Where Is .Net Headed? • Hacker News Board

Re: Where Is .Net Headed?

#71

Post by cookiecaper » Thu, May 16, 2013, 5:42 AM UTC

recoiledsnake wrote: post #62

cookiecaper wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if that's a valid extrapolation. I, for one, in all my working years have never met a Linux company that was interested in switching to .NET, but I met many that wanted it the other way around if they could only justify the upfront investment to convert the proprietary application stack. With cross-platform compatibility, specifically mobile compatibility [on platforms people actually use, i.e., not Wind…

>I don't know if that's a valid extrapolation. I, for one, in all my working years have never met a Linux company that was interested in switching to .NET, but I met many that wanted it the other way around if they could only justify the upfront investment to convert the proprietary application stack. Thanks for doing exactly what the OP requested commenters NOT to do. From the OP post: "Does anyone have real data re…

>Thanks for doing exactly what the OP requested commenters NOT to do.

I countered jussij's perspective, equally posted without "links or references" (which don't necessarily make something valid, fyi), with my own. I didn't reply to the parent post that said "please don't say anything mean about .NET unless you can prove it". That poster is not the internet police, we are free to continue to speculate and navel-gaze and counter-navel-gaze despite his or her statement.

So, you're welcome.

Re: Where Is .Net Headed?

#72

Post by cookiecaper » Thu, May 16, 2013, 5:45 AM UTC

jussij wrote: post #59

cookiecaper wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if that's a valid extrapolation. I, for one, in all my working years have never met a Linux company that was interested in switching to .NET, but I met many that wanted it the other way around if they could only justify the upfront investment to convert the proprietary application stack. With cross-platform compatibility, specifically mobile compatibility [on platforms people actually use, i.e., not Wind…

I suspect all your alternate explanations as to why the server division is growing are true. The server divison is doing extremely well. My point is I doubt very much the server division would be doing as well as it is if the Op was correct in saying people are locked into that toolchain . Because that would suggest a lot of people would be unhappy with that situation (i.e. meaning bad press, bad word of mouth, bad f…

I disagree. I don't think that people have to excite a lot of negative press or otherwise make a fuss with something just because they're moderately displeased with it. Most people won't go to the effort unless the tools are egregiously bad, and we know that Microsoft's stack isn't. They can still be quietly unhappy, locked into the platform with hundreds of thousands of man-hours invested into proprietary applications that depend heavily on major, hard-to-replace platform components (see: WPF, not implemented by Mono, or Silverlight, hit and miss via the unmaintained Moonlight), and buying server licenses due to a change in the way servers are provisioned.

Moving away from .NET is a long-term proposition, and it's an expense that few companies can justify no matter how much they dislike the platform. I believe you are claiming far too much credit for MS based off of a single growth figure.

Re: Where Is .Net Headed?

#73

Post by cookiecaper » Thu, May 16, 2013, 6:10 AM UTC

kmontrose wrote: post #69

cookiecaper wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if that is a prime example, since StackOverflow was built with the wealthy businessman Joel Spolsky as a primary backer. That doesn't diminish anything they accomplished, it just means that they didn't do it without access to sufficient resources.

At Stack Overflow we ran on Bizpark til sometime in 2012, it really is a very nice program (everyone seems to forget that you keep the licenses you get, it's not like you have to re-buy everything when you graduate). While I suppose in theory Joel could have thrown a lot of money away just because it didn't happen that way. Stack Overflow was running on it's own income until the first round of funding ( http://blog.s…

No matter how disciplined Spolsky was with the funds, nothing's ever the same if you know that you have the option to just inject a bunch of money into one of your projects should the need arise (and of course, SO had another non-cash leg up: the blogs of Jeff Atwood and Joel Spolsky as major marketing avenues, i.e., the instant attention of large swaths of the developer workforce). If you don't have that option, regardless of if it's used or not, you play by different rules.

Stack Exchange is cool and everything, but it didn't have the same difficulties that face most bootstrapped startups.

Re: Where Is .Net Headed?

#74

Post by cookiecaper » Thu, May 16, 2013, 6:21 AM UTC

moron4hire wrote: post #19

orbitur wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Being closed isn't the problem, it's just effectively unsupported on any platform that's not Windows. Mono's nice and all, but it's not complete, and it never will be.

What is it missing that you are missing? Mono is pretty damn complete. The stuff I've found it to be missing are very Windows-centric stuff and wouldn't fit in a Unix environment anyway.

WPF is the replacement of WinForms. Many desktop apps designed by conventional .NET developers in the timeframe between the release of Vista, and probably many now despite MS's deprecation, use WPF as a base library. It's not something you can just easily replace, and Mono does not implement it.

Microsoft is using the same business tactics that they've employed since the PC wars in the 90s, since they hit critical mass of market share, just with a bit more finesse. Microsoft allows Mono's existence only because it feeds into their power play, by creating more dependency and familiarity with .NET. They make the basics open and provide some interoperability, but then lay on proprietary extras that eventually become hard dependencies organically (like WPF) as a function of Microsoft's monopolization of the market ("why wouldn't I use this tool that makes things way easier? it will work great in our environment"). It's all EEE. Microsoft's MO, then and now.

Then all of the sudden, iPads exist. Xamarin is in a killer market.

Re: Where Is .Net Headed?

#75

Post by recoiledsnake » Thu, May 16, 2013, 6:24 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #70

cooldeal wrote: post #10

Great, another .NET is dying post voted up on HN. Didn't we have one of those just this morning? Meanwhile, in the real world, Microsoft posted these earnings: "Server & Tools business reported $5.04 billion of revenue, up 11% from last year" Inspite of competing products like Linux, Apache, Eclipse, Ruby, Java being given away for free, people are willing to pay for Windows Server, Visual Studio and IIS. Does anyone…

> "Server & Tools business reported $5.04 billion of revenue, up 11% from last year" So, they made in a year something around what Apple makes every quarter just from iPad sales? That's the rosy sign MS's "Servers and Tools" business is doing OK?

>So, they made in a year something around what Apple makes every quarter just from iPad sales? That's the rosy sign MS's "Servers and Tools" business is doing OK?

That's their server and tools revenue in a quarter, not a year. In your rush to compare it with an irrelevant and totally unrelated figure you've taken leave of facts and reality.

Why not compare the yearly figure now with how much Exxon makes by selling gas and then conclude the Server and Tools division is not doing okay? I mean that's what you want to conclude right?

Re: Where Is .Net Headed?

#76

Post by CloudNine » Thu, May 16, 2013, 6:40 AM UTC

untog wrote: post #37

terrble wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> huge corporate projects don't use it Incorrect assumption (source: developer at huge corporation on huge projects)

OK, most huge corporate projects don't use it. Point is, there was no huge shift to MVC after it was released. A ton of web projects are still made using WebForms and will continue to be. MVC will continue to be a minority framework.

Just the number of unfilled requirements for ASP.NET MVC shows around 2000 openings.

http://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=%22asp.net+mvc%22&l=

Re: Where Is .Net Headed?

#77

Post by CloudNine » Thu, May 16, 2013, 6:42 AM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #71

recoiledsnake wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't know if that's a valid extrapolation. I, for one, in all my working years have never met a Linux company that was interested in switching to .NET, but I met many that wanted it the other way around if they could only justify the upfront investment to convert the proprietary application stack. Thanks for doing exactly what the OP requested commenters NOT to do. From the OP post: "Does anyone have real data re…

>Thanks for doing exactly what the OP requested commenters NOT to do. I countered jussij's perspective, equally posted without "links or references" (which don't necessarily make something valid, fyi), with my own. I didn't reply to the parent post that said "please don't say anything mean about .NET unless you can prove it". That poster is not the internet police, we are free to continue to speculate and navel-gaze…

>I countered jussij's perspective, equally posted without "links or references"

No, he posted a publicly verifiable figure which is audited by the SEC and punishable with heavy penalties for faking, 11% increase of revenue in the quarter, up from last years quarter, whereas you continue the trend of the thousand other HN comments which say .NET is dying because they personally don't know of a company using it. How many companies do you know? How many companies exist in the US? Keep up the navel gazing. Your other posts also are idle speculation hopelessly stuck in your own bubble and your post is not very different from line noise at this point.

Re: Where Is .Net Headed?

#78

Post by CloudNine » Thu, May 16, 2013, 6:47 AM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #72

jussij wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect all your alternate explanations as to why the server division is growing are true. The server divison is doing extremely well. My point is I doubt very much the server division would be doing as well as it is if the Op was correct in saying people are locked into that toolchain . Because that would suggest a lot of people would be unhappy with that situation (i.e. meaning bad press, bad word of mouth, bad f…

I disagree. I don't think that people have to excite a lot of negative press or otherwise make a fuss with something just because they're moderately displeased with it. Most people won't go to the effort unless the tools are egregiously bad, and we know that Microsoft's stack isn't. They can still be quietly unhappy, locked into the platform with hundreds of thousands of man-hours invested into proprietary applicatio…

> They can still be quietly unhappy, locked into the platform with hundreds of thousands of man-hours invested into proprietary applications that depend heavily on major, hard-to-replace platform components (see: WPF, not implemented by Mono, or Silverlight, hit and miss via the unmaintained Moonlight), and buying server licenses due to a change in the way change in the way servers are provisioned.

What change in the way servers are provisioned? Many companies still use Windows Server 2003 and even .NET 4.5 is supported on it. That sounds like FUD.

>They can still be quietly unhappy, locked into the platform with hundreds of thousands of man-hours invested into proprietary applications

They can also be happy with the ease of use of Active Directory and Group Policy instead of relying on half baked convulted perl scripts cooked up by a long gone sysadmin. Please, you're just embarassing yourself with your ignorant assumptions.

Re: Where Is .Net Headed?

#79

Post by randomfool » Thu, May 16, 2013, 7:01 AM UTC

CloudNine wrote: post #54

eduardordm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BizSpark has rules many startups cannot follow and is only valid for 3 years. This is the same selling scheme used by drug dealers.

There's a LOT of startups here http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/Partners/Startups.aspx >This is the same selling scheme used by drug dealers. Would you hold Google to the same standard and say that's true of their free Google Apps for education and how they use free email to sign you into Google.com so they can track you across different PCs? http://www.google.com/enterprise/apps/education/

Do you happen to work for Microsoft?

If not, cool. But if so, would be good to be clear. You've suddenly become very active with what I'd consider an overly Microsoft approach (looking at your comments from the past few hours).

(ex 'softie here).

Re: Where Is .Net Headed?

#80

Post by coldtea » Thu, May 16, 2013, 8:08 AM UTC

recoiledsnake wrote: post #75

coldtea wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Server & Tools business reported $5.04 billion of revenue, up 11% from last year" So, they made in a year something around what Apple makes every quarter just from iPad sales? That's the rosy sign MS's "Servers and Tools" business is doing OK?

>So, they made in a year something around what Apple makes every quarter just from iPad sales? That's the rosy sign MS's "Servers and Tools" business is doing OK? That's their server and tools revenue in a quarter, not a year. In your rush to compare it with an irrelevant and totally unrelated figure you've taken leave of facts and reality. Why not compare the yearly figure now with how much Exxon makes by selling ga…

>That's their server and tools revenue in a quarter, not a year. In your rush to compare it with an irrelevant and totally unrelated figure you've taken leave of facts and reality.

Haven't taken out any facts -- the parent poster (you?) didn't add it was a quarter result in the first place. And the "X% up from last year" didn't help.

That said, it's totally unrelated only in that the end product sold is different. People still compare companies based on their revenue all the time -- including totally different beasts such as IBM and MS, or, indeed, Exxon and Apple. If you want to measure relative strength it's quite insightful.

>Why not compare the yearly figure now with how much Exxon makes by selling gas and then conclude the Server and Tools division is not doing okay? I mean that's what you want to conclude right?

No, I want to conclude that MS, and their enterprise sales specifically, which was once the huge behemoth of the computing industry, makes a not that impressive revenue compared to other players.

It might even be their best revenue ever. It still is worse compared to what they made vs what other companies made a decade or so ago.

In other words, the point I tried to make, maybe unsuccessfully, is that they might be billionaires, and they even might more than ever, but whereas once they used to own the town, now there are several other billionaires around, including some multi-billionaires.