Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Software Apache

.NET for Apache 541

Posted by chrisd
from the apache-ain't-done-till-.net-won't-run dept.
PerlGuy was so kind as to forward us the news about the joint Apache/Microsoft combined press conference scheduled from Wednesday at the OSCON Quote: "We will announce news related to the Apache web server and Microsoft's development technology, .NET. This should be one of the biggest announcements of the conference..."
The email he recieved: Covalent Technologies will be holding a press conference at the O'Reilly Conference on Wednesday at 3:15 in suite 415 (during the afternoon break). We will announce news related to the Apache web server and Microsoft's development technology, .NET. This should be one of the biggest announcements of the conference and an interesting follow up to Microsoft's appearance last year at the show as well as to their general comments on open source. Executives will be on hand to answer questions or to conduct one-on-one interviews after the announcement.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

.NET for Apache

Comments Filter:
  • by SpanishInquisition (127269) on Monday July 22, 2002 @08:33PM (#3934473) Homepage Journal
    At last we'll have Code Red ported to Linux!
    • Re:This is great. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JebusIsLord (566856)
      I know this was a joke, but in all fairness the CodeRed virus targetted IIS not .NET. As far as I know the only virus to target the .NET infrastructure is called "donut".
  • Don't scream (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Uruk (4907) on Monday July 22, 2002 @08:34PM (#3934478)
    Before people get in a huff, we should mention that Apache has a history of integrating well with other technologies, those considered to be "evil" by some people, and others as well. I mean, look at Apache and Java [apache.org]. What about XML [apache.org]? Not to mention perl, PHP, TCL, and others.

    Java is not a warm and fuzzy free technology. I daresay it's every bit as proprietary as .NET, just in a different way. Apache is wise to be as flexible and accomodating as possible - it's a good thing that it supports .NET, since it will most likely do it in a free way and expose more people to free software. On the other hand, it could always *not* support .NET, lose more market share to IIS, and generally piss people off who are using .NET technologies by wider corporate edict.

    • I think this is one of the major reasons that Apache still maintains such popularity. Not only does it work well (as in fast/stable/cross platform) but it works well with whatever technology you want to use.
    • Re:Don't scream (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Malcontent (40834) on Monday July 22, 2002 @11:48PM (#3935251)
      There is a big difference.

      No sun Exec ever called apache developers communist or un american. Sun is not actively trying to destroy open source. Sun is not lobbying congress to make open source illegal. Sun does not have calauses in their EULAS prohibiting people from developing open source products etc.

      On a scale of 1 to 10 ms rates 9.9 on the old evil scale (10 being reserved for the devil) and sun ranks maybe 3 or 4.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    the joint Apache/Microsoft combined press conference
    And in related news, Linus is putting out Linux under the BSD licence, Richard Stallman has shaved off his beard, Mozilla 1.0 is out and IBM are nice guys again.
  • Hmm...... (Score:2, Funny)

    by doc_traig (453913)
    Smells like a trap. I'm sending in a robot to blow it up.

    - DDT
  • Cool... or Uncool? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tcc (140386) on Monday July 22, 2002 @08:37PM (#3934493) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft actually validating apache as a competitor big enough to not crush them (right away) by closing their .NET framework only to IIS?

    Question is, is it good to see Apache embrassing a Microsoft framework so that it remains in the race of the .NET deployment... ...or is (history repeating) a "good thing" only in the short run:

    "Hey! Apache runs .NET stuff, let's learn .NET. God! it's so simple and easy, and object-oriented to the bones, I'll stay on that for all of my applications"

    1-2 years later Microsoft closes the .NET2 to IIS-only, and since a lot of developpers moved or learned from scratch on .NET, they will migrate on IIS to continue or update their work.

    Usually, this scenario is typical of MS... so what would be different here? They have everything to gain right now to broaden their .NET framework because they NEED people to USE it and gain acceptance... once they get that, they apply.monopoly(.NET);
    • by ergo98 (9391)
      Microsoft really is doing the exact same tactic that Sun has attempted with Java: Propagate your standard on many platforms to get wide interest and adoption, with the natural goal that people will eventually migrate to the one "preferred", "superior" platform when the barriers to switching are low enough (which with .NET web applications with text configurations would be trivially low: Move some web folders). I don't think there is any surprize that Microsoft is trying this, though you have to wonder why anyone developing for .NET wouldn't be using a Windows platform machine anyways (which is why the non-Windows platform is so marginal of importance).

      On top of that, you don't need something quite so overt as a non-supported .NET version 2 to close the door: All you need is a subtle performance advantage with the preferred platform, and just a general instance of "Quirks" on the non-preferred platform (and I guarantee that mono is not 100% compatible with .NET: It'll be 99.99%, with those tiny quirks every now and then that make you go "Damnit...why am I not using the official platform?"
    • Will MicroSoft actually control .NET web services? I think it far more likely that people would stick with Apache (after all, it actually works and does everything you want for free, with a low TCO) than MicroSoft (I could use these features I couldn't use before, so long as I don't mind not being able to use anything I already have or can afford).

      MicroSoft can't beat Apache in Apache's market: they can't undersell it, it performs as well, it's more popular, and has a better security record. So the fallback position is to make it desireable to run Apache on Windows and develop Apache web services on Windows. MicroSoft is also more interested in the client-side: if they can make IE integrate better with web services than any of the competitors, they'll maintain browser dominance, even if they don't control the servers. People do serve IE-specific pages on Apache, because those are both the most common applications.

      MicroSoft tries to dominate every market they're in. They don't have to be in every market, including the "smart cheap people" market segments.
    • by ramone1234 (588375)
      It really is a classic example of using disruptive technology ( http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/ate/s41p877.htm ) to try to take down an entrenched and massive competitor (apache). MSFT is 'embracing' now; watch for them to 'extend' like this: "IIS is much easier to administrate and it comes free on that OS you had to buy anyway. Plus, it's got better native support for that .net stuff everyone's doing on Apache." In true disruptive fashion, they'll be smart to close the specs more and more as they become less of an underdog. I'm not trying to be cynical, that's just the most efficient way to take mindshare, and ultimately marketshare. Once people see IIS and Apache as interchangeable, you can be sure MSFT will start the extending process to differentiate its product from the competitors.

      Mono, on the other hand, is an interesting project because Gnome is vastly eclipsed by the Windows desktop. They could actually get to the point where they're disrupting MSFT windows by running .Net desktop apps on a cheap *nix box. Now that would be cool...
  • Function (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So anyone figured out what .NET does yet?
    • Re:Function (Score:5, Funny)

      by x136 (513282) on Monday July 22, 2002 @10:24PM (#3934930) Homepage
      I don't think Microsoft knows what .Net is. But judging by the commercials, I'd say it's some kind of magic laserbeam that transmits information to and from handheld devices. You know, like IrDA, but with magic lasers.
    • I don't know... Does anybody know?

      I tried to ask a MS rep at Automation Fair 2000, but all the guy would do was curse and say how .NET would revolutionize everything. I mentioned asked about support for non-ms platforms and the guy just kinda stood there and said nothing more.

      I think .NET is really the hidden button that should be the Self Distruct to the Evil Overlord's Secret lair.
    • Yah! wtf .... I mean .. I love Java/J2ee ..... and Ive hated .NET for the longest time, but I still dont know wha the bloody thing does. And yes ive *tried* to read MS docs and other docs, but they all read as hyped/commercialized/convoluted as a pr0n pop-up and dont tell me jack!.
  • No big surprise (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Xthlc (20317) on Monday July 22, 2002 @08:40PM (#3934501)
    Microsoft needs maximum market penetration for .NET, otherwise the initiative fails. EVERYBODY has to play in this particular sandbox, or MS' dream of a services-based software market (with far better growth potential for a monopoly than a product-based market) is bust. IIS is *one product*, one that, in the grand scheme of things, it would be worth sacrificing if it meant .NET ubiquity. The majority of the web runs on Apache, therefore for Microsoft to not support .NET on Apache is to lose the majority of the web. QED.

    What makes me curious is what platforms they'll support Apache on . . .
    • What makes me curious is what platforms they'll support Apache on . . .

      Another question is what is MS Apache going to look like? It would be a remarkable coup for them if they could crowd out the free software version. Then they'd have their cake and eat it too.

    • ... and MS knows it. Why would any company want to tie its flag initiative to a ship that has a history of being torpedoed by security holes and flaws? Apache has none of this bad history, and many companies are turning to it as a better webserver solution. Well so is MS.
    • - The majority of the web runs on Apache, therefore for Microsoft to not support .NET on Apache is to lose the majority of the web.

      And this is why MS and Apache get together regularly for better compatibility between Apache's Axis [apache.org] and MS' .NET thing. I don't want to give up my server platform of choice (FreeBSD), but would certainly like to still be able to allow SOAP clients from the Java, .NET, Perl, etc. worlds access my services.

      • What services? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Wee (17189) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @01:48AM (#3935588)
        I don't want to give up my server platform of choice (FreeBSD), but would certainly like to still be able to allow SOAP clients from the Java, .NET, Perl, etc. worlds access my services.

        I do not mean to troll you (look at my posting history), but I want to ask: What services do you mean? I don't ask for application specifics, company names, etc, I just hear a lot about web "services" and see very little except planning and idle banter. What would require .NET as long as you have server-side applications which meet the protocols in question? Isn't the point of SOAP that any client can get "services" from a server/app so-equipped? I think I'm missing something.

        Would you mind sharing a bit? TIA...

        -B

        • Re:What services? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by pmz (462998)
          One aspect of the vapor surrounding "web services" is that the tools and standards for them are infantile. Look at how young the XML standard is (1998), and, then, realize that all of the current web services buzzwords are younger than that. No wonder there really aren't any good tools and no one really knows what they are talking about. Most people are still trying to figure out what that HTTP thing is and why Java and JavaScript aren't the same thing.

          How long did it take for the Internet to evolve before the rapid growth of the 90's made it central to so many people's work? Other technologies, slightly older than XML, still haven't reached any visionary's goals. Where are the VRML immersive environments and the Internet videophones, for example?

          If web services really are what people claim, we will know it in a few years when we can't remember an Internet without them. Otherwise, they will just be another great idea that dissappears into obscurity.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    What next?

    Vatican/Microsoft announce MonoTheism.net?
    US Govt/Microsoft anounce MonoPoly.net?
    Soundblaster/Microsoft announce MonTonous.net?

    Did I miss some? ;)

  • by geekd (14774) on Monday July 22, 2002 @08:47PM (#3934538) Homepage
    This should be one of the biggest announcements of the conference

    Who really cares about this? Is anyone really all gung-ho to deploy .NET? Do consumers really want "Web Services"?

    I'd rather run my office apps on my local box, and keep my data private, thank you.

    On a side note Covalent spammed the hell out of OSCON attendees. I'm really dissapointed that O'Reilly gave out my *work* email address to them. I wasn't all that hot on Covalent products before, and now that they spammed me, I'll think twice before looking at them again.

    • by danheskett (178529) <danheskett@NospAM.gmail.com> on Monday July 22, 2002 @09:22PM (#3934687)
      Who really cares about this? Is anyone really all gung-ho to deploy .NET? Do consumers really want "Web Services"?

      I'd rather run my office apps on my local box, and keep my data private, thank you.
      Once again, another person posts who have no idea what web services are all about or what the point is. Really, seriously, look into it a bit. Few, if any vendors are planning on using web services to replace traditional binary applications. Many, many, many vendors are looking at ways to enhance those apps with web-services/soap/xml.

      But yes, in fact, many people are gung ho about developing for .NET/deploying it. Anyone Win32 developer who has spent literally hours working around 10 years of bugs and hacks can appreciate the cleaner interfaces, cross-language portability, and speed of development.

      • But yes, in fact, many people are gung ho about developing for .NET/deploying it. Anyone Win32 developer...


        Ah, yess, Win32 programmers. I'm sure lots of them are hanging around OSCON.

        It's only been one day, and I've spent all my time in perl tutorials, but I've yet to talk to a Win32 developer at OSCON. Lot's of Linux/Unix and even one Mac developer, but not yet a Win32 developer.

        I'm just really skeptical that .NET will catch on outside of Windows shops. I'm really skeptical that the Open Source community (outside of those few Mono folks) will embrace any technology started by Microsoft.

        I'm really skeptical that the majority of Win32-only developers care anything about Open Source beyond the "Stay away! It will infect your code! The GPL is a virus!"

      • Web services aren't just about sharing data over the internet. They are about getting your ancient proprietary ERP system to talk to your companies newly purchased financial system BEHIND THE FIREWALL. They are about creating a Time keeping system that your sales people and on-site consultants can use offline and sychronize back online.

        Basically, they are about integrating systems.
      • Besides, I think a lot of people has mixed the concept of Web Services(WS) with .NET. WS is a interoperability framework, while .NET aims to cover all aspect of computing, while remains to use a single protocol for communication.

        People jokingly said, in this regard, .NET is attempting to 'dominate the world'. However, this is pretty much the only way of doing things if MS wanted to do what they planned.

        It might be too complicated and confusing to explain without an example: suppose we'd like to implement Remote Procedure Call over the Web, with WS both ends must have SOAP-rpc defined and implemented so as to call each other, but they don't need to implement WS from the same vendor(theorotically). With .NET, you must have .NET on both end.

        To be honest, in term of robustness of both models(if .NET's stability doesn't count), .NET wins. For the openness, WS win, as it doesn't need to be bounded on a single vendor solution(again, theorotically).

        (I know rpc is a bad example as CORBRA seems to beat them hand down and it's a proven technology...well, the other story)
  • yup... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gyratedotorg (545872) on Monday July 22, 2002 @08:48PM (#3934543) Homepage
    i guess this would be the "embrace" part of "embrace and extend."
    • i guess this would be the "embrace" part of "embrace and extend."

      It's "embrace, extend, extinguiish".

      My mother used to say that if you are going to sup with the devil, you had better bring a long spoon. Never has that advice been more appropriate.

      • gyratedotorg got it right. "embrace, extend" is all anyone sees when partnering with Microsoft. They don't see "extinguish" until it is too late.
  • by Lethyos (408045) on Monday July 22, 2002 @08:52PM (#3934560) Journal
    But though the editors were lazy or Slashcode was buggy, I'll put in a couple of cents anyway.

    First of all, this is bad. Microsoft are not adopting the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" ideal. Apache dominates web servers. No doubt about it. [netcraft.com] To defeat this, Microsoft are going to do what they do best: embrace, extend, erradicate.

    Based on Microsoft's history, any components they write for Apache will be closed source. If it is not entirely closed, the crutial parts will be. Microsoft are not interested in opening up their IP. Consider this as one of the many possible scenarios:

    Following initial proof of concept, first stage deployments and so forth, Microsoft will begin the trouble. It will strangely cease to work. Apache will be to blame and sites will like have to apply patches from Microsoft or just deal with them. At the same time, IIS will lack these problems. They will work to create inroads into the *nix space with Win.NET and IIS.

    Keep Microsoft out of open source. They have no business being here. Instead, Apache people should look at either of the two .NET initiatives that are Free.
  • Hrm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by interiot (50685) on Monday July 22, 2002 @08:56PM (#3934578) Homepage

    Alliances aren't always a good thing. When a stronger enemy is fighting many small opponents, if the strong guy can get a few of the small guys to take a break for a bit, that's really just a win for the bigger guy.

  • .net is not evil (Score:5, Interesting)

    by psicE (126646) on Monday July 22, 2002 @09:08PM (#3934627) Homepage
    Call me a heretic, but I think .net is a good thing. Not .net as made by Microsoft, but .net as an open standard - for example Mono. The concept of making Web services as easy to run and use as regular applications.

    I don't want to have everything run on a server and use a dumb terminal. No sense making it even easier for Ashcroft to read my stuff than it already is. But Web services, by nature, are things that already use the Internet - things that might as well be hanging on a building in Times Square, for all Ashcroft cares.

    To check stocks, I have to go to cnbc.com. It's an ugly interface. Why can't I double-click on a program that uses native widgets and displays that same information? To read and reply to Slashdot, I have to slashdot.org. It's uglier than a female dwarf (or KDE). Why can't I have Slashdot in a Win32-native interface? Think NNTP, but better-looking and more powerful.

    To write a document, I open up AbiWord. If I'm writing a story about the stock market, why can't I just open up my stock market program, drag a box into my document, and have live numbers for the Dow? If I'm writing a story about AMD, why can't I just open up my Slashdot program, drag a box into my document, and have a link to the story inserted into my document; and why can't the person on the other end open the document, double-click my link, and have the Slashdot story opened in place - without needing a web browser? .net is simply recognizing the reality that the Internet is a dynamic medium, and it requires a new way of designing programs; a way that makes using the Web identical to using your computer locally. All of the examples I just gave can be done now with existing programming tools on any platform, but .net makes it much easier and more straightforward. It's nothing particularly difficult, and open source will be quick to replicate it.

    As Miguel de Icaza said, you shouldn't just not use Mono because it's a copy of a MS product - after all, Linux itself is a copy of non-free UNIX from AT&T. If/when the time comes that Microsoft decides to cut off .net for Apache support, Mono will be ready to take its place.
    • I'll call you very confused.

      Dotnet is not an open standard by any stretch of the imagination - only C Sharp is standardized, not the bulk of the APIs.

      Dotnet is not required to build a Web Service client or server. Dotnet doesn't make it 'much easier' than, for example, WebLogic Workshop or a dozen free SOAP wrappers.

      People are not criticising Miguel de Icaza for being influenced by Microsoft but for yielding control to Microsoft. Not only will MS define technical direction, but attempting to 'finish' Mono will require cloning proprietary and patented libraries.

      We will see on Wednesday how much of Dotnet is being made available for non-Windows platforms. However much is offered, it's hard to see a convincing case for using it over already existing technologies.
    • by Waffle Iron (339739) on Monday July 22, 2002 @10:01PM (#3934836)
      To write a document, I open up AbiWord. If I'm writing a story about the stock market, why can't I just open up my stock market program, drag a box into my document, and have live numbers for the Dow? If I'm writing a story about AMD, why can't I just open up my Slashdot program, drag a box into my document, and have a link to the story inserted into my document; and why can't the person on the other end open the document, double-click my link, and have the Slashdot story opened in place - without needing a web browser?.

      Why not? Because there won't be a standard way to show banner ads and popup ads to pay for the content, and no casual user is going to pay to read slashdot articles.

      Moreover, I predict that there will be a versioning nightmare. The content providers and software writers are going to have a terrible time trying to stay in sync on the data formats and protocols between the sources and clients. Slashdot changes all the time, for instance. What if you had just bought a karma monitor that had a cool numerical widget to keep tabs on your karma in real time? Now its useless, because karma isn't a number any more.

      Look at a current example that is similar to "web services". It's the billing infrastructure that interfaces doctors and hospitals to insurance companies. They've been working on this system for decades, and it is still a complete piece of crap. I'd estimate that my healtchare bills get significantly screwed up in the system at least 25% of the time. How hard can this be? Apparently pretty hard. Now everybody is working feverishly to make every aspect of our lives just as buggy. In the end, a lot of this hype is going to get discredited.

    • Call me a heretic, but I think .net is a good thing. Not .net as made by Microsoft, but .net as an open standard - for example Mono. The concept of making Web services as easy to run and use as regular applications.

      The problem is that .NET is as proprietary as Java. What is not proprietary is ECMA C#.

      I predict that systems like Mono will be mostly "like .NET", but they will be fully interoperable only in their ECMA C# subset. And, you know, I think that's perfectly OK. But let's not crown .NET as an open cross-platform environment--it isn't until Microsoft submits the entirely platform for standardization, which is probably going to be when hell freezes over.

    • .net is simply recognizing the reality that the Internet is a dynamic medium, and it requires a new way of designing programs; a way that makes using the Web identical to using your computer locally. All of the examples I just gave can be done now with existing programming tools on any platform, but .net makes it much easier and more straightforward.

      Am I the only one believes that things shouldn't be worked this way? We rely on the very same company who open up the opportunities of exploiting thousands security holes to bring the majority closer to the Web? If you makes web experience too transparent to users then more and more security problems would be surface. Do not expect all users know what they are doing.

      If/when the time comes that Microsoft decides to cut off .net for Apache support, Mono will be ready to take its place.

      If Microsoft chose to cut it off from Apache, then I don't think Mono could go on. What if the same thing happened to NTFS [advogato.org] happen to any part of .NET? Apache and Mono will be screwed then.

      Forgive me if I'm being too paranoid in this, but in view of the track record of MS in security and legalese, I don't have much confidence in the future of non-MS implementation of .NET.

      Nevertheless .NET will shine in MS platform though, I must admit.
    • Way before .NET there were websites offering up data in some documented format, intended for it to be parsed and used by custom clients. .NET did not invent web services, nor is it really a revolution in web services (I implemented projects using "web services" as a control and monitoring infrastructure for power generation projects years ago). At best you could say that .NET makes it a little bit easier to put together the starting blocks for a web service (though, like always, the zero-to-demo time has very little to do with the timelines of an actual project, hence why most VB projects fail miserably regardless of the quick initial wizard "productivity").

      This is a very important point because it seems like a lot of people are willing to hand Microsoft some sort of invention credits for web services, when the reality is that where appropriate web services are a no brainer extension of the basic paradigm of the net (hell, POP3 could be considered a "web service": I don't have to use Outlook Web Access! Again, long before .NET Yahoo could serve up stock quotes in CSV format from their website via a particular get string).
    • You could have had all that in what, 1997? It was up and running on the Mac platform, through OpenDoc. Specifically, the live values (up to and including having fancy charting driven by live values over the Internet), the ability to drag web or graphics or word processing objects onto pretty much anything. That's what OpenDoc was.

      From looking back at the history of that and the interactions with Apple, it looks like Microsoft killed it. Told Apple, 'we don't want you doing this' and Apple looked at the costs, the earliness of the paradigm (document-oriented not application-oriented), and Microsoft's obvious objection to the technology being out there, and *sniccckt!* killed it on command. It got 'Steved', and it was out there being used, the base of a brilliant internet suite of functionalities, the base of a set of technology startups building stuff to work with the new way of doing things.

      That was OpenDoc, which threatened Microsoft's Office dominance by undercutting the whole application model. It existed, it was out there being used. The fact that you're looking to .NET to do this is pretty obscene, considering the history. Microsoft won't be letting you do this. Not unless they start charging per use-of-embedded-object...

    • The idiot gets modded up to 5. The MS trolls are busy today. Praise .NET get modded up easy karma today folks.

      BTW all you said can be done by python, perl, java, rebol, php, or any language. Ever hear of XML-RPC? SOAP? CORBA?.
    • To quote they might be giants.

      You can't shake hands with the devil and say you're only joking.
  • Microsoft released frontpage for Apache.

    The PR machine might pretend that there is no other software in the world but there is some pragmatism in there.

  • Many of the apache foundation's projects use Java:

    1) Tomcat
    2) Ant
    3) Xindice
    4) Xalan
    5) Xerces
    6) Cactus

    Microsoft is trying to destroy Java.

    What are they thinking? You don't do a business deal with a company that's trying to destroy your supplier.
    • What are they thinking? You don't do a business deal with a company that's trying to destroy your supplier.

      What, javacowboy, afraid of a little competition? I bet Sun is.

      Seriously.
    • Java's now officially the most popular programming language in the world. If Sun would just be smart and open-source it, it would be unbeatable.

      Too bad they won't do it, though. The SCP pales in comparison to the size of the OpenSource community.
    • Some, perhaps all of the projects you mentioned don't require Java. We're working with Xerces in C++ at my workplace. If Java were destroyed, it wouldn't affect us. . .
    • Re:WTH?!?!? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rodgerd (402) on Monday July 22, 2002 @10:19PM (#3934912) Homepage
      The core Apache foundation project is Apache, which works with well, most everything. mod_dtcl, mod_perl, mod_ruby and plenty of others. Contrary to what Java weenies would like people to think, the world is not, in fact, a choice between Unix+Java and Windows+.NET.

      And given the way Sun keep jerking the free software world around (Oh, look, work on Tomcat and we'll make it the reference JSP engine! Oh, now we've changed our minds!), why would Apache care about keeping Sun happy more than they care about making Apache as compatible with as many platforms and technologies as possible?

      Many of the good people have been working to make Apache a first-class citizen on Windows through the 1.3.x code, and achieved that in 2.0.x. I imagine those people would be very happy to see Microsoft recognise the quality of their work. And I doubt they give a shit about Sun or Java.
      • And given the way Sun keep jerking the free software world around (Oh, look, work on Tomcat and we'll make it the reference JSP engine! Oh, now we've changed our minds!), why would Apache care about keeping Sun happy more than they care about making Apache as compatible with as many platforms and technologies as possible?

        Like Microsoft hasn't with their "OpenSource is a cancer" or "OpenSource is un-American" comments? Puh-lease!

        Many of the good people have been working to make Apache a first-class citizen on Windows through the 1.3.x code, and achieved that in 2.0.x. I imagine those people would be very happy to see Microsoft recognise the quality of their work. And I doubt they give a shit about Sun or Java.

        Yes, like Microsoft did ANYTHING to make that possible. Face it, M$ gave up on IIS, and that's why they've raised the white flag and made this deal with Apache. As for them not giving a damn about Java or Sun, then why did they bother making ant, tomcat and cactus in the first place. That kind of contradicts your statement, doesn't it?
      • Re:WTH?!?!? (Score:3, Informative)

        by RickHunter (103108)

        (Oh, look, work on Tomcat and we'll make it the reference JSP engine! Oh, now we've changed our minds!)

        Sun no longer considers Tomcat to be the reference implmentation for Servlets and JSP? Well, someone should really tell the Jakarta people about that. Look, right on their Tomcat Site [apache.org], they've got: "Tomcat is the servlet container that is used in the official Reference Implementation for the Java Servlet and JavaServer Pages technologies. The Java Servlet and JavaServer Pages specifications are developed by Sun under the Java Community Process." If that's not the case, they really should be told so they can change that blurb!

  • Real Networks today.....MS tommorrow......this can only mean that "end times" are upon us......
  • by Dr. Awktagon (233360) on Monday July 22, 2002 @09:54PM (#3934806) Homepage
    Covalent Technologies will be holding a press conference at the O'Reilly Conference on Wednesday at 3:15 in suite 415 (during the afternoon break).

    How is that a joint press conference? My guess is the Covalent folks have an Apache application server targeted to the .NET runtime, that integrates well with .NET and web services. Just like Apache Tomcat, etc., does for Java. Probably open-source.

    Should I be scared, or concerned? I don't see why. It'll be another interesting technology to play with.

  • If it's just an add on, who really cares?
  • PHP and Perl are far more widespread than JSP or J2EE for dynamically created content. Languages like Java or C# are simply too cumbersome and general-purpose for most site developers. So, altogether, I don't believe this is a tremendously important event for most people.
  • Bait and Switch (Score:2, Interesting)

    by giminy (94188)
    How much do you want to bet Microsoft keeps .NET for apache around for a while, until people start relying on it. Then, when everyone is nice and settled using .NET, they stop supporting it. Guess what? If you want to have .NET now you'll need to switch to IIS. Muhahahaha.
  • It's not the embracing that hurts.

    It's the extending...

  • I wish Slashdot had a Rejected Stories feed. If a story announcing a press release that is a preannoucement of another press release is worth reporting on, isn't my story on the George Bush's plan to recruit 1 in 24 Americans as citizen spies [smh.com.au] newsworthy? That's more informants than the East German Stasi had at their peak.
  • Best I can figure out, the idea behind .NET/SOAP/XML is to be able to do every single bit of inter-application or client/server computing across the net via a web server on port 80.

    I dunno...I still fail to see a use for it all that either hasn't been taken care of alread or is useful outside of examples of what it is.

    Guess I'm just too stupid and stuck in my int main() ways!

  • Covalent != Apache (Score:5, Informative)

    by SmartyPants (27576) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @01:00AM (#3935475) Homepage
    this is a Covalent thing not a apache thing.
    you will have to pay $$$ for this

When all else fails, read the instructions.

Working...