caught in a .NET???

[HandsOff]

Hey People,

I was searching the net for some info, and as usual got sidetracked instead. I came upon this article written when .NET was Microsoft's newest brainchild. I have to admit that I know absolutely nothing about .NET and if it is good or bad for me. I have always avoided .NET because it had that familiar "being pushed into another Microsoft feature that I don't need" feel. Consequently, I have never used it, and know nothing really about it. Still, was this guy right? Could Microsoft really be that fiendish? Is .NET something that should be avoided like the plague?

...An excerpt from the article...

NOVEMBER 8, 2001
Caught in a .NET
Don't Expect Microsoft to Give Up One Weapon Without Acquiring Another—How .NET Assures the Continuation of Monopoly
By Robert X. Cringely


Here is the deal. .NET is essentially a giant system for tracking user behavior and, as such, will become Microsoft's most valuable tactical tool. It is a system for tracking use of services, and the data from that tracking is available only to Microsoft.

.NET is an integral part of Windows' communication system with all calls going through it. This will allow Microsoft (and only Microsoft) to track the most frequently placed calls. If the calls are going to a third-party software package, Microsoft will know about it. This information is crucial. With it, Microsoft can know which third-party products to ignore and which to destroy. With this information, Microsoft can develop its own add-in packages and integrate them into the .NET framework, thus eliminating the third-party provider. A year later, as explained above, the problem is solved.

Alternately, Microsoft could use the information (this .NET-generated market research that Microsoft gets for free and nobody else gets at all) to change Windows to do service discovery giving an automatic priority to Microsoft's middleware. The advantage here is in giving the appearance of openness without actually being open.

These possible behaviors are not in any way proscribed by the proposed settlement with the DOJ, yet they virtually guarantee a continuation of Microsoft's monopoly on applications and services as long as Microsoft has an operating system monopoly. When Microsoft talks about "innovation," this is what they mean. Nothing is going to change.

-HandsOff

[MikeBCda]

-{ Quote: " quoting: HandsOff link=board=27;threadid=22228;start=0#msg132816 date=1077125305]

I was searching the net for some info, and as usual got sidetracked instead. I came upon this article written when .NET was Microsoft's newest brainchild. I have to admit that I know absolutely nothing about .NET and if it is good or bad for me. I have always avoided .NET because it had that familiar "being pushed into another Microsoft feature that I don't need" feel. Consequently, I have never used it, and know nothing really about it. Still, was this guy right? Could Microsoft really be that fiendish? Is .NET something that should be avoided like the plague?
" }-

This is one I'd like to see some feedback on too. I've continued to ignore the .NET upgrade sitting at Win Update ("recommended update") because (a) the "Read more" implies it's geared more to developers than users (sorta like the full Java packages). And (b), I don't relish the idea of doing a 20-odd-meg download on my 56 dialup if it's not critical.

(Edit) As a P.S., we can probably assume this'll get moved over to Software before long

[LowWaterMark]

I'd also be interested in people's opinions of .NET and what they think of it over all. I've also avoided all updates related to it and so don't have it on XP here. I've never looked deeper into this (just not enough hours in the day sometimes), but I suspect some people here have.

[HandsOff]

To me it became more of an issue when i saw the suggestion that it could be used as a tool to illiminate competition.

As i see it, microsoft shows a glaring disrespect for its users in the way it totally violates their attempts at privacy and self determination. It is the sort of behavior that one can engage in so long as they know that their customers have little or no alternative. Therefore, any practice that can be used to eliminate competition can be expected to worsen MS's already questionable practices.

-HandsOff

[Whynot]

Hmmm, interesting thread. Like so many people I decided I didn't need .NET so didn't bother to DL. Recently I wanted to update my Powerquest Disk Image 5 to DI 7. However, whilst attempting to install it I'm informed I need .NET to get this puppy ro run. Quote:

"The Drive Image CD will immediately scan the hard disk and prompt you to install the .NET Framework if it does not exist on the machine. Following the installation of the .NET Framework, you can continue with the installation of Drive Image."

Now, if MS intend to use this information (I don't dispute MS gathers information about it's OS and end-users) to buy out/negate the opposition, is it likely that third party vendors would assist in their own demise. I've since discovered that Symantec has aquired Powerquest - not a particularly dumb company (Symantec) regarding marketing, and how many people out their continue to use their defraggers, scandisk etc. . I'm not defending MS, far from it - I'd love to use a bare bones stable OS without all the bells and whistles I have to disable every time I do an install, but this is my own point of view.
Cheers

[Valkyri001]

:PThis may not even be what is going on here.
It is my understanding that this is the ploy to stop pirating of M$ software. The .net framework I believe allows M$, or any other developer, a two way comm link between installed software. When I was a brand new, didn't even know DOS user, I remember wanting to have someone, anyone, to be able to log into my computer and fix stuff.
;)We've come a long way since then. ;)
Is this really what the .net framework is doing? Allowing a program an avenue of tracking itself accross the net, so it can identify itself to the original.

[HandsOff]

Would Powerquest or Symantec ever succumb to pressure from Microsoft to support one of its marketing ploys? That is a question.

Let's see...Does Symantec benefit by strengthing the strangle hold Microsoft has on the industry, or does it suffer? Let's think about it

- Symantec is a major player in anti-virus, Firewall, ect. Does Microsoft compete in this arena? No. Does the proprietary nature of Microsoft's O/S lead to countless exploits that leave their end users scrambling for better protection. Sounds right to me.

- Symantec aquired Powerquest, a big name in partitioning software and backup software. Again does Microsoft compete in these areas? Not at all. The extremely limited built-in abilities in these areas virtually demands users to go to Symantec et all, to buy them. At least, that's how it looks to me.

- Symantec, being a provider of security and privacy would surely put us before the idea of making money. Well, i don't see an answer that is independent of perspective. Frankly, i was shocked when I read that Symantec actually charges a flat fee (approximately equal to the initial cost of their product) to help a customer remove a virus from his computer. Lots of issues here. Confict of interest? Would they not profit the just the right amout of flaws in their product? And yet they offer free removal tools even to non-customers. Their firewall contains ad blockers...and yet their support pages and help files are saturated with advertising hype foisted on their captured audience.

Should we move on to ask about Microsofts track record on privacy and fair business practices? I think not.

On a happier note, did you fellow Californians know that you buy and sell vouchers that Microsoft is issuing in their recent settlement of a class action lawsuit about...was it forcing manufacturers to include Microsoft products on new computers? Start planning now, you could make a killing!

-HandsOff