| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
.Net and the Emperor's new clothes | |
|
||
| Time: 12:20 EST/17:20 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
When it comes to .Net, Microsoft always sounds cocksure about how this bet-the-company software initiative is going to rock the computing universe. But each time Bill Gates gets going on the subject, he winds up stumping us with declarations like this: "We don't have the user-centricity until we understand context, which is way beyond presence--presence is the most trivial notion of context." Hegel on acid couldn't be more impenetrable. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 163 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:54:01 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 1:16:52 PM |
|
Jagged, do you think philosophers don't understand Hegel? I think the point is: how pervasive the knowledge from the leaders in the field becomes based on their ability to make it understandable to the lay person. You will frequently find a reporter waxing on Plato, maybe even Kant or Nietzche, or Camu--but they aren't going to bring up the Hegelian worldview. Same thing--of course some people understand Gates, but his job isn't to train developers--his job is to do the vision thing, to be the corporate mouthpiece. Even if you want to look at this narrow audience, this statement is understandable but idiotic.
Even if we do understand this statement, let's parse it: "we don't have user-centricity"--that's bad; .Net was supposed to be about individual experiences; hell, XP is supposed to stand for what? "until we understand context"--we don't understand context; "which is way beyond presence"--we focused on Passport initially which got the press and dev'ers focused on Passport for the last year or two; "presence is the most trivial notion of context"--we don't even know if presence has anything to do with context but, because we thought we had figured it out, we made it seem like it was the most important thing--in fact, we didn't figure out presence, or rather people don't like our solution, and besides presence doesn't amount to crap, getting several million Passport account IDs got us nowhere in developing web services. Message: there is none except that MS made mistakes and is trying to act as if it learned the most invaluable, inpenetrable lessons from the process and is hereby annointing developers to create "CONTEXT," the most important element of all for usable and valuable web services, which they themselves have not achieved. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, August 05, 2002 at 13:18. |
| #2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 2:12:23 PM |
| I don't think I was thinking about this statement without the context of what I've seen from MSDN, other speeches, other announcements, and simply MS's product lineup, but I was trying to isolate it a bit. And my point was simply that: there is no message in Gates's message. |
| #3 By 931 (63.169.175.28) at 8/5/2002 2:59:19 PM |
|
The whole mistake was renaming the server lines to .net way to early.. They should have been renamed in the next iterations ..those due 1.5 or more years from now. Would have made it clear that .net is more of a programing platform.. as even most writers I read clearly dont even know wtf there talking about.
|
| #4 By 8883 (64.253.108.241) at 8/5/2002 3:52:55 PM |
|
#1 is right, and the author is a jackass. He uses selective quoting to try to make it sound like Gates is just throwing words around with no explanation.
The author quoting Gates: "We don't have the user-centricity until we understand context, which is way beyond presence--presence is the most trivial notion of context." From the actual text of Gates's speech: "Now, barriers in communications, this is another domain and here again what we've got is not optimal. You have phone numbers. You've got multiple e-mail addresses. You get interrupted. Do you ever get junk mail? Yes. Do you ever get mail that you'd like to get that you get it at a time where it's not appropriate, where it's kind of an interruption?" "We don't have the user centricity. Until we understand context, which is way beyond presence -- presence is the most trivial notion of context, just am I on this device or not; it doesn't say am I meeting with something, am I focused on writing something. Context is where you have enough information to work on behalf of the user and understand what kind of connection can be made." And then he goes on to give some examples where progress is being made on these things. The author also makes it sound like the "we" Gates is talking about is Microsoft, when the "we" is obviously referring to all technology users. Pretty convenient editing by the author, amazing how he can mangle those words to say whatever point he feels like today. Another smash-up ethical job by ZDnet, no wonder they're about to join Enron and Worldcom in the happy world of bankruptcy. #4 (sodajerk): I'm not sure why you bothered to post. If you don't understand what a simple services concept like presence is -- i.e., you think it has anything to do with market penetration -- then of course you're going to be baffled by the subject matter. Admittedly, the author doesn't help, seeing as he purged Bill Gates's own explanation in order to make the quote sound more confusing. |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 3:58:23 PM |
|
stu, I perfectly well understand presence, and I think you'd have to be a fool to try to say this reporter is misconstruing this--whether or not he is isolating one small statement. The fact of the matter is: Gates and Ballmer have said they screwed up; that developers don't get it. Every article either gets .Net wrong or focuses on one aspect of it or conjures some vague image. So-called in-the-know developers will constantly squabble in chats about "this is .Net, "No, this is .Net." No one is using ".Net My Services" as far as I am aware, etc... , etc... , etc....
So the fact remains--Gates isn't doing a good job of articulating his vision. He himself has admitted to this so you can stop defending him. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, August 05, 2002 at 15:59. |
| #6 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 8/5/2002 4:07:38 PM |
|
For weeks, I've listened to great activewin posters... almost unanimously agree that "microsoft should not have renamed their server line and office so early". However, I'm going to disagree.
IMHO, the renaming WAS confusing. HOWEVER, it allowed them to QUICKLY get mindshare. And that mindshare helped build the momentum that the .NET platform has today. That momentum is SO valuable, that I believe it worth the initial customer confusion. Thoughts? |
| #7 By 8883 (64.253.108.241) at 8/5/2002 4:49:14 PM |
|
sodajerk, I'm sure that you now know what presence means, but please don't do the revisionist thing and pretend that you did when you made your original post. I'll refresh your memory of your quote so that you aren't tempted to edit out the error: "...presence doesn't amount to crap, getting several million Passport account IDs got us nowhere in developing web services."
Anyway, it must take an awfully stubborn type to think that the ZDnet reporter _isn't_ misconstruing this. The gist of his opening remarks is that Gates's comments about .NET are baffling people. So he gives a quote from Gates's speech to prove to us all just how baffling it is -- except that he chops the quote, IN MID SENTENCE, to cut out the part where Gates is actually explaining these terms that he's using. Now why do you think he decided to not quote the entire sentence in full? Think it's because of ZDnet's money troubles, and they're paying him by the word, so they told him to keep it short? Or do you think it's because had he used the entire quote, it would've ruined the point that he was trying to shove down the readers' throats? Somehow I doubt it was a money thing, but if someone actually has a plausible explanation for him chopping the quote the way he did, I'd love to hear it. |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 4:58:51 PM |
|
stu, I would in fact state that I knew what I was referring to and that that knowledge is accurate when I was referring to presence.
And, yes, I will retain the position that this isn't some slanderous propaganda--it's a simple, short article that only has room to demonstrate one example. Of course, he picked the most arcane sentence to say that what Gates' does say is either arcane or vague. What does "it doesn't say am I meeting with something, am I focused on writing something" really add to the statement? I think even with your sentences the point remains: MS had the wrong focus, and it still has no answers for the hard question--all they can do is try to point developers in the right direction because they don't know where to go either. You are looking at an example, one sentence--can you perform a little reading comprehension and try to summarize the point of this article? Can you disagree with that point, moreover can you disagree with the FACT that Microsoft (including Gates, Ballmer, and Allchin themselves) have admitted the same point? |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 6:06:51 PM |
|
Jagged, I didn't know I was talking with you, but
1. presence, 2. doing web development since 97 and following the industry, 3. because it is, 4. presence is presence (as you say) but I'll go further to say that it is state preservation, authentication of identity to trusted sources, automatic or dynamic disovery and transfer (important when switching devices and receiving messages) and presence 5. because it was in the article 6. it was in the article Wow, mindblowing, huh? Don't know why you don't understand it. "I just isolated one sentence from your post and I have no idea what you're talking about. Now when we take the entire post, I can formulate your argument." Isn't that my point to stu--that one sentence doesn't matter, it's the whole context that's important? Thanks for demonstrating my point. "The point here is not whether or not Microsoft has messed up the naming scheme for .NET. I don't know why you want us to admit that." When did I want that? And haven't my recent posts been directed at stu? Personally, I think there are bigger gaffs to look at besides naming issues, but I haven't even mentioned them yet. Didn't I say it's pointless to make that point anyway because Gates, Ballmer, Microsoft as a whole, and many people here have admitted that exact point? Weird... "Well, he just said presence is just that: presence." Love that one, Jagged. If presence is just presence--why did you need another sentence to explain to you that presence meant presence? Why does presence mean something else when on its own, but when paired up with other words it returns to its "true" meaning? "I could further extrapolate that .NET is possibly offering an XML-based solution to the problem of not having context. What the hell is so arcane about that statement?" Actually, my point all along has been that it doesn't matter how arcane it is... I understood the quote in the first place. What I felt was worth criticizing is the fact that MS has no sense of what the context is or the biz model for delivering it. What he needs to be doing is providing a vision, an answer.... And apparently you don't get context because this is referring to how the context (interface, presentation) will differ based on your presence, device, needs whereas the data is always the same via XML--so where is the context? What is Gates's vision for this shifting contexts? I haven't seen it (delivered, that is)--I've just seen lots of demos of experimental software. Supposedly, it's coming via MSN and Smartphones, but it's not very compelling to me, nor is it very new or different from the metaphors used over the last 10 years. You "could further extrapolate that .NET is possibly offering an XML-based solution to the problem of not having context" because you want to believe that Gates has all the answers, but there is nothing in his speech about what the answer is for the context or for what is really going to make services take off. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, August 05, 2002 at 18:16. |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 7:40:14 PM |
|
Boy, Jagged, can't wait for you to go to college and learn a few things.
"sodajerk, I wasn't aware that I'm not allowed to participate in a public discussion forum, but..." I wasn't saying you couldn't but you responded to something particularly addressed to stu and completely out of context. "You missed the point. "Because it was in the article." Exactly. This author didn't show us the rest of the quote, whereas you just told me the context of your statement. That's why it's misleading." No, you are exactly wrong. The article is written by this reporter. It is the context of his story which provides the point. What Gates did or did not say has no affect on the author's intention of his article. The article isn't about transfering Gates' meaning (which he can't communicate), it's about the miscommunication. If you want Gates' context, go to his website... If you want commentary, read news reports. "When did you want that? Could it possibly be when you said "So the fact remains--Gates isn't doing a good job of articulating his vision. He himself has admitted to this so you can stop defending him"?" Don't see where that says "Just admit, the naming was a gaff. Come'on, come'on admit it" I do see that it says that I don't care if you do or do not agree because Gates does. "If you think there are bigger gaffes to look at than naming issues, why do you keep complaining about it? In your own words, "The fact of the matter is: Gates and Ballmer have said they screwed up; that developers don't get it. Every article either gets .Net wrong or focuses on one aspect of it or conjures some vague image. So-called in-the-know developers will constantly squabble in chats about "this is .Net, "No, this is .Net." No one is using ".Net My Services" as far as I am aware, etc... , etc... , etc...." If it isn't such a big deal, why do you keep bringing it up?" There's a list of things in there, buddy, and its not limited to bad names (failure to deliver My Services for example) and it includes an etc... which means: there is a whole list of things contributing to the confusion. "Since you obviously hadn't read Gates's statement that stubear provided for us until now, I would think that you probably wouldn't have anyone to blame but yourself for not knowing his vision. " "And in any case, even if he didn't have a vision, that is not the point. We're making the argument that this author is a dumbass, and I'd say that's a done deal." I've actually have read all of the .Net vision speeches by Gates. They are twaddle. My point is that this article is basically about how Microsoft has had two years to communicate .Net and people are still confused. If you think it means something else, tell me. Based on that meaning, how can it be erroneous when Gates agrees. And I love it when you guys tell me what I've done and what I think. |
| #11 By 1845 (12.254.129.73) at 8/5/2002 7:54:14 PM |
|
I have no idea what you are babbling on about sodajerk, so I'd suggest for the rest of us to ignore him and move on to a discussion of the article not a discussion on jerk's lack of understanding.
I'd summarize the article thus - Microsoft, two years after announcing their .NET vision, has yet to clearly define for the rest of us what .NET is. To answer mooresa56 (#10) and Steve Balmer's question also, I'll give my defenition of .NET. .NET is the moniker which Microsoft has placed on products that enable users to access their data anywhere, anytime, and on any device. In order of appearance in the market place the .NET product line begins with.... The .NET Enterprise servers - Windows 2000 Server, SQL Server 2000, Exchange Server 2000, BizTalk Server 2000, Host Integration Server, Commerce Server, Content Mangement Server, Mobile Information Server, etc. These products, beginning with Windows 2000 Server have been in the market place since February of 2000. They are the foundation for providing a user's data anywhere, antime, and on any device. Windows XP was released on 25 October 2001. This is the first client Windows Operating System to be designed for .NET applications. It ships with Windows Messenger allowing video chat, voice chat, text chat, and remote assistance. It also enables users to collaborate by sharing applications with each other. Messenger also has tabs for displaying various user desired data - stock info, weather, music, virus alerts, .NET alerts, etc. All on the road of fulfulling the vision "anywhere, antime, and on any device". Passport.NET and .NET Alerts. Many sites have used Passport for a while now. .NET alerts which send alerts (like stock announcements, auction annoucements, calendar announcements, etc.) to you wherever you are - via email, via Windows (MSN) Messenger, or to your mobile device. Once again "anywhere, antime, and on any device".. .NET Framework / Visual Studio .NET These were released in January and February of 2002 respectively. These tools allow developers to write ".NET applications" to enable users to access their data anywhere, any time, and on any device. The added benefit to developers is that they can write for multiple device contexts using the same programming model. The root of everything that .NET is to become begins with applications written to use the .NET Framework. ECMA standardization of C# and the CLI. I don't remember the date of this offhand, and I don't feel like checking ECMA's site for it. The CLI (Common Language Infrastructure) is comprised of a runtime (CLR - common language runtime) and a set of libraries (BCL - base class libraries). Microsoft's implementation of the CLI is referred to as the Microsoft .NET Framework. Other organizations including GNU, Corel, and Ximian are implementing the CLI on non Windows platforms including FreeBSD and flavors of Linux. This more than anything focuses on the "and on any device" part of the vision. With non Windows ports of the CLI this includes non Windows devices. In the works is .NET My Services (previously codenamed "Hailstorm" which will have financial, more in depth scheduling, and several other features. This deals with a specific set of data channeled via Microsoft's own web services. This is not the only data that users will be able to receive "anywhere, antime, and on any device" and Microsoft is certainly not the only vendor to provide consumer data via .NET services or applications. To sum up .NET, I'll restate Microsoft's vision - to empower people through great software. .NET is a platform, set of tools, and services which allow developers (those at Microsoft and all the rest of us) to offer consumers great software. .NET from a press perspective is a world view where users can access their data "anywhere, antime, and on any device". .NET as a platform is the means by which the .NET world view can exist. |
| #12 By 1845 (12.254.129.73) at 8/5/2002 7:56:02 PM |
| Sorry mooresa56, I mean to say that I agree with the branding of the server product line as .NET Enterprise servers. I agree, because they are part of the platform which allows user to access their data "anywhere, antime, and on any device". |
| #13 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 8/7/2002 1:56:25 AM |
| sodajerk takes it up the arse yet again. Perhaps you would best be described as SoreJerk... as that rump is bruised from a Jagged arse kicking. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 163 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:54:01 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
