anti dot-net spew

[Craig S.]

>
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 13:12:09 -0700
> From: Sundar Narayanasamy <linux@esaravana.com>
> To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> Subject: Re: anti dot-net spew
> Reply-To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>
> Joseph,
>
> <snip> </snip>
>
>                 2. Even when you buy M$ software, lot of times you have
> to train your employees and/or pay lot of money for support contract
> with M$.( I am implementing MS SMS for our company and had few questions
> about certain things, but when I asked the questions in their News
> Group, one of the M$ representative politely asked me take advantage of
> their current specials on training sessions-- i.e $3000 for one day
> session in Las Vegas)
>
>

Yeah and if your company actually pays to send you to these and you ask specific questions the instructors sit there and babble
incoherently until they think they have baffled you with bull$sh!t. This makes the seminar a waste of money and time. Money can be
replaced but time can't. Seems these M$ folks don't get the clue that 80 years of existence in a time line that spans billions of years is
nothing so we don't really have that much time to waste.


>                 3. .NET implements M$ way of developing applications
> that are tightly integrated to one another(though they claim otherwise).
> It is not based on MVC model, which any object oriented programmer would
> swear by.
>

being new to OOP I am going to say this and get ready for the beating stick to be laid on me. It has been my impression that M$ uses their
MFC libraries for all new dev work. These libraries correlate to other OOP standards by about 95%. The 5% that M$ comes up with seems to
be really bloated and have a lot of redundancy built in.

Man I am way out on a limb here and hope it doesn't break.

I have heard that M$ won't let their software engineers look at gnu licensed code or any other open source code for that matter. The joke
on that being that M$ is afraid that their engineers will implement gnu source ideas into their products which could put them in the open
source realm. Of course to prove this one would have to obtain a court order to be able to R.E. M$ code or have M$ release the source
(yeah right, the Feds barely have the muscle to beat on M$ so how are us common Joes supposed to get the muscle). Anyway I am following
the philosophy that M$ laid out in reverse, I pretty much refuse to look at MFC structures in case I write embedded systems code that M$
might want to lay it's hands on. Maybe that is a bad philosophy but I really want to have as little to do with M$ as possible.

<snip> </snip>

>
>                5. And since M$ always ties their software releases with
> Operating System and Servers, you have to upgrade your hardware/software
> regularly to get continuous support from M$ and their vendors. My
> philosophy is - if it works why fix it. ( We have some old Venix
> systems, which we still use actively; they work!)
>
>

Amen to that, this was the main reason I walked from M$. I have enough people digging in my pockets already. I don't need my
OS manufacturer to dig in my pockets all the time as well.
As far as the ain't broke don't fix it philosophy, I guess the main argument in a public/commercial setting is security, but I guess that
would imply something is broken.


Craig S.