Re: Wasn't dotNet supposed to be a multi-platform alternative to Java?

Eric Schreiber wrote:

> Speaking as an average developer, it was always clear to me that .NET
> was Windows-specific. Further, Microsoft themselves make the truth
> very clear in their publications. For example:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/Net/Basics.aspx
> "Integrated across the Microsoft platform..."
>
> Not the Unix platform. Not the Apple platform. Not the C64 platform.
> Very specifically, the Microsoft platform. I don't see how they could
> have made it any clearer, short of publishing a list of every platform
> that .NET wasn't intended for. I'm sure you'll agree that would be
> absurd.
>

This page says last updated Feb 1 2005. Anyone know where I can see
what it said 2 years ago? I can not find it on archive.org using the
WayBackMachine. I hope you are not saying that just because a web page
say something now means that it said it 2+ years ago.

> As for squashing rumors, it is hardly reasonable to expect Microsoft
> to look for every mope who has the wrong impression and personally
> correct him. They have been pushing .NET for a long time, and as far
> as I know they've always been clear about its intended target. What
> more would you have them do?

I didn't say every mope thought it would be xplatform, I said that most
developers I talked to did. I see many press releases from M$ and even
the US government thats sole purpose are to correct misinformation that
is being spread. Should all those stop? If the general people thinks
one thing about a company and they do not correct it then it is 99% as
good as admitting it.

> They apparently didn't take the time to find out what the truth of the
> matter was, then, and instead jumped to their own false conclusions,
> or bought into ill-informed rumors. Again, that's not Microsoft's
> fault, as they've been clear all along as to what .NET is for.

I did take the time to find the truth. I try to read about emerging
tech every day to keep up to speed. It was my looking for the truth
that mislead me.


--------------
Joe Bain
www.iegsoftware.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wasnt dotNet supposed to be a multi-platform alternative to Java?
    ... > future product it is your job to make the truth clear. ... Microsoft themselves make the truth very ... Not the Apple platform. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Why to use VBA?
    ... Please don call me selfish for not counting VB; YES MS did lose some VB developers that were unwilling to port to new platform BUT the number of office customers is not comparable to VB 6! ... The fact is that VB.NET is sufficiently incompatible with the previous version of VB (VB6, from which VBA is derived) that for all practical purposes an upgrade wasn't possible, you had to rewrite the code more or less from scratch. ... The automated code converters provided by Microsoft were next to useless, and the fact that Microsoft went and changed lots of names of objects and properties meant that late-binding code wouldn't work without rewrite because it couldn't be automatically converted at all. ...
    (microsoft.public.word.vba.general)
  • Re: .NET SUCKS --- READ FOLLOWING. MICROSOFT IS A SUCKY CO
    ... .NET is not cross platform and Microsoft have never claimed it to ... Shared Source CLI Implementation is a file archive ... In addition to the CLI implementation and the ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework)
  • Re: My Migrations
    ... I used to say all my dreams were in COBOL. ... Development and deployment platform based on SOA and Smart Client ... All source languages are translated to C#. ... The fact is that MicroSoft DID have some bad products and they still have ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: My Migrations
    ... I used to say all my dreams were in COBOL. ... Development and deployment platform based on SOA and Smart Client ... All source languages are translated to C#. ... The fact is that MicroSoft DID have some bad products and they still have ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)