h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

while this edition seems much better, it still goes on in detail about what .NET isn't.

microsoft had to adopt XML, because customers were getting fed up of lock-in and lock-out with the continuous built-in obsolesence requiring hardware upgrades every couple of years, while at the same time leaving their data unavailable.

as you say, soap isn't anything to do with .NET either.

neither are cascading stylesheets, XSLT, or a number of other open standards which are sometimes quoted as part of .NET.

as regards things like pocketPC os's or smartphones being clients for .NET, I find that highly unlikely unless microsoft make considerable changes in their standard operating practices.

after all, they can't force you to dock your pda into outlook express if it uses open standards for data transfer, can they.

"it still goes on in detail about what .NET isn't."
-I say that's good! It is just as important to know what .NET is not, as it is to know what .NET is, since that tends to be a difficult thing for most people to sort out.

"they can't force you to dock your pda into outlook express if it uses open standards for data transfer, can they."
-That is not the point of Web Services. Pocket PCs and Smart Phones are very appropriate as .NET clients. Two examples:
1. A company could build a private set of web services for their sales staff to log onto from their PDAs. Those salesmen can report figures back to the company, through that web interface, using the PDA, so they will not have to carry bigger, more expensive laptop computers.
2. A theature could sell tickets to their shows, to the public, through Web Services, to anyone who owns a smart phone, as an option.

"That is not the point of Web Services. Pocket PCs and Smart Phones are very appropriate as .NET clients" ... true, but exactly the problems you suggest would probably not be best handled using .NET.

both the applications you suggest are better handled in different ways.

the pda is a docking synchronisation application, which is best handled by exporting the data using open standards like XML rather than propriatory custom reimplimentations of the wheel like is usually done.

this would make it possible for the phone and pda to synchronise their address books without touching a computer.

ticket sales is much more complex application, but would be handled using xhtml web pages, which being tightly defined would not need massive browsers on the phone to handle the badly implimented html that currently is used on the web. (wap wouldn't be used, as it is a bit of a joke).

in neither case would it be best to impliment the application in a fairly microsoft specific way.

.NET is appears to be mainly a way to expand microsoft's reach, but in search of a problem which actually finds it to be a good solution.

you comment that it is important to know what .NET is not, but the way the article is implimented does not emphasise this very well. it goes into detail about the different technologies, but ends their sections with passing comments about how it isn't really part of .NET

these sections needs either removing as irrelevant, or rewriting to make this fact much more obvious. the fact than .NET relies on these technologies is interesting as a side comment, but not in the level of detail you cover (although you could split of those sections into individual pages and they would form the basis of a set of very good reviews, as long as there is not already edited guide entries about the subjects, as if there is you should be linking to them rather than remplimenting them).

The fourth edition is now in place.
Unfortunately, I could not include any compelling, real-life scenarios yet. This is because the big corporations using .NET do not want me blabbing on about them. I know of some smaller companies willing to get mentioned, but I doubt people would care about what they have to say. I am working on it, though.

definately much better.

however there is still the security problem.

you say "Microsoft tries to stress that security and privacy are top priorities. Whether you want to believe them or not, is ultimately up to you." and "Microsoft has the resources and the determination to improve in this area".

while this might be their aim, it is fundamentally crippled by their methodologies. both their rushing things to stop their staff from resting on their lorrels, and their embracing of "security by obscurity" work agains them actually producing a secure system, as does their fundamentally "single user" model of computer use.

Also, they are actively supporting the sort of legislation that would make the mono project illegal, thus enforcing lock-in.

other problems are the way you describe the pocketpc pda platform, which is basically an inflexible way of extending microsoft's reach into the pda market (and this inflexibility has proved disasterous to them in their smartphone product).

also, mobile phones are NOT smartphones. smartphones are microsoft's attempt to force the phone industry to adopt the pocketpc platform for the convergent pda/phone market, but it has proved massively inflexible for the phone part of the device. also, it only synch's with windows, further trying to lock you in to a microsoft platform.

because of this, there is only one "smartphone" product, produced by microsoft. all the other entrants to this market refuse to go anywhere near it.

First of all, I do not think Microsoft is realistically crippled by their *past* methodologies. They have the resources to pull through. Of course, they still might make a few dumb mistakes now and then (like the recent password changing issue wiht Passport), but there is no company that has been so absolutely perfect, either. Again, it is not my job to convince anyone Microsoft is oh-so-solid - there is still a lot of other opinion to be had by people.

Yes, Pocket PCs, though feature rich, are surprisingly inflexible in many ways. I actually agree with you there. I would never get one.

And, Smart Phones are problematic, too. However, they are a "type" of cell phone. And, it is possible for some other company to make a "smart-like" phone that can consume web services without the .NET Framework.

I am not sure about that legistration you mentioned, to make Mono illegal, though. I will have to look into that.

-MSL

the problem with the methodology isn;t that they make stupid mistakes, it is that they have a deliberate policy of arbitrarily cutting release shedule times in order to keep staff on their toes, which leaves them with insufficient time to do testing. combine this with their belief in the security through obscurity methodology, and you are guarenteed to have massive security holes.

the main problem on mono is the announcement that microsoft have "opened the specification" to encourage others to work with them, but have taken out software patents which cover key aspects of the system. if history is anything to go by, they will use these to restrict competition.

The author has elvised - Flea Market time?

Flea Market

I wonder if Felonious Monk would be interested in taking this on?