Microsoft's CLR - Providing a Break from HW Vendors? 514
"It seems to me that once the CLR has matured enough, there won't be a need for Microsoft to wait for others to innovate on the hardware front and start offering its own hardware (and charge whatever it wants for it) to go with future versions of Windows.Net. Worst still, 99.99% of the population will not be able to say no to this strategy since they'll have no choice but continue using the Windows monopoly in order to run their favorite apps."
Jamie comments: I don't think it's about hardware innovation, or beating Java. It's about absolute control.
The big money over the next decade will be in transforming the computer into an entertainment device. AOL Time-Warner sees a computer as a revenue producer, with the unfortunate ability to copy digital works. They and the other five media giants want to put a stop to it; Microsoft and Intel will find it very profitable to help them.
One good step along the way is to give the computer a common interpreted language to run everything. We're there already. And when developers have to code to a virtual machine, not the actual bare iron, then whoever writes the virtual machine holds all the cards. And since the authors of the virtual machine will make a lot of money by enforcing intellectual property rights, the arms races are all over: copy protection is absolute, DeCSS won't compile, unauthorized MP3s won't play.
Of course developers rarely write on the bare metal anyway: we write to APIs, we write scripts, we write code that doesn't (need to) run in the CPU's supervisor mode. We're used to surrendering the ultimate control over the machine to the operating system, or to be more precise, to the BIOS that decides how and which operating system to run.
If we surrender this control, though, we'll find ourselves with a monopoly operating system that makes it impossible freely to write code for. (And it's not hard to cut off Linux and every other rogue free OS at the knees. The day that every motherboard's BIOS uses strong crypto to demand the master boot record be signed with a secret key known only to Microsoft is the day that Linux becomes a thing of the past.)
Naturally, to prevent you from firing up GCC and doing a rogue compilation of DeCSS or Lame or other unauthorized code, the operating system will have to stop you from running anything that isn't written in its language for its virtual machine. Requiring code to be signed by a central authority will make its first appearance as virus-prevention but its real purpose too will be control. Universities will be able to buy special licensed exemptions, at least until corporations decide universities are hotbeds of piracy and theft. At which point your alma mater begins teaching Computer Science 101 (and 201, and 301, and 401) in C#.
My prediction is that, unless antitrust legislation in the U.S. gets some teeth between now and then, the PC will become a Gameboy within fifteen years. Enjoy computers while they last.
Paranoia (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Paranoia (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Paranoia (Score:2)
I mean are we being paranoid? There is the California case. There is WPA, change hardware, gotta re-register. There are too many things to list here.
This case with the BIOS and MBR might not be the way they do it, but there will be a way. Microsoft will claim not to be a monopoly, because there are other hardware vendors [besides MS] which other operating systems can run.
What is happening is the a great bastardization of computing as a hobbie.
Re:Paranoia (Score:4, Interesting)
this is true. but i believe that is becoming a thing of the anyway. the newer machines just arent as interesting (speed aside). they come prepacked with anything you could want, if you didnt get it, it's either on a suse disc, or a warez site somewhere. (you know, whimsically speaking)
plus i just dont think theres that many 12 year olds who are coming along and saying "hey! i want to build an OS!" it's
(which is a shame, yes, cos inovators are what this world thrives on. more to you if you are doing something really ambitious!)
Re:Paranoia (Score:3, Interesting)
If that happened... (Score:3, Interesting)
Now Microsoft is smart, and I think they learned their lesson somewhat. They're not going to do anything blantantly monopolisitic like requireing all BIOSes to only be able to boot windows. They don't want to have to deal with another antitrust case, and they, and they surely don't want the DOJ to have killer arguments like, "Now, no new computer can run anything but Microsoft Windows," and, "All software on a Windows system must now be signed by Microsoft, thus giving Microsoft absolute control over the software industry." A case like this would make the current antitrust trial look insignifigant in comparison.
Oh yeah, IANAL.
Re:Paranoia (Score:4, Insightful)
And why would hardware manufacturers start doing this otherwise? Customer pressure? If anything, limiting their BIOS in this way would dramatically LOWER the value of their BIOS! Think about it, if 75% of motherboards had this restriction, would you pay extra for one of the 25% that didn't? Sure! Would my company's CIO pay a little extra for the hundreds of machines she buys? Yes, she wouldn't buy machines that are limited to only running Windows. Would Joe blow care? Probably not, but it would matter to enough people to drive the value of these crypto-limited BIOSes down, and hardware companies wouldn't risk that.
So what other possible paranoid ranting could one come up with that could make this scenario possible... Hmm... How about if Microsoft bought themselves the US Congress and made it a law? That's it! The government that sued them for antitrust violations is going to turn around and heavy-handedly enforce a complete, 100% monopoly! Yeah!
Jeez, where do people get the idea that Slashdot is a haven for unthinking anti-microsoft zealots?
Re:Paranoia (Score:2)
Re:Paranoia (Score:3, Interesting)
>That would be like throwing away customers!
Because Microsoft always takes the long view, and are willing to throw away money in the short term. Look at their products - they are pretty much always the best short-term decision to make.
>And why would hardware manufacturers start doing this otherwise? Customer pressure? If anything, limiting their BIOS in this way would dramatically LOWER the value of their
>BIOS! Think about it, if 75% of motherboards
Not so. The purpose of BIOS is to get you far enough to start Windows. (in most peoples' view) If a crippled BIOS somehow made the system cheaper to support or manufacture, they'd do it in a heartbeat.
That's why widescale Linux preloads are not going to happen - it increases manufacturing cost by introducing another process flow. Even dual-boot introduces another process step - and increases cost. This is worse than a basic chicken-and-egg problem, because there's no room anywhere for the baby chick.
One possible way out of this Catch-22 would be to enable Linux as a better manufacturing platform than Windows. Enable it as a diagnostic program, essentially. Then it becomes a valuable part of the manufacturing flow, and Windows becomes simply something you stick on for the customer, instead of an integral part of the build.
Re:Paranoia (Score:4, Interesting)
If that's true, they've been doing it for years. God od your homework before you post: Microsoft already has almost total control over the way that PCs work, right down to specifying in their hardware standards what the behavior of the power switch should be.
They've used the PC9x (I don't know what they're calling them now) stndards to bludgeon all the major computer makers into building hardware the Microsoft way, and guess what? Pretty much all the clones and motherboards then follow suit, so that they're capable of running Windows with some degree of stability, too.
If you don't think Microsoft has what amounts to 100% control of low-level PC hardware, just take the time to go to their WinHEC conference and notice that nearly every BIOS designer and many of the hardware engineering staff of all the computer and motherboard makers are there, dutifully taking pages of notes on what amounts to their orders for the year.
Not only is this not far fetched, you don't even realize they've been doing it for years now. And there's a simple reason why it's about 100% effective: Comply or die - if those companies want to avoid paying several times more for the OS on the machines they sell (which obliterates the margin on a modern PC and puts them upside down), they must comply withthe Windows hardware standards as part of their OS purchase contract with MS. If you don't believe this strategy works, take a look around and try to find an AST computer these days - they tried to stand up to MS a few years back, refusing to let MS design their hardware, and MS nearly bankrupted them: I've been told that it was cheaper for them to go into a store and buy the OS than accept the terms MS offered them under "non-compliance".
If you care at all about the future of the PC, go to WinHEC (they are starting to have to listen somewhat to the backlash) to find out understand what they're trying to do, and learn what you and others can do about it. Knowledge is power here - so far, only trivial numbers of us have refused to buy poisoned hardware. (The last time I checked they were trying to *eliminate* the BIOS, replacing it with a simpler set of lookup tables for resources, which of course would have to be "secured" at some point in the future, but I've been out of this for a couple of years now...)
Re:Paranoia (Score:2, Interesting)
Something wrong with Mac [microsoft.com]? Microsoft's Mactopia currently lists Office (complete with features not available on windows) with Entourage, Internet Exploder, MSN Messenger, Outlook Express, Windows Media Player and Outlook. And, all of these apps have been updated to support MacOS X.
Some people have even commented that the Mac versions of MS products are better than the windows versions!
Re:Paranoia (Score:2)
There's a decent argument to say that MS just does the Mac ports to keep monopoly-hounds at bay. The Mac ports have frequently been day-late/dollar-short.
Re:Paranoia (Score:4, Insightful)
Time warp back 10 years
Fill in the blanks: X=, X.maker=
Re:Paranoia (Score:4, Informative)
In the big scheme of things... (Score:5, Insightful)
The worst thing I see happening is a sort of class society, with Microsoft developing code for its circle of businesses, and everybody else in a sort of underground. Black market code, if you will. I very seriously doubt that things will come to, say, Microsoft getting the USGovt to pass a law forbidding software development by unlicensed, uncertified developers, and then fixing the game so only Microsoft developers can be easily certified.
Re:In the big scheme of things... (Score:2, Interesting)
There will always be hackers as well as the hardware techies. To stop these guys would invariably involve systematically wiping them out i.e. DEATH!
Re:In the big scheme of things... (Score:2, Interesting)
So they've already started
Re:In the big scheme of things... (Score:2)
I still go there once or twice a year and I absolutely love that country.
Faster hardware, slower operating system (Score:2, Flamebait)
Pardon me... (Score:2)
I assume a lof of that capability is still around under the hood. The old NT way of porting required a recompile, with an intermediary code step (like java's JVM language) it shouldn't really be too hard for MS to implement.
Re:Pardon me... (Score:2, Insightful)
Back in the NT 4.0 days, you would always see differente downloads for every architectiure that program / driver / patch decided to support.
Re:Pardon me... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Pardon me... (Score:2)
I thought there was also an x86 emulator, to run non-native code?
Re:Pardon me... (Score:2)
Re:Pardon me... (Score:2, Informative)
This is why no HW vendor should ever trust M$.
Good for the gander.... (Score:4, Insightful)
(Java, the browser as a platform (see Judge Jackson's findings of fact) I have to admit that M$ is not being so obvious of their intentions, if that is what they are.
Someone should tell AOL/TW that (Score:3)
Their browser team has gone all native on them, then. As long as the Mozilla browser is open source and free for anyone to take and adopt, it doesn't matter diddly/squat what AOL tries to enforce in the Netscape browser suite.
AOL is another matter, and they certainly do have a tighter rein on things in their walled garden, but they have done nothing to prevent the rest of us from living happily on the outside yet.
Re:Good for the gander.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure my life would end should I not be able to see AOLTW content.
It might actually enable people to turn producer than consumer and then they might remember that creativity is more fun than being a passive observer.
Actually, I think it's happening already. The real internet apps are email, chatrooms & weblogs, places where people contribute.
The advertising crowd have had a rude awakening to the fact that Content is not King
but don't take my word for it
html [firstmonday.dk]
pdf [att.com]
Everybody needs a HW-independent platform? (Score:2, Insightful)
Alas; the fight for power seems to distract big companies from thinking consumers' (and their customers') best. Instead, they all stare at their own navels.
I just wish this huge gap between Sun and Microsoft wouldn't exist, and they would work in cooperation to develop something like Java-Windows (huh, what a totally pervert thought, actually
Is CLR in fact interpreted? Why??? (Score:2, Insightful)
The calling standard approach gives NO slowdown, and reduces code entropy slightly. I would be amazed if Microsoft used an interpretive approach, since that typically costs orders of magnitude in speed, and their code bloat already penalizes them grossly.
Re:Is CLR in fact interpreted? Why??? (Score:4, Informative)
Ok... I have several issues with this. (Score:3, Insightful)
2. The CLR is just a collection of library code that developers can use or choose not to use. Think STL for many different languages. Already the CLR has support for many languages.
3. An evil empire built by Microsoft does not really benefit them in the long run. Microsoft is in the business of making money, not taking over the world.
I would expect to see a story with FUD like this in the Weekly World News next to Bat Boy's latest adventure, not in a respectable technical publication.
Re:Ok... I have several issues with this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Choose? M$ doesn't give you a choice.
3. An evil empire built by Microsoft does not really benefit them in the long run. Microsoft is in the business of making money, not taking over the world.
No, they don't want to 'take over the world' they want to take over the OS, computer, consumer device, media and content, media and content delivery, media protection, and Internet business[es]. Bill Gates' dream is to have you buying everything from them except groceries.
See the above point I made. They are in the business of making money by taking your choices away.
Re:Ok... I have several issues with this. (Score:3, Funny)
Huh? No, this is Slashdot...
Re:Ok... I have several issues with this. (Score:2)
There's a lot of money to be had in taking over the world.
Re:Ok... I have several issues with this. (Score:2)
In particular, I was pleasantly surprised that it includes a primitive for making tail calls, and explicitly cites its necessity for beautiful-but-niche languages such as Scheme, ML, Haskell, (and Common Lisp). (See section 8.2 of the document.)
Re:Ok... I have several issues with this. (Score:3, Informative)
To grow a command economy, you push capital goods to excess. Hence the aggrarian Russia become a major superpower from the time of the Russian revolution (1917) to rival the western world by the end of WW II and remained competitive until its economic collapse in the early 90s. Despite the ability to keep up militarily (technically consumer goods, as weapons and munitions aren't used to produce other goods) and in factories, they had bread lines and 10 year waits for autos. Why? If the rest of the world wants to destroy you, you spend on military first, keeping up second, and goods for the people 3rd.
Businesses spend money differently. Demand for capital goods is different from demand for consumer goods. Businesses will buy capital goods (like computers) at higher prices because they get a good ROI on them, and the opportunity cost of downtime and tech support is higher.
Consumers are willing to spend differently. They are more likely to be willing to spend 1-2 hours on tech support then spend $100 to avoid those waits.
Its about two things: market segmentation, money.
If Microsoft can get themselves 1% of the consumer non-food, non-rent economy (essentially becoming a government and enacting a tax), they will become MUCH larger than now.
If they can better split the business buyers from the consumers, they can maximize prices and therefore profits.
Alex
Re:Ok... I have several issues with this. (Score:2)
2. How many people ran NT on a different architecture? Sun just stopped supporting Solaris on x86 and I bet a lot more people used that.
3. I'll give you that.
Re:Ok... I have several issues with this. (Score:2)
CLR is actually a nice technology, but it seems to me using open-source implentations of it are the only way to go if you're going to use it. They did at least submit the important material to ECMA.
What about interoperability? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm tired of reading about how everything M$ does is evil...they are a corporation, and they have their best interests in mind, just like other corporations(i.e. Sun). Let's stop focusing on the negatives and start focusing on the positives, like the fact that MS and Sun have done alot to work together to further the standardizion of the SOAP protocol!
Re:What about interoperability? (Score:3, Funny)
So, we're supposed to ignore the evil in everything Microsoft does? At least you admit that everything they do has evil in it, that's an important first step.
Re:What about interoperability? (Score:5, Informative)
1. The interoperability aspect the article is concerned with is that between platforms, not between languages. The latter is interesting, if overstated, but irrelevant here.
2. CLR may be specified, but other APIs and services are not, therefore it is trivially easy to lock in developers, just as was attempted with the proprietary GUI API MS provided for J++.
3. For some reason, it is not yet widely appreciated that the public SOAP specification already has a proprietary MS extension called
Re:What about interoperability? (Score:2)
Just think about this... all networked applications for
Re:What about interoperability? (Score:2)
J++ v2.0? (Score:5, Insightful)
J++ looked like it was going to change things. If you wrote Java code, it would in theory, run anywhere. If you wrote J++ code, it would run on any Windows. Given the Windows Everywhere initiatives (the separate NT, Windows, and WinCE lines), J++ would have given Microsoft that platform independance.
MS wanted to split from Intel years ago. Everyone thought that Intel was dead after the Pentium. RISC processors were blowing them away, and Intel's CISC ISA was holding them back.
Well, Intel figured out how to build a RISC processor with a hardware decoder, Windows NT took off faster than expected, the 64-bit Alpha version never shipped, and now MS/Intel split a HUGE monopoly.
This gives their Windows Everywhere initiative some teeth. They are pushing Win32 APIs everywhere, but you need to code differently for the Xbox, Win32, or WinCE. Sure the APIs are the same, but not the compiled version.
The CLR means that Windows is Windows, and Windows code will run there.
Look at UNIX, there has been decent source compatibility, but no binary compatibility (until the recent Linux emulation everywhere). Outside of software distributed in source form, nobody supports every Unix, just the 1-3 that are profitable for them.
Source compatibility helps, but isn't enough. The CLR gives a form of binary compatibility.
Sun could have had this market with Java, but they fucked up. We'll see what happens.
Re:J++ v2.0? (Score:2)
It looks to me like enough of the core libraries are part of the ECMA standard that, once implemented, they'd provide almost the same level of compatibility (except binary, not just source) between the Mono CLR on Linux/Unix and the Microsoft CLR on Windows as there is between GNUStep [gnustep.org] and MacOS X.
That's icing, though. Microsoft could always play their usual compatibility games, limiting the usefulness of CLR for that purpose. Whether or not it's 100% compatible with Microsoft's version, if you have your own implementation that Microsoft doesn't control it's a really useful technology just for the sake of e.g. cross-platform Linux development.
There are some annoying things in CLR, but overall it's an improvement over the JVM (as practiced).
Note I'm not addressing C# versus Java as languages. You can host many different languages on both the JVM and CLR, although Microsoft seems to be actively touting that fact more than Sun is right now.
MS plays fewer games than you'd think... (Score:4, Insightful)
HOWEVER.
They do play games (Windows isn't done until 1-2-3 won't run, the DR-DOS Win3.1 beta fake error, etc.), but less often then you think. Half the games that they play stem from the fact that their employees don't look outside the Microsoft bubble.
Though I can't find it now, on MSN's Canadian Xbox page, they claimed that it was the first console to support 4 players. This is a company that is SO huge that adventuring to the rest of the tech world involves looking at other divisions. When they break standards, half the time I doubt they realize it. When they do things based upon their bastardized standard in another program, they may not realize it.
It's a large company, they can't act as a single mind despite what Slashdot thinks.
Alex
Re:J++ v2.0? (Score:2)
But the CLR allows you to integrate IL code from various languages in one program not just at the function call level but object orientation as well.
Re:J++ v2.0? (Score:3, Informative)
So does Java. Java provides sufficient introspection into the structure of its own classes, such that any language wishing to integrate on the object level with Java would have no trouble doing so using standard APIs. It's pretty much a matter of how well you code the environment for the target language. It's not like Perl and Python integrate instantly with CLR out-of-the-box, the language implementations had to be rewritten with CLR in mind. Java is no different.
For a good Java implementation of Scheme with the ability to integrate with classes and objects written in Java, check out: http://www.cygnus.com/~bothner/kawa.htm
Re:J++ v2.0? (Score:2)
Check out this month's .NET show [microsoft.com]. Jim Miller, one of the designers of the CLR, talks about this in some detail.
Finally some common sense (Score:2)
For smaller, commodity systems though, you are spot on. The unix vendors will always be a camp divided, needlessly thrusting small incompatibilities into the development cycle. Maybe Linux on x86 will simply borg the other commodity unices and solve this problem in an indirect fashion, but even then linux itself is splintering in a frustrating fashion.
Re:Finally some common sense (Score:2)
J2EE platforms are getting more popular all the time, and they run interpreted code in a JVM. That's because modern JVMs are reliable, scalable, and run the software that people need. If more performance is needed then buy more CPUs or disk arrays or whatever. This ends up being cheaper than trying to fix buggy 3rd party software.
Paranoid ravings (Score:3, Insightful)
And you can always get a Mac or something.
Re:Paranoid ravings (Score:2)
It's microsoft's job to make each new OS worth the upgrade (and, sadly, XP has a bunch of new features that do make it worthwhile). That's what drives upgrades, and that's what makes little things like "not being able to use old, poorly coded applications" not so important.
Re:Paranoid ravings (Score:2)
Definitely (Score:4, Insightful)
Right now they get a nice chunk of money every time somebody buys a PC. Windows is one of the most expensive components of a desktop computer.
If you look far enough down the road, Linux on the desktop is a reality. So they know that the OS monopoly is coming to an end. It is time to start getting a new monopoly ready to take its place.
They will ride this gravy train as long as they can, and then they will concede the OS market and start charging the same per-computer tax for the CLR. They won't care what OS is running underneath it. The OS will become a low-margin commodity, and they may even just starting giving Windows away for free. The profit margins will simply be relocated upward to a higher layer of this new and thicker notion of a platform.
BTW, don't even think about suggesting that Java will win because it was here first. Java is to the CLR as Lotus-1-2-3 was to Excel. Some people innovate. Other people specialize in refinement and broad market penetration.
Frustrating, stupid comments. (Score:4, Insightful)
It does of course, but nothing like what Jamie is thinking. Whenever it does try something bizarre, like making MSN only work with IE, people call them on it. And they stop.
And if they pulled something like this, they'd have to. The DOJ isn't going to sign off its case without some sort of oversight.
And I think the oversight committee might have a problem with
"Proposal 1A: Drop support for any PC that's capable of booting a non-MS OS."
These stupid ideas only serve to make the real ones look silly.
Why should Jamie get to post moderation free, Katzian garbage like this? Put it in a comment like everyone else.
.
Re:Frustrating, stupid comments. (Score:2)
The BIOS would initially be able to verify boot-blocks signed by a small number of companies, such as all the for-profits UNIX vendors, but Linux, et al, would be shut out. (We've already seen efforts in various standard committees to shut out Open Source OSes by only accepting input from for-profit corporations.) Over time, the other signatures could be dropped, as various entities got out of the OS business. Compaq is slowly dropping support for all the DEC operating systems, HP is so close to NT that I could see HPUX going away, and SGI is always on the ropes. In just a few years, you could see PCs only accepting boot-blocks from MS and IBM.
Fantasy. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think so. And even if the situation came to pass:
A: It would be easy to remedy this situation, and it would be remedied via antitrust action (though perhaps some group would need to be formed to validate and sign OS booters from open source vendors).
B: The market would supply a vendor who produced equipment to run other OS's.
This is the problem with the "slippery slope" style of arguing. You don't try to evaluate the problems with some projection, you just view it as some inevitable consequence of something reasonable. Everything gets bent into some crazy, hypothetical world where nothing is as it is now.
Here's a projection: Linux will overcome MS by providing a better product for free. Seems a lot more likely than Jamie's scenario.
Why can't this be the topic of our anti-MS conversation: What can we do to make Linux better?
...
Re:Frustrating, stupid comments. (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. This kind of lame paranoid rant gives the Slashdot community a bad name. It's bad enough in the comments, but there at least moderators can control the quality to some extent. I already have Katz on the block-list. I'm putting Jamie there too, but even that wouldn't have blocked this crap since it was posted by Cliff and just *adulterated* by Jamie.
Re:Frustrating, stupid comments. (Score:4, Insightful)
I made *exactly* the same observation about a particularly stupid CmdrTaco editorial attached to a story. I was lucky enough to get a direct reply to my comment in which he proudly said, thought not in so many words: "Fuck you, it's my site, I can write what I want".
Slashdot makes NO pretense at journalistic integrity. It's just a blog.
Reply to AC: Frustrating, stupid comments. (Score:5, Informative)
What does their lack of backwards compatibility have to do with anything?
Is it a ploy to make money? Of course it is.
Does it really matter? No, you can set Word to save to Word 95 format and you won't lose anything important. You can even download a free 2000 viewer if you want, and cut and paste into Word 95.
Would MS provide these things if they were a crazy, unrestricted monopoly that would do anything to grab cash? No, they'd encrypt
MS is like some inkblot where everyone can project their own little "gotta stand up to the man", "slippery slope" fantasy world view.
Want to fight MS? Help make Linux good. Quit whining.
.
Java vs. MS.Net : the point ! (Score:2, Troll)
the C# language is pretty the same as the Java language, the
Even if there are little difference these are insigifiant ones.
People with good Java skills and that also have experience on MS.net can confirm all my statements.
The problem of
MS already done a standard process to ECMA for C# and the core IL, but *forget* to standardize the APIs
In other words, MS can change the APIs without notification and break any compatibility without breaking any standard !
What
The problem with
HAving trashcan'ed all their legacy technologies (DNA, MTS, DCOM?, VB
How a VB user will react with no more goto's, fim's var's,
This is a plain ne world and thinking of a sleek migration is either stupid or idiot.
My forecasting on MS.net is that it will never take of from 20% share within the next 5 years. In worst case (if MS never manage to fixe issues on VS.NET and MSIL) MS could just simply from shares and never skyrocketeer at all.
Anyway for a Java user
Makes a lot of sense (Score:2, Insightful)
At the same time this can be a sad thing given MS's track record of snuffing out ANY competition with ruthless business tactics. Given the fact that there should be more healthy competition in the computing market place I still however look forward to having a shot at CLR/.NET content delivery (ducks bricks..)
Considering their movement into the home market with XBox and other soon to be released peripherals (think WinCE mobile phones and to a certain extent: "Content delivery anywhere, on any device" a la "Antitrust". If they are the communications vehicle for Fox/AOL/Time Warner/Sony (you name it) they place themselves in an incredibly lucrative position and the framework libraries are absolutely priceless for quick and easy movement of content.
The CLR has a lot more to do with this strategy than a generic java clone - I'm sure its the content delivery mechanism for ruling the subscriptions of the future. Mind you the content will probably be served from Linux/FreeBSD with Apache/PostgreSQL!! - only way to guarantee good uptime
What about Mono? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's very plausible (Score:2, Interesting)
This is why I keep repeating the fact that us Free Software and Open Source hackers need to stop following MS and others, and jump ahead. Why didn't Gnome or KDE leap ahead in terms of UI like (arguably) OSX and XP have? Because we were to busy copying Windows and UNIX. I'll get flammed for this but, why must Linux be so UNIX like? It's a kernel, the rest of the OS could become anything we dream up. Why aren't we setting the pace and doing the innovating? Why not dream up an entirely new set of operating system metaphors?
Stop following, start leading.
well, of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Java would have been godsend for Microsoft, addressing all these problems, but they didn't control it and it would have given people not only hardware independence but also Microsoft independence.
Technically, there are no significant differences between the CLR and the JVM. The CLR isn't any more or less powerful than the JVM, it won't run much faster or slower, and it won't be any easier or harder to implement. You already have Java compilers for the CLR, and you will see C# compilers for the JVM soon. But Microsoft controls the evolution of the CLR, and that is what matters to them. While Microsoft will probably implement the ECMA standard, they will extend the CLR and libraries in numerous proprietary ways, and that will give them exactly the control they want.
Re:No, the CLR is demonstrably better (Score:4, Informative)
I don't understand what you (or Microsoft) are talking about when making that claim.
I regularly mix Python and Java objects. Python is a dynamically typed language with multiple inheritance and Java is a statically typed language with single inheritance. I can subclass Java objects in Python and use Java objects in Python and vice versa. If this is possible for languages as different as Java and Python, it would seem to be possible for many other languages as well (and many other languages implemented on top of the JVM claim to provide the same level of integration--I just haven't used them). The Java native code interfaces also allow for similar levels of integration with native code.
The CLR does clean up some idiosyncracies and minor messes in the JVM and JVM spec. Mostly, those cleanups give a bit more handholding to less experienced language implementors to figure out what to do. But that doesn't seem to give the CLR significantly more functionality or performance overall.
If you claim CLR is "demonstrably better", maybe you can be a little more concrete in your "demonstration"? Where specifically are these demonstrable advantages, and how specifically can you not achieve the same functionality in the JVM?
Electrons are electrons (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just wrong. Hardware is hardware and has no idea what seqences of instructions do. They execute an instruction, then another, then another. You put your code in memory and feed the CPU the address of the code. You can always go under the operating system (stick in a boot disk that loads the OS on top of something else). There's no way a machine could block "illegal code".
Now, maybe a chip that only executes signed bytecode could do something like this. But then development would be essentially impossible and there would be no programs for that achitecture (and if you give developers the private key, it will be public in seconds; hell I'd do it!!).
Different from JVM (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, there isn't a huge company with a monopoly on operating systems trying to squash it.
Re:Different from JVM (Score:2)
And so MS, who realised that Java was the way to go, had to build Java themselves. They've done so in a shitty, "Visual Basic" kind of way with CLR and
Only PC manufacturers Apple and MS? (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Full-power, expensive operating systems become a niche market and more consumer-oriented targeted platforms on the level of TiVo or Palm become the norm. Microsoft and Apple have a big advantage in this scenario due to their code bases, and you would see a market of 3-5 manufacturers of appliances including MS and Apple.
2. General purpose operating systems based on free software become the norm for home use, opening the field to many competitors with an eventual shakeout to who knows who. Advantage: PC makers.
3. Microsoft lowers its OEM pricing for the Windows environment and provides it through a Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory licensing scheme with multiple distribution companies who resell it to home PC manufacturers. Ironically, this is one of the proposed Justice settlement schemes before Bush gave the farm away. Some or most of the current PC manufacturers survive in this scenario and microsoft becomes like a utility: profitable and boring.
Jamie Comments (Score:2)
OB Hardware Q: What good would a Linux BIOS do? Could someone write/draw one in the linux community? Would it enhance the Linux capabilities, perhaps even encouraging a unified GUI? Just perhaps to make one last, desparate attempt to compete with the dragon on it's own terms before it swallows the world?
CLR solves some common and obvious problems (Score:3, Informative)
The CLR also incorporates some other innovative features - the ability link packages based on the signature of that package, not the package name, allowing side by side execution.
Also, the CLR is closely tied to the .Net framework, which is far ahead of the Java class library as you may mix and match classes across various languages. Note this does not mean you can just compile different languages to the CLR, but reuse code at runtime from code written in other languages.
Frankly the rest of the comments here are rants, I don't think many readers here understand the .Net platform.
Re:CLR solves some common and obvious problems (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you should have stopped after the first seven words of your post.
Note this does not mean you can just compile different languages to the CLR, but reuse code at runtime from code written in other languages.
Could you explain to me the difference between these two statements? What prevents you from doing either one with a JVM?
.NET would make a good David Spade joke. "I liked
Re:CLR solves some common and obvious problems (Score:3, Informative)
Well, you might not be able to do that with Perl and Java today, but you can do it with Python and Java today -- check out Jython [jython.org], the JVM implementation of Python.
Microsoft spent the effort (money) to implement Perl on CRL; anytime that someone wants to do the work to implement Perl on top of the JVM, you'll be able to do what you want. Given that Parrot development continues, you may yet get Perl for JVM courtesy of Jython and Python and Parrot.
Lets make a difference (Score:2, Insightful)
The stratigy I propose is just too jump the gun on M$ and give the people INOVATION. But if only it were that easy. We really need to unify all open source OfficeSuits to allow a common format for data exchange, to break the hold that Word, etc have on the desktop. Among many other things.
But most of all, why not a Multi Platform runtime standard for Linux/*BSD/BeOS. The execuitable is only compiled to a CLR, and make DLL's for windows that will auto convert the CLR to use the native M$ gui, and libs for GNOME and KDE, to do the same.
The desired end result, would be to write a App/Game on my PS2 running Linux and be able to run it on on my Dreamcast running *BSD, or even dare I say it, my mothers P166 running win95.
Not till then do I feel that the desktop will be more open to Linux. If their software runs just as well under a Free, Secure platform called Linux, what need will they have to buy the Propirety, Virus-writer-friendly OS called Windows.
We could then work unitedly on one or two Word processers, that world run on multi platforms, and OS's. We could unite the efforts of KWord, OpenWriter, and AbiWord. We could use KDE or GNOME without flamewars, or we could work on a united gui.
I guess what I am really trying to say is to, GET OVER IT, and set the lead for M$ to follow.
There is nothing stoping us taking back the desktop, if we dont mind getting our hands dirty.
BTW: if anybody would like to help undertake such a project, please let me know.
Wow, and people call ME a cynic!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Not going to happen, unless the US goes to war with China. Most MoBos are made in Taiwan or Southern China, and you can bet your sweet lilly that the Chinese government (or the Japanese for that matter) is NOT going to give MS the power over every PC in China (or Japan).
So in the free world, you will always be able to buy a free and open PC. In the US, well it might go as you say, but hey, that's only the US.
The big money over the next decade will be in transforming the computer into an entertainment device.
Well, that's ONE of the things the computer will become, but the computer is evolving and transforming in a lot of other areas as well. Robotics, niche-manufacturing, traditional manufacturing , astro-physics, bio-technology, precision guided weapons/war machinery, virtual robotic control, communications, aerospace and fluid dynamics, chemistry and molecular design.
To say that the basic use of the computer will become to titilate the masses is IMHO limited thinking. Sure, there will always be a market for consumer devices, and content that plays on them, but to extend that to Microsoft taking over the BIOS of every computer made is just plain silly.
Perhaps there will be a fork in PC manufacturing. There will be a consumer device made which will basically be a PC with an idiot interface that makes it look like it's not a computer (hey, didn't Apple do that like, 18 years ago), and then there will be high-end, high performance "Workstations" made for academic, scientific and industrial/commercial applications.
Because I doubt that NASA are going to be using C# and Windows to build life-support/mission critical software on the next Space Shuttle or International Space Station.
My view. (Score:3, Insightful)
The CLR has two implications.
The first many have commented on... hardware abstraction. Applications compiled for the CLR will be able to run on a wide-variety of different (but similar) platforms... but is this really of long-term value? Are there a lot of applications begging to run unmodified on your enterprise server AND your Palm? Doubtful. Hardware abstraction makes good engineering sense in the sense that it saves future development, but I don't see it as much of a market-stealing development.
Will Microsoft have an advantage over Intel? The ability to move away in the future? Newsflash, it already has that advantage. x86 is, for all intents and purposes, an open standard implemented by a variety of hardware manufacturers (down to AMD and Intel at the top-end.. for now). How will CLR give it more of a death-grip? As someone else said, this aspect of the CLR is equivalent to the HAL.
No, I believe it's the second implication that Microsoft really cares about: multiple language interoperability.
The market Microsoft is going after with CLR is really the enterprise computing market. There is an awful lot of existing business logic written in a wide range of language offerings, and the value in capturing that market is huge. Microsoft is making this move on the basis of a prediction on where enterprise software is headed over the next 5-10 years.
Different pieces of logic (within different systems) are begging (so M$ believes) to interoperate within a single application server, within a single runtime. XML/SOAP/Web services is a basic solution for cross-process interoperability... but what's going to run on the *back* end? Within the same process, with shared rules for security/type-safety, object/thread pools, garbage collection, and shared state?
Java threatened to be the default language to which business logic/applications/"Web services" were about to be built with... which obviously would represent a threat to Microsoft's position. Microsoft made a valiant effort to head this off with COM/COM+, but quickly realized that the fundamentally C++ nature of COM+ was making it not attractive enough for business developers.
The introduction of CLR is trying to change that. Multiple languages, multiple types, multiple run-time semantics... standardized in to one run-time. C++ objects making calls on Java objects making calls on COBOL logic...
.... that's the vision of CLR, and why the focus of the CLR paper is about the language features of the CLR, *not* the 'generalized hardware' nature of the hardware.
Editorial Slant? (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad it's followed by 4 paras of paranoid rant, which is what people are replying to, by and large. Why doesn't Jamie just post in the forum, like the rest of us proles? Even if I'd blocked him from my view of Slashdot (which I haven't, although looking back over the stories...), this would slip through as a rider on Cliff's story.
[anyway, what is the benefit to BIOS makers and motherboard manufacturers of limiting their market? The degree of support for overclocking in existing mobos and BIOSes shows that they don't care what their large partners think (Intel, AMD)]
Game Boy? BAD example. Too open. (Score:5, Informative)
My prediction is that, unless antitrust legislation in the U.S. gets some teeth between now and then, the PC will become a Gameboy within fifteen years. Enjoy computers while they last.
Game Boy is a bad example. The Game Boy Advance is an open system, fully documented [gbadev.org] to the point that anybody with GCC can write software and run it on the GBA without taking a vow of silence or paying the big N. The only things the GBA checks before running your code are 1. the very simple checksum on the header and 2. a bit pattern that produces the Nintendo logo but is legal to copy under the Sega v. Accolade [pineight.com] precedent. So go get GCC for ARM [io.com] and an MBV2 cable from lik-sang.com and get hacking.
$article =~ s/become a Gameboy/become an XBox/; and it becomes more accurate.
Good Idea... (Score:2)
As computers get faster and faster, the overhead generated by a virtual machine becomes less and less. If a standardized CLR existed (preferably one that was open, and not controlled by any one corporation), then all that would be necessary to have "write once, run everywhere" would be to have a hardware abstraction layer written for each hardware platform. Imagine how much easier it would be to code an operating system if you could use a javaish language instead of c and assembly.
Does anyone know of any open-source projects that are working on an open CLR and/or open OOP language? If such things existed, then instead of seeing the "WM of the month" we'd start seeing the "OS of the month." By making it easier to code OS's, we might start to see some innovation in the field instead of the stagnation we've seen for the past couple of years.
Please Stop the FUD. (Score:2)
Why aren't Jamie's comments *in* the comments? (Score:2)
It used to be Timothy and Michael who were the worst offenders of editors using Slashdot for their own personal soapbox, but this takes the cake.
Post stories that are interesting, and if you must comment, get off your damn high-horses, and subject yourselves to the same moderation (and filtering) as everyone else.
I-Know-This-Will-Get-Mod'ed-Down-As-A-Troll-But
-Bill
Huh (Score:2)
Most of the Linux kids probably don't remember when you could get Windows NT for four ISAs. The problem was you could get Windows on an Alpha or PPC system but you couldn't find any software to run. The whole
Thank goodness for China ;-) (Score:2, Insightful)
Giving up the worlds largest potential market just to please Redmond is very doubtful.
CLR and hardware independence (Score:4, Interesting)
This solves a practical problem: now you will be able to "beam" programs from Windows CE machines running on different CPUs. Also,
The CLR also helps the move to 64 bit systems. There are three integer types on the CLR: int32, int64 and native int (which is 32 or 64 depending on the machine).
The Mono project is building a free implementation of such a virtual machine (http://www.go-mono.com). We have a functional JIT engine, a C# compiler and many class libraries. So in the future you could even write applications on Windows and run them on Linux.
Miguell
It will boost PC sales (Score:3, Interesting)
Whether they acknowledge it or not, MS lives in close symbiosis with the vendors; every 2 years or so progress in hardware development produces faster PCs, and every 2 years or so MS produces a version of Windows, as well as applications, that serve to bring the speed of those PCs down to a sluggish sublevel of performance, the added bells and whistles effectively canceling out the performance gains. Users have been indoctrinated into accepting this cycle as natural, which is why users so often acknowledge the speed of Linux, BeOS and other OSes as wonderous, when in truth we shouldn't accept anything less.
In short, Microsoft boosts the new generation of speedy hardware because users "need" it. And speedy hardware boosts the new generation of Microsoft stuff because users "need" it. At the moment, that cycle is slowing down as users feel applications are fast enough for their needs. The recent improvements in performance have been almost entirely for the sake of gaming performance and multimedia: AGP, 3D instructions, HW-accelerated DVD playback, HW-accelerated sound, cooling supplies, cool cases etc. -- precious little of that stuff is for business tasks.
Everybody knows the upgrade cycle can't go on like this. And consciously or not, this game of leapfrog will be artificially boosted by .NET because this technology, by definition, will slow down your computer; similar to Java, it relies on bytecode that is compiled into native code on demand (Just-In-Time compilation). While some argue that this process can produce superior performance to traditional pre-compilation, in the short run it probably won't -- Java is a good case study here.
The fact that .NET could run on other hardware platforms is another possible sales-booster: a hardware-independent Windows would promote new types of hardware, freeing the burden of innovation from being completely on Intel, spurring competition, thereby potentially spurring more sales, etc.
Not guessing the post-x86 processor (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you know ANYTHING about the CLR? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is porting .NET to FreeBSD [oreillynet.com]. How does that help them establish "Windows Everywhere"? They aren't suing or threatening Miguel for his Mono project: in fact, they seem to be encouraging it (or amused by it) judging by
the interview [microsoft.com] with him on MSDN.
C# is a nice, clean platform for Windows GUI development. And ASP.NET is cool enough to give IIS a feature edge (as opposed to a security edge) over Apache. Not that the Apache group couldn't create something like Tomcat to serve ASP.NET from Apache, mind you. .NET is, after all, an open standard.
Microsoft needs .NET because Microsoft's customers want an easier way to develop. Period. Apple developers love coding for Apple. Linux developers love, well, anything anti-Microsoft. And Windows developers--God help them--should be able to enjoy Windows development. Having actually written an app or two using the CLR I assure you that it is much more enjoyable than MFC.
IANAWT (I am not a Windows Troll). I am a BSD user looking forward to .NET on BSD. I am a Perl coder looking forward to Perl.NET. And yes, I use and code on Windows at work. And for these reasons, it's very cool to have .NET.
This is a Migration Path to IA64! (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't believe almost everyone missed this! Everyone thinks this is Microsoft's way of reducing Intel's influence. WRONG! This is the perfect way to MAINTAIN the Wintel hegemony!
The scream you hear every morning is the Intel engineer realizing he/she has to spend another day working on the x86 architecture. Everytime he/she pushes a polygon around on a cad system, he/she curses the baroque design decisions that were made 20 years ago. Intel tried to kill the x86 on multiple occasions (80860, 80960, etc) and failed miserably every time. Their most recent attempt, IA64, shares the same departure in binary compatability.
To wean the market away from x86, Intel has recruited Microsoft to create a language and development environment that generates architecture independent byte-codes. Intel rooted for Java in the early days, but now it is obviously a niche player. Microsoft thinks it gets a leg up on Intel but it is Intel with the most powerful compilers (check out icc) and the fastest hardware (Intel hired away all the Alpha engineers). Wintel lives on.
.NET framework is key (Score:5, Insightful)
MS has the CLR (Common Language Runtime) and MSIL (MS Intermediate Language). This is nothing new, with CLR = JVM, and MSIL being javacode. Additionally MS also has the
So if this is nothing more than MS rehash of Sun's Java approach, what's the difference.
.
First MS has the advantage of learning from Sun's mistakes. For example C#, Visual Basic, & VC++ are not the only languages that can use CLR & MSIL. Any language can compile to MSIL, and MS encourages it, claiming over 20 languages from 3rd party vendors, including PERL and Java. Additionally MS supports both compiled and bytecode, with a built-in native code compiler as part of the framework. These were all possible with the JVM, but not advocated/pushed by Sun.
Second, instant market. MS is including the
Third. Applications. Microsoft has Office. Lets face it. People don't buy Windows for IE and Solitaire. Java never had a killer app.
Fourth. Inertia & Clout. Once MS ports Office to
Five. Future proofing. If the DOJ or anyone else causes problems, MS can easily port Office to Linux just by porting the
like ADA and the Nebula architecture? (Score:3, Insightful)
It didn't happen then.
I'm not worried now.
The CLR will win... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all fine and dandy to be idealistic about freedom and the like, but a quick examination of society suggests that freedom means very little to your average consumer. What most people care about is convenience , the ease with which they can do their "thing." And Microsoft's CLR, while rough around the edges now, brings "convenience" to developer's lives.
I've developed a lot of code in the last couple of decades, and I gravitated to Java because it was an easy way to write GUIs. Sure, most of my work is the heavy lifting "under the hood" -- but it's the GUI that attracts users who buy product. You and I may love command-line environments, but that isn't what most people want or need. As one of my co-workers puts it, the GUI guys get all the glory -- and the CLR is a superior tool for GUI development.
Why use the CLR? Because unlike Java's Swing, GUI code written in the CLR is reasonably fast (through native widgets) and easy to use. The Visual Studio development environment takes most of the challenge out of GUI development -- and toys like NetBeans/Forte and KDevelop don't even come close to Visual Studio when it comes to easy development. The only advantage Java has now is portability...
The CLR has little or no affect on my engine development; I still write my code as portable C++/Fortran/whatever, and wrap it in a component architecture that can be dropped into a GUI. Microsoft has not made traditional compiled code obsolete -- what they've done is make MFC, ATL, and COM obsolete. In other words, Microsoft is creating a user-interface toolkit that can be used to wrap code that does heavy lifting. They're making it easy and efficient to write GUIs for Windows -- and that, my friends, is what is going to hurt Java and Linux.
The CLR isn't about getting rid of Intel, or platform independence; it's about attracting developers who write code that attracts user who sepnd money on Microsoft operating systems. The Linux developer community would be wise to spend more time on ease of use and less time tilting at windmills.
Re:Multi-platform Windows? (Score:2)
Nobody bought the computers, so the makers stopped making them, so MS stopped producing the OS. Seems reasonable. Why develop an OS for hardware that is no longer being produced.
(and please - don't bring up SGI. NT never ran on SGI's MIPS boxes. SGI had no interest/desire in that).
Alpha effectively died when Digital/Compaq indicated that they wouldn't be willing to put any effort into maintaining that port.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but PPC and SPARC versions of NT never shipped --- though the dev headers are full of PPC #ifdefs
Re:Multi-platform Windows? (Score:2)
No. The IBM AS/400 product group considers NT to be the Great Satan. There is absolutely positively NO WAY IN HELL that NT was ever run on AS/400 hardware.
First of all, the port would be a MASSIVELY HUGE effort. AS/400 hardware is not of this earth. And what in the name of all that rocks would be in it for Microsoft?
Re:WTF is Jamie talking about? (Score:2, Insightful)
MS Office = MS Windows
MS Windows = MS Hardware
Microsoft currently has driver signing, which menas they will soon if not already, decide which hardware will, and which hardware will not run on your system. By them controlling which hardware can run on the OS, Microsoft can influence the decisions of hardware manufacturers on what to produce.
Lets say there is the CD Bruners from the Ukraine that does not stamp id's on them. Ok, microsoft could see this driver as not allowed. Any driver installed that supports this directly or as a surrogate will need it to be verified before being installed.
How does this effect you? The same reason why Compaq is selling the Alpha off; If it doesn't supprot windows, how can we make money off it?
Re:WTF is Jamie talking about? (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, I'd better complete that statement/ramble and say that I think this is probably the right thing to do from an MS support PoV. The 'remedy', if required, would be to allow other support organizations to certify their own combinations of drivers.
Re:Aren't we over reacting a little (Score:2)
Sheesh..
t_t_b
Java is a fine C++ replacement, for the most part (Score:5, Interesting)
WTF indeed! Java applications have both! Ever hear of the java.io package?
Would you really want Java applets, downloaded from an arbitrary Internet site, to have access to your hard drive by default? (Signed applets can do such things, by the way.)
Java is infinitely preferable to C#+CLR, simply because there is no platform lockin, or vendor lockin (you can get great JVMs from IBM, for instance).
I'll start seriously considering C#+CLR when the Mono runtime exceeds the performance of Linux JVMs on the same box. I expect that to happen...never. ;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!