My battle with dotNet

[xyle_one]

i have been discussing microsoft and dotNet with my girlfreinds father. i sent him a good article about how .net is proprieterising (???) the internet, and he sent me a response....
 

quote:
"ecsyle", Thanks Good article you sent me.  However on the other side of the coin here's what users of .Net have to say.


Job site captures cost savings and stronger efficiencies with .NET

Dec 16, 2002
David Southgate

Like many organizations, ComputerJobs.com reduced its tech staff this year. But that hasn't stopped the popular online job site from moving forward with new technology initiatives, including a graduated plan to rebuild its Web site using Microsoft's .NET platform.

In a few short months, and with minimal cash outlay, the company has already seen a payoff from its move to .NET. Server efficiency is up 400 percent, and the switch to .NET has increased developer productivity tenfold.

That level of ROI is exactly why the development platform is getting more attention these days. Not only does .NET help with server utilization and productivity, it's also more scaleable, more extensible, and easier to maintain than ASP, according to .NET expert Jesse Liberty, author of Programming ASP.NET and Programming C# (O'Reilly & Associates).

Site challenges prompted the move
Prior to starting its .NET initiative, ComputerJobs.com had experienced a gradual decline in back-end systems performance (the back end was built with ASP and Cold Fusion). During high traffic times, for instance, the support staff had to cycle the front-end servers twice a day, explained Rob Epstein, technical product manager. To keep up with the workload, the company was adding three new servers every quarter. Akamai and Inktomi servers were both brought on board to distribute the heavy server load.

Confident that the .NET platform could help ease the issue, ComputerJobs.com acquired the .NET software licenses free of charge through its MSDN Universal Subscription. Company leaders set development priorities based on business opportunities, putting projects that increased revenue or saved money ahead of the rest.

After evaluating the project scope, the reduced size of its development team, and its development priorities, the company decided to rebuild the site piece by piece.

"The ability to convert the site overnight was just not practical," said David Melcher, ComputerJobs.com's VP of product development and technology.

In the spring of 2002, ComputerJobs.com began a pilot .NET conversion on one of the site's e-mail distribution tools-the first priority identified during project review. The old system had been troubling the engineering staff because they were forced to specifically schedule bulk e-mails due to slow server performance. Following the project's launch, server performance improved so much that engineers no longer had to intercede in the e-mail process.

Next, engineers tackled the part of the site directly tied to revenue-the "dashboard" for employers who wanted to add jobs and search through the lists of potential employees. ComputerJobs.com already had plans to enhance the existing site with new features and wanted to renovate the site's look and feel. The employer section became the second priority to undergo a .NET overhaul.

Move to .NET created savings
Shortly after the official .NET project launched in mid summer, the company experienced a dramatic increase in server use-but instead of having to increase the number of servers, the company was able to pull servers from the server farm and freeze its hardware budget. The boxes running .NET applications now have utilization as high as 90 percent compared to 20 or 30 percent before .NET, according to the company, and execution times are faster as well.

Load balancing between the servers has improved, too, which is prompting ComputerJobs.com to reevaluate its need for third-party load-balancing tools, a potential change that could bring additional cost savings.

Cost savings aren't limited to hardware and software expenses. .NET has created new efficiencies on the IT staff. Engineers who serviced the once shaky server farms now spend more time on other projects, like increasing firewall security. Developers are working more efficiently due to a feature in VisualStudio .NET that allows them to create and pull code documentation on the fly.

"It's a very developer gee-whiz buzz thing," said Epstein. The feature lets developers call a function against an object along with a tip that notes what the function does. "As far as developer productivity goes, VisualStudio .NET is unrivaled."

Project success factors
ComputerJobs.com attributes its .NET conversion to a highly skilled staff and training approach. To get the developers ready for the conversion, Melcher and Epstein educated the development team in-house. Epstein, who is also the lead developer, took two weeks to bone up on .NET's capabilities. The company also sent two members of the five-person development team to .NET training, which cost $1,500 a person. The developers came back and taught the rest of the staff the ins and outs of .NET.

The strategy paid off because ComputerJobs.com's engineers are all highly experienced in object oriented programming, noted Epstein. "Everyone just picked it up and ran with it."

Melcher cautioned that the training approach might not work as well for other companies, especially if they don't have the appropriate skilled staff and rush the training. Melcher advised CIOs to select developers already familiar with C+ and who are adept at object-oriented programming. They must also have enough time to pick up the new skills, he added.

"In the beginning, you spend time learning," said Melcher. "Over time, you learn what works well and what doesn't work quite as well. We're no different than anybody else. We had a learning curve. And now we're really reaping the benefit of that." Throwing everyone into class and then expecting them to build something is asking for a train wreck, he cautioned.

Due to the successful .NET projects, the company plans to move forward with converting the public areas of the site, as well as the members-only section and back-end site administration features, to .NET. While the project schedule isn't set, the company is looking forward to the day when its hodge-podge of Cold Fusion, .NET, and ASP is gone.

Copyright

[pkd_lives]

quote: ..according to the company, and execution times are faster as well  

This says it all. If adding software increases your execution speed, then you are using bad sofware in the first place or your IT staff just aren't up to the job.

It's one company. and therefore not representative.

And so far I have seen nothing but a slow down of service, problems with the closed nature of the code, and an increase in document size from 1.2MB to 50MB.

The only benefits as far as I can see are for the lazy or the unknowledgable.

I have not heard one good argument for .net philosophy, there is no reason for it to exist. The arguments in favor always mark an improvement over existing Windows. This is not comparative.

And the statements of the benefit of .net are coming from a totally biased source a man whose work is asp, c# and a .net 'expert'. Therefore his views cannot be taken at face value because if .net fails he by default becomes an expert in failure, and he will support .net because he relies on M$ to make a living. And nothing he says has actually been borne out by my real world experience.

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Linux Frank ]

[voidmain]

And if you notice they are comparing ASP.NET to ASP. One Microsoft technology over another. This is in no way a comparison to open source. If you'll also notice they put a lot of people out of work. Maybe that's why the jobless rate is climbing at an alarming rate. So from what I can see .NET increases the unemployment rate, and it is better than older Microsoft technologies (wow, that's not hard to do).

[KernelPanic]

Microsoft are gettin paid millions of dollars by the major telecommunications companies to make .net I think. It would me mutually benificial for them, the telecoms market gets a nice little push and MS get to tighten their grip n us while making idiots think that .net gives you freedom. People who pay for .net are dumb and deserve it.

In my house .net is a TLD and only a TLD and it will remain that way.

[xyle_one]

i am trying to find a good comparison of PHP, ASP.NET, and JHP. so far i have found either heavily biased microsoft fanatics, or openSource evangalists whose only response is "its not open". i swing more towards the evangalists on most issues regarding technology, but id like to know wether or not PHP is a better, faster, more efficient technology than ASP.NET. if anyone has anything that could help me out, that would be great.
ecsyle one.

[Doctor V]

Its already been said above, but the answer to this one is so obvious its crazy.  All this article is doing is comparing a newer M$ product to an old M$ product, what kind of comparison is that.  PHP would open up a can of whoopass at ASP.net.  Also notice that the company isn't talking about how much money they are gushing out for M$ universal subscription service.  They could more than double their performance just by using free software.  Most in corporate America are taught to believe that you get what you pay for, and somthing that is free can never be better than somthing that costs alot of money.  But that way of thinking has no solid logical base.

[rtgwbmsr]

If you want my opinion (having used various .Net servers):

Pros:
1) It [feels] "faster" than Windows 2000 server. I'd love to post benchmarks, but I can't (unless you can afford bail money).

2) It is easier to set some things up that were way too fucking complicated in Win2k.

3) No luna/Fisher-Price waste of processor cycles

Cons:
1) Closed source

2) Security issues (we managed to bring it down from the outside in a number of ways)

3) Still way behind in speed compared to an optimized/tweaked Linux server.

4) OS itself uses too much of everything (resources, etc)

5) Price

6) Some things are still way to hard to setup (DNS: A, MX, etc, Zones) Not that these are easy things, but they make it more difficult than it has to be.

[rtgwbmsr]

As for ASP.NET/PHP:

In the words of M$
 

quote: ASP.NET is a set of technologies in the Microsoft .NET Framework for building Web applications and XML Web Services. ASP.NET pages execute on the server and generate markup such as HTML, WML or XML that is sent to a desktop or mobile browser. ASP.NET pages use a compiled, event-driven programming model that improves performance and enables the separation of application logic and user interface. ASP.NET pages and ASP.NET XML Web Services files contain server-side logic (as opposed to client side logic) written in Visual Basic .NET, C# .NET, or any .NET compatible language. Web applications and XML Web Services take advantage of the features of the common language runtime, such as type safety, inheritance, language interoperability, versioning, and integrated security.

In the words of the Muffin Man (me)
 

quote: Security Hazard

Comparing ASP.NET to PHP:
ASP.NET is:
Way more complicated
Harder to learn
Must use proprietary (M$) browsers
Must use M$ software (IIS, VB.NET, J#)
Must buy M$ development software (VB.NET, J#)

How's that for a counter argument?

[xyle_one]

quote: How's that for a counter argument?

good, thank you. all i needed was an argument. Please do not get me wrong, i do not in any way support dotNET or microsoft. I am just trying to sway two very stubborn people. they do not want to change, and they just sorta accept it. not cool.
thanks for the replies though. it will be very helpful.

[jtpenrod]

quote:And if you notice they are comparing ASP.NET to ASP. One Microsoft technology over another. This is in no way a comparison to open source. If you'll also notice they put a lot of people out of work.

This really isn't an issue. After all, had they gone Linux, they still would have put some of their staff out of work. With Linux, you don't need an army of MCSEs to molly-coddle the servers to keep them working. Linux servers just work, and work, and work. They'd require a much smaller support staff with Linux.

The very shittiness of MS soft does, indeed, put lots of people to work. Hell, it's even created entire industries dedicated to nothing more than overcoming the many manifest short-comings of MS. Had MS done their job right the first time, there'd be no Symantec, or MacAfee, or Zone Alarm. We wouldn't need all that AV soft, with the attendant need for repeated subscriptions for virus updates.    Nor would there be any near as much need for elaborate firewalls to keep these systems somewhat safe.

Whatever will such companies do without MS?
_______________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux

Their fundamental design flaws are completely concealed by their superficail design flaws.

[xyle_one]

quote: Whatever will such companies do without MS?

they will use their talent to write software we need, instead of writing software to make crappy software work better.
My girlfreind & her father both use dotNET. she mostly used it in school, but the father really likes it. My mission is to show him the light. I think the word is apathetic. They both just accept it, and dont want to make an effort to change, or dont really care. I tell them that the future is in *nix & openSource, and their reply is always, "Well, everyone uses Microsoft, so we are going to use it. I'll learn it when i need to."
Drives me insane.

[zooloo]

You could ask them why do they accept everything MS tell them without thought or question?

MS marketing have done an excellent job convincing people that MS is the only option.

It will take a while yet to counter MS's hugh propaganda machine.

They might not jump over to OSS right away but you've planted seeds of doubt - that is enough for now.

OSS will win, the logic of marketing dictates it so - and there is nothing MS can do to stop it.

zooloo

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by Xyle: Mac Commando:

they will use their talent to write software we need, instead of writing software to make crappy software work better.
My girlfreind & her father both use dotNET. she mostly used it in school, but the father really likes it. My mission is to show him the light. I think the word is apathetic. They both just accept it, and dont want to make an effort to change, or dont really care. I tell them that the future is in *nix & openSource, and their reply is always, "Well, everyone uses Microsoft, so we are going to use it. I'll learn it when i need to."
Drives me insane.

you have hit the nail right on the thumb.

this sort of apathy is what's been being driven into americans since the sixties and brits since the seventies.

It is the reason our economy is booming even though those at the lower end are constantly told we are in a recession.

it is the reason that things hardly ever change and they never change fast when they do.

Revolution is not only possible, but EASY, and that goes for ANYTHING that needs changed, not just software. All you need to do is do your bit and tell other people about it.

Sure, you might feel frustrated but too many people misunderstand this feeling and they give up!!! NO!!!!!!! that FEEDS the problem! you have to lead by example.

just my 2c worth.......

[dbl221]

I constantly tell my users that Micro$haft...yes I call it that even to the Directors face...is only dominant on the desktop.

At the server end its all mainframes and as/400.
Our win2k servers a crap and the users know it.  The as/400 boxen NEVER go down...ever.

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: dbl221 ]

[Heywood]

quote: They both just accept it, and dont want to make an effort to change, or dont really care. I tell them that the future is in *nix & openSource, and their reply is always, "Well, everyone uses Microsoft, so we are going to use it. I'll learn it when i need to."
Drives me insane.

God.. this sounds so familiar. This attitude is the norm, I think. A lot of *nix advocates are saying the public "doesn't know better" but I think that is untrue. Most of the people I deal with hate Windows, they know its crap, but they deal with it anyway, because everyone else is using it. It drives me nuts.

Its like a friend of mine, just bought a PC with no OS, now he is no genius, but I know he could run Linux. He asks me "what OS should I put on it?" He expressed that he didn't want to pirate WinXP or 98, which he had copies of. I say "Linux". He looked at me like I shot him in the foot. "I am not smart enough for Linux" he tells me. Then he proceeds with "I know Linux is better, and would probably run great on the machine, but I think I'll stick with windows until everyone else is using it, and I have to learn Linux".. I hear this all the time.

it sucks. I wish there were an easy solution. Like free linux classes or something.

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Heywood ]