| 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 |
 |
C# Gets Standards Body Blessing, But That Won't Change .Net-Centric Usage | |
|
||
| Time: 11:20 EST/16:20 GMT | News Source: Internet Week | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
The International Organization for Standardization has certified Microsoft's C# programming language, the software maker's alternative to Java and a key component in building the next-generation of Internet applications. Microsoft executives have said ISO standardization will make it easier to sell .Net products to large companies and governments that prefer using technology from international standards bodies. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 322 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:16:18 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 4/4/2003 11:24:22 AM |
|
What about the CLI? Why don't they ever mention that? The CLI spec is much larger than the C# spec.
Let's check in our correspondent, Dave Jenkins, at the ECMA about the progress of the Java standardization process, Dave? Dave: Well, daz, there's no news to report. 3 times Sun has attempt to standardize the Java language and framework, and like a teenager on a friday night, pulled out at the last minute. Back to you daz. Well, there you have it folks. Java is still proprietary. |
| #2 By 415 (199.8.71.121) at 4/4/2003 11:49:30 AM |
| lol daz |
| #3 By 9640 (195.92.168.169) at 4/4/2003 1:08:22 PM |
|
The whole idea behind international standards is to give vendor-neutral choice. Who else apart from MS and Mono provide a .NET framework that CLI/C# depends on?
http://lee.ic24.net/software/ |
| #4 By 2459 (24.170.151.19) at 4/4/2003 1:38:36 PM |
|
MSR's shared source CLI implementation and dotGNU are others. I believe there may be one other OSS project.
These implementations alone have the current or potential ability to provide cross-platform programming using C# and the CLI. The point is, there has to first be a standard before others can pick it up and create their own implementations that are assured of being interoperable. Now that the standards are there, anyone can provide their own implementation and be sure of compatability with others that adhere to the specs.. |
| #5 By 7390 (198.246.16.251) at 4/4/2003 2:30:19 PM |
|
I prefer the Java way, it is cleaner
No standard and you have to check with Sun for eveything. |
| #6 By 2459 (24.170.151.19) at 4/4/2003 3:24:58 PM |
| :-) |
| #7 By 1643 (207.46.228.98) at 4/4/2003 4:54:27 PM |
|
#8
Can you list one instance of lack of full interoperability in MS Kerberos? MS used an unused field in the Kerberos header reserved for future use; it uses that field to store SID information, and is completely interoperable with all known Kerberos implementations. Typical FUD. |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/4/2003 5:06:25 PM |
| cba-3.14 - I can authenticate from a Sun box to a Win2k domain just fine with kerberos. Why do you say it's broken? |
| #9 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 4/4/2003 6:22:19 PM |
|
Actually, you can authenticate both ways, it's Group Policy that doesn't work.
But if you're authenticating Win2K clients against non-MS Kerberos servers, why would you expect Group Policy to work? People who say that MS' kerberos implementation is non-standard are lying or sorely misinformed. The fact is, the Kerberos krb5 spec allows for a small part of the ticket for "vendor specific implementations" to allow vendors to do extra things, like MS Group Policy, for example, but not preclude non-Vendor clients from authenticating or interoperating. So MS used that extra field to store extra group memberships, group policy, and a few other things. But none of these things allow or prevent authentication to or from MS servers or clients. The kerberos folks at MIT were miffed that MS had the audacity to actually use the spec as it was meant to be used, but there's nothing they can do about it because it's 100% compliant and MS' servers and clients pass MIT's own test programs to verify compliance. |
| #10 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 4/4/2003 6:30:15 PM |
|
As for the folks that point to multiple java-based vendors to Microsoft's one, let me explain the obvious...
Java has been around for many years now. Sun manage to create sufficient developer interest to cause companies to purchase exhorbitantly-priced J2EE licenses from Sun to produce products based on J2EE. They PAY Sun lots and lots of money. .NET has been out officially for a year, maybe a little more and it's already standardized. As time goes on and it becomes more clear that .NET will become the leader, you will see more companies jumping online. Already Borland is on board, Corel has done a few skunkwork projects with Microsoft, there's the Mono project (which will probably be the base for many commercial implementations on Linux). So far, I'd say .NET is doing much better than Java did in the same period of time. |
| #11 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 4/4/2003 10:53:47 PM |
|
cba -
RFC 1510 specifies that the KRB ticket may include an optional AuthorizationData field. http://web.mit.edu/pismere/kerberos/Pismere-kerberos-notes.htm Here's a nice quote: "The authorization-data field is used to pass authorization data from the principal on whose behalf a ticket was issued to the application service. If no authorization data is included, this field will be left out. The data in this field are specific to the end service. It is expected that the field will contain the names of service specific objects, and the rights to those objects." The problem is that Unix Kerberos implementations do not understand Microsoft's implementation of this authorization. But that's ok, because this is outside the Kerberos spec. Bringing up this issue without understanding is like taking a quote out of context... "I'm under no obligation to think" On that point, I think we can all agree. :-) |
| #12 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 4/4/2003 10:54:27 PM |
|
Oh, this is interesting to watch as well.
http://web.mit.edu/pismere/MSR-Summer-2000/DAY1_Finished/KerberosWorkshop_Interoperability/default.htm |
| #13 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 4/5/2003 1:34:21 AM |
|
#15: As I guessed, you have no idea what you're talking about.
The Krb5 spec allows for a fixed number of bytes in the ticket for, basically, "whatever you want". Vendors are required to either use it or ignore it. So MS, and Novell, and Unix, et all can all share tickets and all of them can add whatever they want to the "vendor-specific" part of the ticket, yet it won't prevent authentication among them. My example of Group Policy shows how MS uses this field. Unix has no concept of Group Policy (since GP was invented >1974), but it just ignores it and authentication proceeds. but if you're going from MS<->MS, they understand the Group Policy and add some value to the authentication, but it's not critical to authentication. Got it? It's not that hard. This post was edited by daz on Saturday, April 05, 2003 at 01:35. |
| #14 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 4/5/2003 1:41:55 AM |
|
Some more info:
RFC2078 defines the GSS-API: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2078.txt Microsoft article on "Step-by-Step Guide to Kerberos 5 (krb6 1.0) ineroperability: http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/planning/security/kerbsteps.asp Whitepaper on Win2K Kerberos Interoperability: http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/howitworks/security/kerbint.asp Paul Hill from MIT explains the situation for NTBUGTRAQ subscribers: http://www.ntbugtraq.com/default.asp?pid=36&sid=1&A2=ind0003&L=ntbugtraq&F=&S=&P=2606 |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 322 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:16:18 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
