
|
|
|
Message #138198
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Open source culture
It is definitely interesting to think about open source and .NET.
Although there are a lot of great open source tools coming up in .NET (for one many people are porting Java ones such as NUnit, NAnt, Spring.NET, etc), there is a bit of an ivory tower syndrome.
Maybe .NET developers look to Microsoft for the One True Way. On the Java side, it is almost the opposite. If a Sun product competes with an open source one, people tend for the open source option!
Microsoft will hopefully change this culture. They are doing a LOT of open source work themselves (which is smart), so as they "bless" things... maybe then the average joe will get it.
Dion
|
|
|
Message #138208
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Does the .NET community need open source?
The thing I particularly like about open source is that you always have a choice. I wouldn't say open source is better or worse then closed source for the same reasons Dion mentioned. It is just another approach to solving software problems and I think it is an important one as the community has needs and companies can not always satisfy those needs for every community member. These reasons include not only fanancial ones but if there is a particular need someone has that doesn't fit the development roadmap of the company, then you can still do something about it.
However, in most cases, you just don't have the time, resources, or ambition to start digging into the code. But with open source, maybe someone that does have the time, resources, and ambition will solve the problem for you.
As a whole, I think commercial products tend to be a bit better than open source, because of the obvious financial incentive. But the open source projects that survive, gain popularity, and then become successful are usually very high quality and in several cases, are better technologies than their commercial competitors.
Open source I think has also pushed the commercial products to be better because commercial products have to give end users something they feel they should have to pay for. If you are the only game in town, if you can make money off your product and don't have to keep up with customer demands, let's face it, they won't. That is what competition is all about. And in the end, competition gives the consumer a better product.
I also noticed alot of arguments on the religion of open source. There are quite a few vocal community members who tend to say open source is the answer to all problems. Clearly, that is not the case. In the same way, I think the Microsoft community also tends to be religious with saying Microsoft is the answer to all your problems. Clearly, this is not the case either.
To answer the original question, "Does the .NET community need open source?". Of course they don't. They can simply keep relying on Microsoft to take care of all there needs (depending on your needs this might be sufficient). But I certainly think the .NET community would be better off with it to help solve software problems that Microsoft just can't solve for a variety of possible reasons.
Also, whether the .NET community needs open source or not, it is already here and being used. Time will tell how useful it is to the .NET community and it will be interesting seeing what kind of an impact it actually plays.
As with any project, you should weigh the pros and cons and pick the best tool for the job. If you don't like what a commercial version does, see if there is an open source tool, or another closed source tool that fits your needs better. If you don't like an open source project because it is hard to learn or there isn't support then look into commercial projects.
-Lloyd
|
|
|
Message #138214
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
The right tool vs Management already decided
To inject a dose of reality. How many times have developers been told, "use x technology." One aspect of the open source vs close source debate is large dependent on the quality of the managers one works for. In many of the shops, using open source is not recommended and often against company policy. I recently went on an interview at a large financial firm. At the end of the interview, I asked what the companies policy towards open and developers contributing to their favorite project on their own time. The response was pro open source when it makes sense.
From my experience, that is the exception and not the norm. At a previous job we built a portal using Tomcat and standard J2SE technology. When it came time to sell the idea to the managers, they said "what? open source?" To get around that, I ran a ton of benchmarks and dug deep into the nightly reports to figure out what the real average and peek loads are. I worked with a team of excellent developers to figure out what made sense and how to really test the performance of what we built. I ran a ton of profiles along with the benchmark. When it came time to deploy, we all the test data, results and pretty graphs. The management approved the use of tomcat, but we had to sneak it under the radar.
whether .NET community needs open source to me is not the real issue. the real issue is educating those in power to keep an open mind. developers can get religious at times, but so can management. it won't matter if there is an open source community for .NET, if the predominant culture of .NET shops is "open source is not allowed."
|
|
|
Message #138220
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Set the table and grab a fork!
I will glady eat my words when someone shows me a high availability transactional systems written in .NET with cold hard facts and not PR fluff Here are two case studies of financial firms using Windows Server 2003 to build high performance server applications with .NET.
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/CaseStudy.asp?CaseStudyID=13911
and
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/CaseStudy.asp?CaseStudyID=14814
Now before you start spouting that these are more "PR Fluff", consider that unless you are willing to do the same "extensive research" by contacting these companies and verifying the details of the case study then perhaps your sense that these are "fluff" is just you being cynical and unfairly biased against Microsoft.
What's more, Microsoft recently announced that it plans to create a new version of Windows Server 2003 specifically geared towards High Performance Computing. You can read more about it here.
|
|
|
Message #138224
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
The right tool vs Management already decided
To inject a dose of reality. How many times have developers been told, "use x technology." One aspect of the open source vs close source debate is large dependent on the quality of the managers one works for. In many of the shops, using open source is not recommended and often against company policy. I recently went on an interview at a large financial firm. At the end of the interview, I asked what the companies policy towards open and developers contributing to their favorite project on their own time. The response was pro open source when it makes sense.From my experience, that is the exception and not the norm. At a previous job we built a portal using Tomcat and standard J2SE technology. When it came time to sell the idea to the managers, they said "what? open source?" To get around that, I ran a ton of benchmarks and dug deep into the nightly reports to figure out what the real average and peek loads are. I worked with a team of excellent developers to figure out what made sense and how to really test the performance of what we built. I ran a ton of profiles along with the benchmark. When it came time to deploy, we all the test data, results and pretty graphs. The management approved the use of tomcat, but we had to sneak it under the radar.whether .NET community needs open source to me is not the real issue. the real issue is educating those in power to keep an open mind. developers can get religious at times, but so can management. it won't matter if there is an open source community for .NET, if the predominant culture of .NET shops is "open source is not allowed." Part of that is dependent on the open source community (and not so much the developers as the legal guys) to work out te issues of licensing and IP issues clarification, but it also relies on the open source developers to lose some of the zealotry and anti-business licensing models like the GPL. (Note: I am not a lawyer, but every legal type I've talked to currently working for a firm has said that the GPL is anti-business. I offer no empirical evidence or analysis beyond that.) Developers also need to stop thinking that "their" code is "theirs"--when you do a work-for-hire arrangement, what you do is owned by the people that paid you, and it's THEIR RIGHT to do with it what they will. Some managers are enlightened, and realize that contributing useful bits to the community often repay itself with continued maintenance from outside your company--but some managers see "proprietary advantage" in the things their developers have built (which generally is just like anything else built at any other company on the planet), and a clash results.
For any developer working on open source projects, I would STRONGLY urge you to get explicit and written clarification on the company's IP policies regarding the stuff you work on--believe it or not, at one place I worked, the manager there asserted that even when I work on something on my own resources and my own time, if it comes anywhere close to their business/industry, they own it. I didn't stay very long at that firm after that. :-)
|
|
|
Message #138226
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Set the table and grab a fork!
I will glady eat my words when someone shows me a high availability transactional systems written in .NET with cold hard facts and not PR fluff Here are two case studies of financial firms using Windows Server 2003 to build high performance server applications with .NET.http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/CaseStudy.asp?CaseStudyID=13911and http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/CaseStudy.asp?CaseStudyID=14814Now before you start spouting that these are more "PR Fluff", consider that unless you are willing to do the same "extensive research" by contacting these companies and verifying the details of the case study then perhaps your sense that these are "fluff" is just you being cynical and unfairly biased against Microsoft.What's more, Microsoft recently announced that it plans to create a new version of Windows Server 2003 specifically geared towards High Performance Computing. You can read more about it here.
actually, I was hoping you would use this example. I am well aware of it and have studied it for several months and tried to replicate some of the things quoted in their study of london stock exchange. I could be wrong, but based on my benchmark of Microsoft Analysis service, I am fairly confident my guess is close.
There's acutally two articles that provide more details, including the hardware setup. If I understand the setup correctly, it is basically this.
a. the system gets a constant feed from some other database. it's most likely Db2 or Oracle.
b. MS Analysis Service uses Sql Server as the relational database
c. in the other articles it mentions there's two clusters with 4 nodes in each cluster. this means the database is setup in a partitioned mode. inbound transactions are routed to the correct database partition.
d. the second cluster is for failover
e. they are using MOLAP with a set refresh interval
f. the results are then fed and sent out in batches
g. the system as a whole is handling 3K transactions per second, but it's in a partition setup. which means each server is handling 1/4 of that. that's still pretty good for a constant stream of batch updates.
h. the inbound transactions are most likely buffered into batches to optimal efficiency
i. ROLAP queries are on average 5-100x slower than MOLAP, therefore they would be silly to use ROLAP queries at the primary query approach
j. the "value add" they are talking about is basic sum, average, top, bottom queries in MOLAP. which means it takes on average 3-5ms per query.
Having said all that. MS Analysis service was originally built by an Isreal company. Analysis service is a solid product and works well for MOLAP. It is not appropriate to use ROLAP in real-time mode in this specific case. Other cases may be different. There's a good resource call the OLAPReport, which goes into detail about OLAP technologies.
So in a sense, a cluser of 4 nodes with quad CPU systems can handle 3K transactions per second using batch inserts, buffering and messaging. Is it real-time? That all depends on what you call real-time. Sub-millisecond real-time isn't useful within a financial transaction environment. It's too noisy. Sub second real-time for aggregate data like MOLAP isn't more valuable than sub-minute real-time. The reason for my guesses is based on several series of benchmarks comparing ROLAP and MOLAP with 1 million rows of data on a quad CPU server. So speaking from a TPC perspective as atomic transaction with read repeatable isolation level, this setup isn't the same. It is definitely transactional, but it's a data warehouse and isn't really the critical transaction database. It's a pretty darn good approach to handling large amounts of data using SqlServer and Analysis Service. The guys who built it took time to figure out how to achieve it.
I'll leave it up to you to decide if the setup really qualifies as a high availability system, or as a feed service backed by data warehouse. In my biased opinion it isn't the same thing as a global trading system. It is damn impressive what they achieved. If you know more information about it, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
|
|
|
Message #138230
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Does the .NET community need open source?
I also noticed alot of arguments on the religion of open source. There are quite a few vocal community members who tend to say open source is the answer to all problems. Clearly, that is not the case. In the same way, I think the Microsoft community also tends to be religious with saying Microsoft is the answer to all your problems. Clearly, this is not the case either. I think that the vibrant, religious, and at times fanatical open source culture in the Java realm provides a check, to prevent any one company from becoming what Microsoft has become in the desktop realm.
It would be nice to have a similar model in the .NET space where companies agree on standards and compete on implementations, as opposed to 1 company dictating both. Although the Java Community Process is sometimes a tedious system for churning out standards, at least it attempts to be democratic and open to the community's needs. Perhaps a quote will help put the JCP, and all standards bodies into perspective:
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." (Winston Churchill)
|
|
|
Message #138235
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
In Religious Zealotry, the message can get lost
I think that the vibrant, religious, and at times fanatical open source culture in the Java realm provides a check, to prevent any one company from becoming what Microsoft has become in the desktop realm. I would beg to differ. Any message when wrapped in fiery passion and close minded thinking tends to be met with skepticism and doubt. If I were to quietly give up my seat to a preganant woman on a bus, the message of chivalry will get through to the five guys sitting in the seats around me who didn't. But, if I stand up on the chair and denounce them as incompassionate, rude, and ungentlemanly swine, then I'm just another nut case on the bus.
Open source zealotry has much the same effect on the more moderate minded developers, those masses that go to work every day, write their 8 lines of code and then goes home. But it is by reaching those developers with tools, patterns, and best practices that we can achieve the greatest affect on the software industry overall and lets not kid ourselves; it's those developer who are represent the majority of .NET developers. So perhaps a more subtle approach highlighting functionality over anti-Microsoft rhetoric would meet with more acceptance in the corporate environment.
|
|
|
Message #138238
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
World is full of both
Life would be too boring without both kinds of people advocating close and open technology. Plus, not everyone is always subtle or flaming. Most people have their good days and bad days. When I'm given a say in the technology, I take that responsibility seriously and try to present a balanced report. In situations where I have a strong bias, I'm up front with it and do my best to keep religion out of the discussion.
if nothing else, it will be fun to see where both java and .NET communities go. if neither Sun or IBM provide what I need, I know I can always look for an open source alternative or write one myself. contributing an application to open source can help make it better, but there's definitely a cost. It'd definitely not for everyone. the whole idea of "need" has a religious tone to it. No one needs .NET, Java or either community.
|
|
|
Message #138250
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Set the table and grab a fork!
I will glady eat my words when someone shows me a high availability transactional systems written in .NET with cold hard facts and not PR fluff Here are two case studies of financial firms using Windows Server 2003 to build high performance server applications with .NET.http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/CaseStudy.asp?CaseStudyID=13911and http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/CaseStudy.asp?CaseStudyID=14814Now before you start spouting that these are more "PR Fluff", consider that unless you are willing to do the same "extensive research" by contacting these companies and verifying the details of the case study then perhaps your sense that these are "fluff" is just you being cynical and unfairly biased against Microsoft.What's more, Microsoft recently announced that it plans to create a new version of Windows Server 2003 specifically geared towards High Performance Computing. You can read more about it here.
So did my description of the london Stock exchange example fit your definition of "extensive research" :) ?
peter
|
|
|
Message #138260
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Set the table and grab a fork!
Actually it was quite impressive. :-) I think the original setup was dual CPU systems, but I used a quad P4 with 4Gb of RAM for my tests. I took the best guess I could make based on my own numbers for normal simple insert vs batch insert. I also used the little knowledge I have about financial applications like analytics to guess the type of value add they were talking about. I worked with our OLAP guy to run about 12 different scenarios with varying dataset size, dimensions and measures to see what kind of query speeds we can expect. The original *cough* performance requirement I was given was a bit unrealistic, so I ran about 50 series of tests to get hard numbers and explain why it was wishful thinking.
That's not to say you can't build high performance with .NET. After going through all those tests, I came to the conclusion I could build a high performance system. The catch is I would have to build everything myself from scratch for .NET. Although I could use windows with a J2EE stack (tuxedo, jms, ejb, etc), that decision was out of my hands. Explaining these concepts to a group of programmers with primarily client side VB + winforms experience was even harder. I think it makes sense to use C# on the client side, if that's what the developers are used to. Forcing them to use swing or open source when they are not used to it can lead to more problems than solutions. But that's life :)
|
|
|
Message #138280
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Does the .NET community need open source?
Open source I think has also pushed the commercial products to be better because commercial products have to give end users something they feel they should have to pay for. If you are the only game in town, if you can make money off your product and don't have to keep up with customer demands, let's face it, they won't. That is what competition is all about. And in the end, competition gives the consumer a better product. Given this statement, would you say that Microsoft is the only game in town other than open source? If so, do you think Microsoft has failed to keep up with customer demands?
|
|
|
Message #138294
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Does the .NET community need open source?
<blockquoteIf you are the only game in town, if you can make money off your product and don't have to keep up with customer demands, let's face it, they won't.The game ends when you are the only game.
|
|
|
Message #138307
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Does the .NET community need open source?
Given this statement, would you say that Microsoft is the only game in town other than open source? If so, do you think Microsoft has failed to keep up with customer demands? No, although the courts seem to think so.
I would not want to be a Microsoft tools vendor right now while the core architecture is being gutted (Longhorn, Whidbey, Avalon, Indigo, etc..). Opensource offers .Net developers frameworks, tools, utilities and patterns that have traction. The parity between the .Net and java constructs make porting and technology transfer easier. Why not embrace this (opensource licensing has answered the threat of extending). Question is once the boys have seen Paris can you keep them on the farm?
|
|
|
Message #138321
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Does the .NET community need open source?
Given this statement, would you say that Microsoft is the only game in town other than open source? If so, do you think Microsoft has failed to keep up with customer demands? No, although the courts seem to think so.
Why do you think the courts feel that Microsoft is the only game in town? I believe that it's largely due to those people who see Microsoft as the Evil Empire and they are the rebel forces trying to resist the pull to the darkside. Many of these people are also open source zealots and once again, in the face of technology as a religion I think that the legitimate message of open source gets lost. Legislators looking to "level the playing field" jump on the Linux bandwagon without understanding the facts.
I'm not going to say that Microsoft hasn't resorted to using the folding chair in the ring with its competition. At the risk of dating myself, I was heavily involved with OS/2 before version 1.2 which as you may know was written by Microsoft and was largely the source of the first versions of Windows. But what I will say is that when Microsoft does take the chair upside the head of a competitor (can you tell I like that analogy? :-)), the consumer usually comes out better for it. Why is it that the courts can't see that?
|
|
|
Message #138522
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
As if in agreement, now we see this show up
As per my earlier message about IP concerns, one area which hasn't been touched is the legal responsibility of programmers to make sure the company they're writing code for is OK with open-source practices, and not get themselves into trouble by "taking matters into their own hands", as per this little gem:In an interview Thursday, Connolly said he contracted with one of Mambo's core programmers to write a proprietary module that plugs into Mambo, but that programmer contributed the modules to the open-source project against the terms of his contract. And, as a result, people using that open-source software are now legally vulnerable to IP infringement claims, all because one programmer thought he could open-source something he didn't have rights to, at least under current IP and contract law.
And if you don't think this could happen to you, you're dangerously naive.
|
|
|
Message #138531
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
As if in agreement, now we see this show up
As per my earlier message about IP concerns, one area which hasn't been touched is the legal responsibility of programmers to make sure the company they're writing code for is OK with open-source practices, and not get themselves into trouble by "taking matters into their own hands", as per this little gem:In an interview Thursday, Connolly said he contracted with one of Mambo's core programmers to write a proprietary module that plugs into Mambo, but that programmer contributed the modules to the open-source project against the terms of his contract. And, as a result, people using that open-source software are now legally vulnerable to IP infringement claims, all because one programmer thought he could open-source something he didn't have rights to, at least under current IP and contract law.And if you don't think this could happen to you, you're dangerously naive. this problem is not unique to open source. I'm sure there's plenty of cases where a programmer does the same exact thing in closed source applications. The main difference is closed source makes it much harder to expose. bad programmers are every where and not unique to a specific methodology. until companies realize that and hire deligent programmers, this type of thing will happen. god knows Microsoft uses BSD code without giving proper credit. I won't bother digging up old news articles, since there's google.
|
|
|
Message #138723
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
.NET is not just a pretty face
.NET has great tools for Windows GUI development No it hasnt.
Winforms is pants.
The Visual designer is super-pants.
This is true as of VS2003 - but improved from what I have seen in 2005.
-N
|
|
|
Message #139242
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Open source .NET benefits
Oh come on. You do know Microsoft, right? Look at the track record of Linux, Apache, etc. when it comes to security. Admittedly they have a lower volume, but they do have a much better track record so far. Sorry Rory, but I don't agree and neither do many security experts. Most people see the release of a new patch for IE or Windows as further proof of the insecurity of the platform. But what they don't realize is that what they are seeing is the END of a security vulnerability, at least if they apply the darned thing. If you read this paper you'll see that the primary point at which a user is at risk is after the vulnerability has been publicly exposed but before the fix is available. Microsoft has a significantly better record than Linux for turnaround of fixes from the point of public exposure.
I'd take exception to the last point and the roundly cricised "study" that you're referenceing to support your point. Sorry for the Longwinded quote, but I think it makes some good points: Despite the report's claim to incorporate a qualitative assessment of vendor reactions to serious vulnerabilities, it treats all vulnerabilities are equal, regardless of their risk to users. As a result, the conclusions drawn by Forrester have extremely limited real-world value for customers assessing the practical issue of how quickly serious vulnerabilities get fixed.
The security response teams of GNU/Linux distributors Debian, Mandrakesoft, Red Hat and SUSE have assisted Forrester in gathering and correcting data about vulnerabilities in their products. The gathered data was used at Forrester for a report that became titled "Is Linux more secure than Windows?". While the Linux vulnerability data that is the basis for the report is considered to be sufficiently accurate and useful, Debian, Mandrakesoft, Red Hat and SUSE, from now on referred to as "We", are concerned about the correctness of the conclusions made in the report.
We believe that it is in the interest of our usership and the OpenSource community to respond to the Forrester report in the form of a common statement:
We were approached by Forrester in February 2004 to help them refine their raw data. Forrester collected data about the vulnerabilities that affected Linux during a one year period and looked at how many days it took us to provide fixes to our users. Significant efforts have been put in not only making sure that the underlying dataset for the Linux vulnerabilities was correct, but also to articulate the special technical and organisational care taken in the response processes in the professional Open Source security field. This expertise is greatly appreciated by our usership since it adds a high value to our products, but we see that most of this value has been ignored in the methods used for the analysis of the vulnerability data, leading to erroneous conclusions.
Our Security Response Teams and security specialized organisations of respectable reputation (such as the CERT/DHS, BSI, NIST, NISCC) exchange information about vulnerabilities and cooperate on the measures and procedures to react to them. Each vulnerability gets individually investigated and evaluated; the severity of the vulnerability is then determined by each of the individual teams based on the risk and impact as well as other, mostly technical, properties of the weakness and the software affected. This severity is then used to determine the priority at which a fix for a vulnerability is being worked on weighed against other vulnerabilities in our current queue. Our users will know that for critical flaws we can respond within hours. This prioritisation means that lower severity issues will often be delayed to let the more important issues get resolved first.
Even though the Forrester report claims so, it does not make that distinction when it measures the time elapsed between the public knowledge of a security flaw and the availiability of a vendor's fix. For each vendor the report gives just a simple average, the "All/Distribution days of risk", which gives an inconclusive picture of the reality that users experience. The average erroneously treats all vulnerabilities as equal, regardless of the risk. Not all vulnerabilities have an equal impact on all users. An attempt has been made to allocate a severity to vulnerabilities using data from a third party, however the classification of "high-severity" vulnerabilities is not sufficient: The mere announcement of a vulnerability by a particular security organisation does not necessarily make the vulnerability severe - similarly, the ability to exploit a weakness over the network (remote) is often irrelevant to the vulnerability's severity.
We believe the report does not treat the open source vendors and single closed source vendor in the same way. Open Source Software (OSS) is known for its variety and its freedom of choice amongst the standards it defines. Multiple implementations of these standards are typically offered for both desktop and server use, which gives users the freedom to select software based on their own criteria rather than those of the vendor. The openness, transparency and traceability of the source code is added value in addition to the larger variety of software packages available. Finally, the claim that one software vendor had fixed 100% of their flaws during the period of the report should be incentive for a closer investigation of the conclusions the report presents.
signed,
Noah Meyerhans, Debian
Vincent Danen, Mandrakesoft
Mark J Cox, Red Hat
Roman Drahtmueller, SUSE
|
|
|
Message #139329
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Innovation and Culture
I know you say it is your opinion that innovation does not mean better or cheaper, but the company I work for has several patents that protect a particular approach to solving a problem in an "Innovative" fasion that made it cheaper, faster, more reliable... So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.
I do think you're correct that most M$ developers are looking for direct payment for what they have created. Much the way Microsoft expects direct payment for there work. Its a culture spread by the tool provider. Many of the open source developers, (I'm talking about the guys working on a larger project like a CMS or CRM) look to recieve payment on the consulting side, by implementing and supporting the product they helped to write or enhance.
|
|
|
Message #139437
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Open source .NET benefits
With just about any paper that gets published these days, somebody cries foul at how the data was collected or the conclusions drawn. This argument seems more ludicrous than most though, because they claim that their security vulnerabilities are somehow less serious than Microsoft's and therefore judging them all the same is unfair.
|
|
|
Message #139466
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Open source .NET benefits
Personally, I could give one rat's a$$ about open source. Yea, it's nice to get free stuff and to see how other's are using a certain technology. But at the end of the day, I want to sell my creations and make a living. Why in the world would I want to "open" my hard work to others? You can bet that if I create something that's worthy, you'll be seeing it on the shelf at Best Buy or on the net for sale! :)
That's not to say that open source doesn't have any benefit. It does introduce some innovation. But as other's have pointed out here, innovation is clearly... "in the eye of the beholder".
|
|
|
Message #139468
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
In Religious Zealotry, the message can get lost
I think that the vibrant, religious, and at times fanatical open source culture in the Java realm provides a check, to prevent any one company from becoming what Microsoft has become in the desktop realm. I would beg to differ. Any message when wrapped in fiery passion and close minded thinking tends to be met with skepticism and doubt. If I were to quietly give up my seat to a preganant woman on a bus, the message of chivalry will get through to the five guys sitting in the seats around me who didn't. But, if I stand up on the chair and denounce them as incompassionate, rude, and ungentlemanly swine, then I'm just another nut case on the bus.Open source zealotry has much the same effect on the more moderate minded developers, those masses that go to work every day, write their 8 lines of code and then goes home. But it is by reaching those developers with tools, patterns, and best practices that we can achieve the greatest affect on the software industry overall and lets not kid ourselves; it's those developer who are represent the majority of .NET developers. So perhaps a more subtle approach highlighting functionality over anti-Microsoft rhetoric would meet with more acceptance in the corporate environment.
And I whole-heardedly agree! We have many zealots where I work. When they step up to the pulpit and spew forth their biased ideology, it goes in one ear and out the other. Let's face it, the two camps will never come to complete agreement but we still have to work together and provide solutions to client needs.
|
|
|
Message #139782
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
We need it!!
The build system I developed with CC.NET, NAnt, NUnit could not be done by any of the current MS tools. And about the $$$$, when I download a good tool I am not necessarily looking whether it is open-source and free, what I am looking for is a little innovation using these tools which makes life easier for the developer.
So there is a big advantage going with open-source, I will always be on the lookout. Only MS tools will be boring!!!
|
|
|
Message #139867
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Open source community? Only in software ideology.
Community seems to imply that it includes people benefit one another, and naively ignores other factors such as reality. On this real world planet, who's to say that people just take the free stuff (source codes) and benefit from it without contribute anything in return.
Someone writes the code and give away his free intelectual ideas. Some other people just benefit from them, period. But who pays the someone's bill?
If you hate Microsoft, here's an example why open source is not a good idea. Microsoft can just simply take all good ideas from the free source codes and build their products to sell. I know ... your argument is to make Microsoft's open source. And how about companies from China or Pakistan or Russia?
Now, I want to extend the community idea to everything else, not just software. Why don't some people just build houses and grow food for free? I want to "benefit" from those freebies as well. And what do you say to all those who benefit from the government services and parks and police protection without paying any taxes. Why should you pay taxes and your neighbors don't?
|
|
|
Message #140275
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Does the .NET community need open source?
I did not get involved in open-source until .Net was released because I always thought it was a waste to spend time coding and not make any money off of it. I am now a very active member of the DotNetNuke community (www.dotnetnuke.com) and have found many benefits.
1) Satisfaction of being part of a team that has created a very solid .Net platform.
2) Experience using features of .Net I'd never use at my full-tim job.
3) Networking with other .Net developers and learning from their experiences. I am also able to help other developers when they have questions.
If it is managed right an open-source project can be beneficial for everyone involved. Watch out Java, here comes .Net.......
|
|
|
Message #147002
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Open source .NET benefits
With just about any paper that gets published these days, somebody cries foul at how the data was collected or the conclusions drawn. This argument seems more ludicrous than most though, because they claim that their security vulnerabilities are somehow less serious than Microsoft's and therefore judging them all the same is unfair.
Money is quite obviously the prime reason cited by those against open-source or more specifically, pro microsoft. Oh, and its not surprising to note that all software communities have adopted open-source well (C/C++/Unix/Linux/Java/Perl/Python/PHP... the list goes on), except M$ (& thankfully here is .NET to change that!). Why? Coz it shouldn't be free (yea right! Its like, if you don't pay me for it, you shouldn't have it.
In my opinion, with such a large open-source community and free software foundations in almost every other platform, language and realm out there, M$ had no other choice but to follow suit. By extrapolation, just like Java is only 10%-Sun but still kicks ass, .NET _will_ succeed but largely because of its thriving open source developer community - not because of Microsoft's backing.
As someone else pointed out earlier, and much to Paul Ballard's dismay, the open source .NET tools will gain increasing popularity among developers because of the complete and absolute control they provide to the developer. Compared to the closed source alternatives (largely provided by Microsoft), that you pay $$s for but end up frustrated with, because of lack of control (unnecessary magic behind the scenes, ughh...)
The best thing about open source tools I like is that they focus on one problem and solve it damn well. Their goals are crystal clear, and they are driven by passion, not by the &^%*ing desire to earn $$s. They follow proven principles and methodologies, like continuous integration and TDD. They have an amazing amount of quality code being contributed from across the globe (every hour in some cases). They _actually_ do code-reviews and unit-testing before commiting new code!
|
|
|
Message #147369
Post reply
Post reply
Post reply
Go to top
Go to top
Go to top
|
|
Debate: Open source .NET benefits
Personally, I could give one rat's a$$ about open source. Yea, it's nice to get free stuff and to see how other's are using a certain technology. But at the end of the day, I want to sell my creations and make a living. Why in the world would I want to "open" my hard work to others? Give software for free, make money selling consulting and support.
Regards,
Henrique Steckelberg
|
|
|
| |
|
| New content on TheServerSide.NETNew content on TheServerSide.NETNew content on TheServerSide.NET |
|
|
Language "mashups" will become more prominent, and developers will become polyglots, one programmer suggests.
SearchWinDevelopment.com offers an introduction to the language, performance, testing and data management improvements in VS 2008.
VBCode.com code snippets cover all aspects of application development, from data binding to security to the user interface.
Get up to date on XAML best practices with a variety of articles, tutorials and webcasts. [SearchWinDevelopment.com]
One team's experience with the VSTS DB edition suggests that it can improve workflow for dev teams. It also enhanced Agile efforts.
(June 24, Article)
Microsoft has begun to include DSL tools in the VSTS kit. A new book by Steve Cook and other VSTS team members helps set the stage.
(June 24, Article)
Cartoon: Be it ever so humble there is no place like your home after you get a Microsoft Home Server .
(June 18, Cartoon)
Microsoft's Thom Robbins says new technology to highlight in NET 3.5 includes AJAX, LINQ for both C# and VB, as well as tooling enhancements intended to ease the task of building WPF, WF and WCF apps.
(June 29, Podcast)
Venkat Subramaniam discusses AJAX bottlenecks, the tenets of Agile development and more. He spoke at the Ajax Experience.
(June 25, Tech Talk)
In the second of a two-part series, Michele Leroux Bustamente discusses design decisions related to the claims-based security model. Read the story and walk through the process for creating a set of claims-based utilities to encapsulate claims authorization at the service tier.
(May 24, Article)
Understanding why the Entity Framework exists and learning where it can fit into your projects can get you prepared for the eventual release early next year.
(May 10, Article)
Resource: This learning guide gives you quick access to useful links on Windows Communication Foundation security information.
(April 24, Article)
TSS.NET's Jack Vaughan spoke recently spoke with Microsoft's Brad Abrams to find out what he is seeing in the field and what the chefs in Redmond are cooking. Along the way he discusses patterns of AJAX frameworks.
(April 11, Article)
In a two-part series, Michele Leroux Bustamente explains how claims-based security is supported by WCF, and how you can implement a claims-based security model for your services.
(March 29, Article)
Windows Workflow Foundation is a new technology that many developers will need to get their heads around. In a brief excerpt adapted from Programming Windows Workflow Foundation: Practical WF Techniques and Examples using XAML and C#, K.Scott Allen considers aspects of workflow definition.
(March 22, Chapter Excerpt)
|
|
