text: Re: Microsoft and Trust Take 2
  - From: "mayayana" <mayaXXyana1a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  - Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 10:09:59 -0400
  widerwider
  In VB it was expected that people would pretty much
  stick to VB-digestible COM objects and stay away from
  the API. In .Net it seems that breaking COM was a
  way to discourage involvement with the Windows system
  altogether and direct people toward sandboxed applets.
  I don't think that's true because they've opened up support to a much
  range of options. You can now call a much lower level of com object. In VBto
  it wasn't possible to call directShow natively and it was difficult with a
  typelib. In dot net it can call all of its interfaces directly. You need
  use the interop namespace but that's just the name they chose, they could
  have called it ComSupport or something and then it wouldn't be considered
  interop.
  They could have named it anything, but it still seems to
  be an extra layer that was put there deliberately to
  "deprecate" COM in .Net, just as they "deprecated" API
  access in both VB and .Net. (Not that the horse didn't
  get out of the barn in both cases, but it wasn't through MS's
  encouragement.)
  differentdifferentThe gist of that seems to be a description of Microsoft's
  long time threat/dream - to block actual 3rd-party programming
  altogether, sending everything through a filter layer. (As though
  there weren't enough layers already.)
  It's not really that big a deal. They're still using the same old model of
  having functions for you to call, they're just doing it through a
  mechanism. To have everything available through a dot net interface wouldbe
  pretty cool.I understood the article to say that there would be an entirely
  new API, which *might* be addressable directly via .Net code.
  That means MS has an opportunity to enforce the "safe" code
  idea, because only they - and close partners - would have
  access to the underlying API. I don't think there's any
  question that that's where they want to get to. 3rd-party
  programmers have become awkward hangers-on at the
  web services and entertainment-rental party.
  When you think about it, though, the article is confusing.
  It describes .Net as both legacy *and* possibly current in the
  new scenario. Either your .Net code is writing to the wrapper
  on top of the new API, or it's writing to the legacy wrapper
  that's a wrapper on top of the new API. I don't see how it
  can be both... It's enough to make one dizzy. :)
  Who said anything about running Xtra Problems? :)Who said anything about running Xtra Problems? :)
  and
  which is already partway to the services model (with MS
  being the only true admin. on a Vista system). Then the
  next thing is probably a closed services box. Looking at
  it that way, the last thing I'm worried about is whether
  VB will run on future Windows. It can do almost anything on
  95-XP with no dependencies. That makes a lot of sense
  to me.
  After what you said (with regards to the next Windows) I'd be more nervous
  than ever using VB6. You might be happy to run XP for ever but what about
  your users?
  It will probably come to that, but for now I prefer my
  "'Ol Betsy" - the streamlined, spyware-free Win98,
  which is also free of insecure, unnecessary network
  services that can't be shut off.
  Actually, though, XP hasn't really been so bad in terms
  of writing software for others to use. Almost everyone
  is running as Admin. And even though MS has tried to
  set themselves up as an online shepherd with the new
  "security" functions in IE post-SP2, (so that people get
  dire security warnings and/or malfunctionality when trying
  to download software installers) in my experience the vast
  majority of people don't seem to notice Microsoft's attempts
  very much. When most people see a security warning they
  don't even read it. They just see another example of how
  difficult and complex computers are, and their only focus
  is on how to get past this latest confusing obstacle.
  But what I meant in what I was saying was that I don't
  consider what's coming - or rather what seems to be coming -
  to be usable at all. MS is branching into advertising and web
  services. They don't have much room left to focus on OSs
  per se. And they've developed conflicting motives. They can't
  make good OSs and good advertising venues at the same time.
  I already consider Vista unusable and XP barely salvageable,
  in terms of having an OS that I can use and control as I wish.
  I don't know where things are going in the future. Maybe some
  bright sky will appear from behind the gathering clouds of
  pending corporate usurpation of the public Internet.
  (A good example of those clouds was posted at the Washington
  Post this week:
  052.html
  )
  But the way I see it, .Net doesn't make any sense for
  basic Windows software, and we wouldn't be talking
  about this here at all if MS were not using .Net as part of
  their strategy to recast the product as services and advertising.
  To put that another way: Not only does MS want to switch
  from the auto business to the taxi business. They also want
  to force-drag their entire customer base along. I like to
  write software for my "car", and I find it satisfying to write
  software that might be useful to other people who drive
  cars. But those people who are going to accept being pushed
  into a taxi are on their own. I'm not going to write trinkets
  like MyTaxiRidePlayListOrganizer for people who don't know any
  better than to be passive cows in Microsoft's herd of
  "consumers". (The word Bill Gates consistently likes to use
  in referring to human beings. I find the word "consumer" to
  be actually quite evocative of a cow. They're both viewed as
  commodities that one can exploit for profit based on how much
  they "eat".)
  That's one of two big issues that seem to be very
  difficult to clarify in these .Net debates. The one issue
  is that .Net is a step toward programmers losing access
  to the plaform - where Windows actually ceases to be
  a platform at all, but rather becomes an appliance with
  an SDK. The second big issue is the confusion that MS
  so effectively created around the purpose of .Net (which
  is actually related to the first issue). That's the confusion
  that so many seemingly intelligent people could even begin
  to take seriously Microsoft's notion of writing Windows
  software with their bloated, heavily dependent, Java clone.
  (I don't even have a JVM installed. I certainly don't need
  a .Net framework installed.)
  But I suspect the real issue is not that people like you
  have been duped, but that you're in one of those areas
  (like intranet applet writing or server-side components)
  where .Net *can* make sense. For instance, Tom Shelton
  happened to make a comment recently about how he has
  control over the machines where his software runs. Maybe
  ..Net is handy in that scenario. Certainly the gigantic runtime
  dependency wouldn't be an issue. But for those of us
  writing software that's intended for use on any Windows
  PC, there's nothing to talk about. .Net doesn't make sense
  in a handful of ways, any more than Java does. (In fact,
  even less so, because the idea of being cross-platform
  is more than just a marketing scam with Java.)
  So as far as I can see, the only reason for people like you
  to keep debating this topic is because you want to help
  ensure that VB.Net doesn't get dropped. But whether you
  agree with my assessment of things or not, the fact still
  stands that I, and I think many of us here, view your arguments
  as no more relevant than a salespitch from a Java supporter.
  .
  - Follow-Ups:
  - Re: Microsoft and Trust Take 2
  - From: Michael C
  - References:
  - Microsoft and Trust Take 2
  - From: Michael C
  - Re: Microsoft and Trust Take 2
  - From: Wolfgang Enzinger
  - Re: Microsoft and Trust Take 2
  - From: Michael C
  - Re: Microsoft and Trust Take 2
  - From: Tony Proctor
  - Re: Microsoft and Trust Take 2
  - From: Michael C
  - Re: Microsoft and Trust Take 2
  - From: Wolfgang Enzinger
  - Re: Microsoft and Trust Take 2
  - From: Paul Clement
  - Re: Microsoft and Trust Take 2
  - From: Wolfgang Enzinger
  - Re: Microsoft and Trust Take 2
  - From: Paul Clement
  - Re: Microsoft and Trust Take 2
  - From: Karl E. Peterson
  -
  - Prev by Date: Re: VB6 make DLL on Vista: "Error accessing the system regisry"
  - Next by Date: UDT default property?
  - Previous by thread: Re: Microsoft and Trust Take 2
  - Next by thread: Re: Microsoft and Trust Take 2
  - Index(es):