.net ?

[Skuzzy]

Oh no problem Llama.  .NET, like so many things in the OS, will behave differently from one system to the next, depending on the system configurations.
One question though.  Did you check the commit/charge before and after the installation?  Explorer loads the .NET DLL's.

You have an ATI card.  Ever install Catalyst Control Center?  If you did, then you know how devasting an application can be to the overall system performance when using .NET.

.NET allows for a distributed architecture, which simply means applications/utilites/operating system no longer has to be physically located on your local hard drive.
So the application can go out and grab DLL's, exe, scripts, and run them on your computer without you knowing about it.  In a properly secured environment, this would be ok, but I cannot consider the Internet such an environment.


Llama, you and I cannot be considered the typical computer user.  I notice you have a tendency to post from your perspective, which is definately not the average user perspective.  That is not a ding on you, by the way.
I am speculating, but I bet your computer is no where near using the stock installation setup MS provides.  I keep one system, at the house, in stock condition just so I can see what the typcial user sees.  I have to admit, I do forget how ugly the default setup MS provides is.

Llama, how many other people do you know who could run thier computer without any pop-up blockers, spyware tools, anti-virus software, firewalls, and never, ever have a computer problem?

By the way, nothing wrong with a good challenge.  Makes us think outside the box more.

[jonnyb]

Skuzzy, you and Llama are making the same point, but with different results.  As a software engineer, I see my share of evils, and their result on the average user.  Heck, I'm sure I've coded one or two in my career .

The point is .net is not in itself evil.  The architecture makes life for developers a bit easier by allowing us to have access to resources that would not otherwise be available, or would be exceptionally difficult to access.  Distributed computing is everywhere, and MS chose to provide relatively easy access to the resources that have gone from single-machine to n-tier.  Now, what a developer chooses to do with that power, and how the developer writes his application is where things can get ugly.  It is easy to blame the framework because it is the most visible piece, when in reality the application developer is at fault.

[Skuzzy]

I agree 100% jonnyb.  The problem is, there are more bad/lazy programmers than good ones.

However, I will maintain .NET is a train wreck looking for a place to happen.  Distributed computing in the hands of a company who still has not figured out how to secure a simple port in the TCP stack without it being exploited first, is a very bad idea.

Depending on .NET to deliver the pieces of code I need to run an application on my system is flat out scary.  Who in thier right mind would trust the Internet like that?

[jonnyb]

The unfortunate truth is that a large percentage of companies simply do not know the truth.  They really *DO* trust the internet like that.  Or rather, they really do trust the software to take care of their problems for them.  As far as most companies are concerned software is just a magic black box that makes things happen.  These companies don't invest the time/resources to really dig down and do the proper risk assessments.  This kind of research just isn't their core business model.  These companies are not the minority.

This is where Joe Consultant makes his bread.  It is precisely why companies like Accenture, DT, etc thrive.  The firms know that the typical company doesn't have the resources or capacity to properly make their own decisions in terms of software needs.  I'm not denying a need for this type of business (after all, it's what I do ).  The problem is the prevalence of the "lazy/bad" developers that become involved in the decision making process.  After all, most anybody can set up his own firm and become a consultant.  All that person needs is good marketing, a strong sales team, and the development is a distant third.  If I can advertise enough and convince you that .NET is the way to go, you'll go that way because it is my job to tell you these things.  Regardless of what may or may not be the proper solution for your company, you hired me, and therefore, will follow my guidelines.

Now that I've got you using .NET, I can farm the development work out to some offshore facility where extremely junior developers put it together.  The end result?  You have a "black box" solution for your needs that you *HAVE* to presume works as designed and was a worthwhile investment.  Reality of it?  Well, that's what this thread is about, right?

[Skuzzy]

My world and reality often conflict.

I did a consulting job once.  Once.  The company brought me in as in independent overseer.  They had spent about $850,000.00 on this network/server/database/firewall system and asked me what I thought.
I asked if I could test it out (they were proud, almost arrogant about how secure they beleived it all was) and sat down at a terminal (I had no access at that time) and in less than 10 minutes, crashed the entire network.  They fired me.

Reality.  As long as you tell them what they want to hear, they will be happy campers.  They do not want to know how serious the problems they have really are.
.NET is in that class.  Easy to sell, as it is bleeding edge technology.  Nevermind if it is proven technology, it's the newest buzz word around.  Everybody's doing it!
Heck, if it is good enough for NASA, then it must be good enough for the rest of us.


I do not think I will ever be able to reconcile myself with reality.

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
My world and reality often conflict.


I do not think I will ever be able to reconcile myself with reality.

Now there's SIG material if I ever saw it!  Heh, welcome to my world Skuzzy.  

[jonnyb]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
My world and reality often conflict.

I did a consulting job once.  Once.  The company brought me in as in independent overseer.  They had spent about $850,000.00 on this network/server/database/firewall system and asked me what I thought.
I asked if I could test it out (they were proud, almost arrogant about how secure they beleived it all was) and sat down at a terminal (I had no access at that time) and in less than 10 minutes, crashed the entire network.  They fired me.

Reality.  As long as you tell them what they want to hear, they will be happy campers.  They do not want to know how serious the problems they have really are.
.NET is in that class.  Easy to sell, as it is bleeding edge technology.  Nevermind if it is proven technology, it's the newest buzz word around.  Everybody's doing it!
Heck, if it is good enough for NASA, then it must be good enough for the rest of us.


I do not think I will ever be able to reconcile myself with reality.

Precisely the kind of thing I was illustrating in my post.  Companies don't have the knowledge or know-how to deal with the kind of boundary-less environment created by the internet.  They get sold on the hype, and MS is exceptionally good at selling hype.

By the way, I'm with StarofAfrica...your opening and closing statements are definitely sig material

[blue308]

well, i read thru this topic with great interest, for i consider myself a pretty average computer user, and despite all the negative comments on .net i just had to try out the world wind software

anyway, i just wanted to report that in my particular case installing world wind and playing with it for a couple of days haven't caused any major differences in performance. AH2 still runs fine   so far