Why does so many members here frown upon .NET?

[Cutting_Edgetech]

Why do so many members here dislike .NET? Especially when it comes to the language being used for security applications. I see a lot of statements on the forum here like.. I don't want to have to install it on my machine. Does installing .NET really bring with it so many exploits that it outweighs the benefits? I would think Java has been exploited far more than .NET. Do you think .NET is as risky as installing JAVA? I have them both installed on my machine since I have applications that use both Java, and .NET that I use on a regular basis. I can see some reasons for not using .NET with portable security applications. It's my understanding that the user would have to have .NET installed on their machine to be able to use the portable application. Just like many popular applications require the user to have Java installed on their machine in order to use the application. So, what are your reasons for disliking .NET?

[MikeBCda]

Very simple ... it's big, substantially adds to the number of monthly MS updates, and (so far, at least) I've never yet run into anything or any place that needed it.

[act8192]

I think TurboTax uses it for their GUI.
My camera software uses it IIRC.
Loooong ago Antihook used .Net v1 if you wanted to edit rules.

The updates are enormous, and anything out of sequence tends to break further updates.

[mirimir]

Originally Posted by act8192

The updates are enormous, and anything out of sequence tends to break further updates.

SQL Server requires .NET (and is very picky about which version). Generally, it's my experience that newer versions aren't backward compatible, so it may be necessary to retain multiple versions.

[vasa1]

Originally Posted by mirimir

SQL Server requires .NET (and is very picky about which version). Generally, it's my experience that newer versions aren't backward compatible, so it may be necessary to retain multiple versions.

That may explain why some people have these enormous (browser) user agent strings with a long tail of net clr or something like that.

[ivan2k2]

I'm confused. Watching youtube videos, watching sites with flash and photo and pictures, updating av(and sometimes multiple av) databases, program updates, etc... and all this stuff in sum consumes much more traffic, then a few .NET updates a month. And some good security products(eg. TinyWall, EMET...) also uses .NET. So... Why hate .NET?

[Kerodo]

Windows 7 comes with it, so it's pretty much a given and fact of life with 7 and above... I guess with XP you have a choice whether you want it or not. Some people think it's just useless bloat. Others need it. Just depends....

[Dark Shadow]

IMO it's no big deal,If I need it its there and it dont slow my system down or bring in unwanted nasties but to each there own.

[SweX]

Big deal or not.

I don't like it because of...yea several reasons.

But I need it because ATI Catalyst Control Center demands it.
I have a old Graph card and a very old version of ACCC because the newer versions doesn't work good at all. So I can't say if the "modern" ACCC still demands .Net or not.

[Melf]

I'm not aware of any security problems with it per se. It does make things needlessly large as others have pointed out.

I personally had an issue where installing the latest version of .NET completely hosed my computer (it would shut down randomly every couple of minutes). Uninstalling .NET and Win 7 system restore would not fix it, I actually had to reimage to recover. So I think their uninstall feature is atrocious.

Anyway, you need .NET for many major games released these days, and I eventually got a new motherboard which made the problem go away.

[Mrkvonic]

Originally Posted by MikeBCda

Very simple ... it's big, substantially adds to the number of monthly MS updates, and (so far, at least) I've never yet run into anything or any place that needed it.

Yup. Another framework for the sake of framework.
Mrk

[xxJackxx]

Originally Posted by Kerodo

Windows 7 comes with it...

Actually Vista comes with it. So, if you are running anything newer than XP you will already have it.

It's one of the things that contributes to Windows 7's inability to back up a compressed system to a single DVD, when any reasonable amount of software is installed. 'Nough said.

[xxJackxx]

Originally Posted by Gullible Jones

It's one of the things that contributes to Windows 7's inability to back up a compressed system to a single DVD, when any reasonable amount of software is installed. 'Nough said.

I haven't had a system that would fit on a single DVD since Windows 98.

Minus the user data I mean. I maintain separate OS and user data backups.

[vasa1]

Originally Posted by mirimir

SQL Server requires .NET (and is very picky about which version). Generally, it's my experience that newer versions aren't backward compatible, so it may be necessary to retain multiple versions.

Here's an image from a site that shows the user agent string. This person's string is so long that it seems truncated ...

Interesting post about user agent strings: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ieinternals/...ernatives.aspx