The Stump

.NET Naming Debacle - 2

Mark Treadwell — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 00:23:00 GMT

Almost five months ago, I wrote that "Microsoft screwed up big for customer confusion" with the whole .NET 3.0 naming thing. I got a few defensive comments about how the whole effort was great. Well, let's see. Today I read a post from a member of the Microsoft Architecture Editorial Board (whatever that exactly is). You know it is not going well when the post starts out with, "There has been considerable confusion about the differences between various versions of the .NET framework."

My point exactly. It was an implied contract that (.NET Version) == (CLR Version). Now that they broke that implied contract and completely screwed up the explanations, they have mea culpa posts continuing to flow, even after five months have passed. It is difficult to explain yourself out of a marketing ploy that is counter intuitive.

Want more pretzel logic? Check this out.

Yes, the current plan is to keep CLR 2.0 for a long time and just keep gluing on additional bits. Will we be ending up with .NET 3.5 based on CLR 2.0 and be using C# 3.0? Kinda looks like it. Great ready for the Java versioning disaster to arrive in a .NET Framework near you soon!

Addendum: My take is that "Fx 3.0" should have been Version 2.1. "Fx 3.5" should be Version 2.2 (or 2.5 at best). Microsoft has dumped the minor versions of most everything and is stuck with must-major-version-everything-itis.

Vista Hates Developers

Mark Treadwell — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:30:00 GMT

I have been posting infrequently, but it seems that a new pronouncement by Somasegar always stirs me up. The last time, it was about the .NET 3.0 Framework naming debacle. This time, it is about how the new Microsoft flagship operating system breaks with .NET 1.0/1.1 production support. Specifically, Microsoft will not support Visual Studio 2002 and 2003 on Vista.

This is another ludicrous slap in the face.

It is impossible to spin this in a good manner. Buzzwords like “compatibility“, “customer feedback“, and “great development platform” gloss over the weak “works well”, the “working to understand”, and the “provide workarounds.”

Don't get me wrong -- I am using VS05 in my development work and love the features. Happily, I have no older .NET code to support. My legacy code is in VB6. My guess is that this has to do regression testing to make sure everything worked -- they had no time. Another possibility is the 64 bit stuff. Since .NET 3.0 is really .NET 2.0+stuff (and should have been called .NET 2.1), they could get out of it pretty easily on the testing side.

Remember that it took a wave of mea culpa blog posts to explain the stupid confusion they created with .NET 3.0 announcement, culminating in a good Roy Osherove post that corrected the previous feeble attempts. I am waiting for the “but wait we can really explain what Somasegar meant” posts to arrive.

Update: Here is a succinct summary by Mike Gunderloy. My points exactly.

How Pheedo Sucks for GWB RSS

Mark Treadwell — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:16:00 GMT

Am I the only one to find that the GWB Pheedo RSS link response time is horrible? On any given day, I can click a GWB title in SharpReader and go on with other things while the program waits for http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?... to reply. Frequently, I get errors and have to redo the request or just blow off reading GWB via RSS. What gives? Is this a downgrade? Am I the object of an evil plot by Pheedo?

.NET Naming Debacle

Mark Treadwell — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 15:57:00 GMT

Microsoft screwed up big for customer confusion on this one.

First it was the attempt to explain the "red and green" model for compatibility in .NET 3.0. Now, it is announcing that .NET 3.0 will not include C# or VB 3.0, but will be an "additive release". Do you understand that? Even with pictures, you have to wonder what they were thinking.

Everyone Microsoft is just bubbling over with support and entheusiasm. Customers are much less so. The general belief is that .NET is now heading down the evil Java naming path where you end up with things like Java 2 Platform SE SDK 5.0 (version 1.5).

Corrected: Even better, .NET 3.0 will be shipped with Vista. I guess that means .NET 3.0 will mean something different on XP machines (since Vista offers capabilities which will not be backported to XP), but MS does not explain that. How will the bits be backported? MS does not explain that. How will the bits be identified? MS does not explain that. How will Orcas affect versioning? MS does not explain that.

Update 1: This is closer to what we should have gotten from the beginning.

Soma may be proud with his choice, but the reclamas and the "clearing the confusion" blog entries show that both the decision and its announcement were very badly done. Never build up an accepted usage and expectation then change everything with bad explanations. This should have been a very detailed article with a FAQ, not a short blog post.

Also, Kirk Allen Evans cannot get the name of the current products correct -- it is VB 2005, not VB.NET 2005 -- you rebranded it, remember? (It would also be nice if he turned on comments for his post.)

Update 2: Julia Lerman does the research. With the benefit of almost four additional months of Microsoft explanations, she describes what they tried to tell us back in June. She convinces me even more that .NET 3.0 is a marketing ploy to make Vista sound like it was advancing the .NET Framework when it is not. They changed the meaning of the version numbers with an extraordnarily poor and weak explanation.

Update 3: I have posted a follow-on to this topic here.

Microsoft World Domination - Total Control Edition

Mark Treadwell — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 15:56:00 GMT

Remember this?

For those of you who do, you may recall how everyone figured that Microsoft would squash every other software company and there would be No Other Software But Microsoft.

This was the type of attitude that helped create the Open Source Software (OSS) movement -- kind of like Flower Power for computers. OSS seemed great until the big boys saw money to be made, and have been elbowing in ever since. The Anybody But Microsoft (ABM) people run as a subset to the OSS group. They want nothing better than to see Microsoft squashed like a bug.

Unfortunately for all concerned, market forces kept everyone unfulfilled -- sort of like a type of computerus interruptus. OSS really cannot succeed in their World Domination (WD) plans without the big boys (IBM, Sun, Google, etc.), but the big boys cannot seem to get their collective acts together. People still want that pesky Microsoft software.

The ABM types are drooling over the Sun/Google axis “killing” Microsoft. There is little chance of that, but the dreaming is fun. The reason there is little chance of success is that computers are now commodities, and it is hard to kill off an established commodity. No one company will achieve WD.

Six years ago, Microsoft was not quite as mature as they seem now. BillG was much more in control then and the testosterone level was much higher. Microsoft continues to push innovation to make its products seem fresh, when in fact all PC software has not evolved significantly in the last decade. The Internet has added new classes of programs, but you are just doing old things in a new way. Someone needs to think about what software will be in 10-15 years, and ask the questions about what do they need to do now to be there then. I see those questions being asked in very few companies, and certainly not in the computer press. When people speak of death and WD, I get the idea that they are likely clueless and have no strategy. BTW, a catchphrase like “Microsoft Everywhere“ is not a strategy, it is marketing.

I rarely pontificate like this (except concerning stupid weatherdudes), but the computer press continues its stupid, breathless comparisons of how the latest alliance will “kill” another company. Save us. You will not get such a response in a commodity industry. Companies are fighting for tiny slices of market share. The probability of one of the big guys going out of business is basically nil. Forget about the dreams and get over it.

Disclaimer: I have been an MSDN subscriber since the P1 version. I have been a Universal subscriber since it came out. I casually develop (see the subtitle above) and sell software for Microsoft operating systems. I find anyone as strident as the ABM crowd humorous and worthy of being ignored. This particular rant was sparked by a coworker -- it's his fault.

Elections and the Volunteer Military

Mark Treadwell — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 02:33:00 GMT

After this election cycle, I think I am very much over it. We should resolve to no longer allow anyone born before January 1, 1955 from running for public office. Why 1955? The answer actually lies in 1973.

There have been many fake draft rumors over the past several months. In fact, the Selective Service System draft has not been in effect since July 1, 1973. Since people become eligible for the draft at age 18 1/2, anyone born on or after January 1, 1955 was never subject to the draft. It was the start of the all volunteer military. (Full disclosure note: I have served in this same all volunteer military for the last 22 1/2 years.)

If we keep the geezers born before 1955 from running for public office, we will no longer need to put up with news stories of how the candidate did or did not go to Viet Nam -- Or whether the candidate improperly got out of going to Viet Nam -- Or whether the candidate did something "bad" there -- Or whether the candidate subsequently lied about something that happened there -- Or other nefarious events.

As I said, I am just over it.

Update: Something I forgot to mention about conscripts (ahem, draftees). Having them in the service would be the single best way of defeating the US military. We currently have a broad cross-section of society in uniform. Most of those serving are educated and motivated. Dragging in people who may be neither is no way to run the defense of this nation. We know that now that we have done it for 30+ years. We should never go back.

The Perfect Storm of Baseball

Mark Treadwell — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:41:00 GMT

This evening, the Boston Red Sox finally attained the dreams of generations of Boston fans -- and I congratulate them.

My friends know that I am not a baseball fan, but that I have an intense dislike of the New York Yankees. I believe it started with Mr. October Reggie Jackson, but it quickly segued and narrowed to George Steinbrenner himself. I cannot think of a better poke in the eye than this.

I feel both happy and sad for Sox fans. I am happy that the 86 year drought is gone along with the Bambino’s house. I am sad, though, in that they will no longer have a curse to blame for future failures. They will have to learn a new way to lose. (A quick shout out to my college friend Sully. You taught me lots about how to suffer as a Sox fan, even if I really did not care much.) I think they will be OK.

The achievement of the Boston Red Sox tonight was the perfect storm of baseball. When you are three games down in the Pennant series and then come back to win the next eight straight, you have achieved something never done before in baseball -- other than in the generations of fantasies dreamed by Sox fans of yore. If there were ever eight games to win in a row, they were those eight.

Here’s to you, Sully. (Please don’t burn anything down.)

9/11 Commission Report: A Suggested Guide

Mark Treadwell — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:12:00 GMT

I have read about a hundred pages or so of the report so far. This is required reading for everyone. It is 585 pages with very few pictures and diagrams, but it is a very good read. There are a few do's and don'ts to pay attention to, however.

Read the full report including the footnotes
Learn
Make your own decisions and interpretations

DO NOT

Rely on the opinions, interpretations or summarizations of the report by politicians, reporters or pundits
Read only press reports and summaries
Read only the executive summary or preface
Rely on second-hand discussions

Download sources for the full report (7.4MB)

Google's Eyes are on Gmail

Mark Treadwell — Thu, 13 May 2004 21:56:00 GMT

My earlier entry on this topic got the most interest of anything that I've written on this as-yet young blog. Now that the Gmail vitriol has subsided somewhat, we are beginning to see some more rational evaluations of the future service.

The best so far seems to be David Pogue's evaluation in today's New York Times. His article was expanded on by Robert MacMillan in his Filter column in the Washington Post. Both are recommended to be read carefully. For an opposite view, read Walt Mossberg's piece in the Wall Street Journal.

Essentially, when EPIC went volcanic over Gmail, they once again proved their lack of credibility. The two articles bring out the salient points of Gmail:

If Gmail creeps you out, just don't sign up.
No human ever looks at the Gmail e-mail.
Writing broad legislation to outlaw Gmail-type scanning would also ban children's pornography filters, spam filters, and possibly even things such as Outlook's Inbox Rules.
Gmail does not turn you into an unpaid billboard for Yahoo or Microsoft Hotmail by stamping ads on at the bottom of every outgoing message.

I do not believe Google has gone over to the Dark Side and become Evil. Your mileage may vary.

I Dislike: Lawyers and Politicians

Mark Treadwell — Wed, 12 May 2004 22:31:00 GMT

I especially dislike lawyers and politicians who are

Shocked
Appalled
Disturbed
Offended
Troubled

and spout their nonsense in front of a television camera. For both groups, continued employment in your current profession will not solve your problem. I recommend a psychiatrist, medications and a new job.