OS X - The Best .NET Platform?

[MacRumors]

The Register reports that Halcyon Software demonstrated its Java Dot Net project at MWNY last week. This is a system by which, ultimately, a full implementation of .Microsoft's NET XML-heavy application architecture can be run on OS X (at present, a full MS Active Server Pages implementation has been completed). Interesting stuff. The .NET system is compelling, and the ability to serve it with super-stable OS X is a real win. Halcyon also targets other OS's (Linux, etc.) with its products of this sort.

 

[Micro]

What's the point?

Why do we need to use Microsoft .NET apps on Mac OS X? Why would anyone want to? All this will do is help Microsoft further its monopoly into new markets. Nobody will be happy with the results.

 

[blakespot]

.NET

Well, that's a good point. But facing the realities of being an in-house developer (career, etc.) you often don't have the ability to choose platforms. In such a situation, at least you could run an OS X server and get your .NET issues taken care of as well as being able to leverage the inherent power of a Unix server. (Assuming the .NET setup for OS X is of decent performance and stability.)

More appealing to Mac users would be PHP, ColdFusion (coming as they move to a Java-based server, soon), Perl, etc.


blakespot

 

[donald]

apple should wake up to this

OS X is the 1st Mac OS can be labelled "Server",
it has huge room to grow on the server side.
Having .NET built into OS X along with WebObject
position it nicely in the Application Server
space. Application Server is the fastest growing
area that IBM, Sun, BEA, Oracle are going after
each other's throat. OS X can be a wildcard.

 

[philnak]

I think this is an interesting proposition since .Net
is likely to have a significant impact on the Mac market.
I read the following on cnet:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1273-210-6661244-1.html?tag=bt_pr

Who should Apple trust ... MS or an independent Java
vendor? seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[Luckster]

.Net criticized

Ever hear of an NC? Essentially .Net is nothing more than an attempt by Microsoft. Essentially, even with higher speed access, I think that consumers would be wary to store all of their software and private information on the web. As for AOL comming in a distant second... MSN, essentially the basis for .Net, lags AOL TimeWarner sever fold in revenues and subscriptions. Additionally, .Net gives up the Windows platform, something which I think will serve to their immediate detriment. If a Windows user ever complained that Macintosh does not have enough established software, they should take a strong look before investing in a new Windows/.Net machine. Even if Microsoft could pull it off, it would take software venders considerable time to re-develop their software. Meanwhile Apple has native Java support. Read: Native. That means that while Java on a Windows machine must run through the ever-so-slow Virtual Machine, OS X users enjoy code which runs as sprighly as Natively written applications. Additionally, Apple has provided an Aqua Swing component (look and feel for Java) and support for MP machines (without additional code!). Furthermore, OS X is based upon Unix which means that Unix software (arguably the most powerful) can be easily ported and made into Mac software. Therefore, my personal opinion is that you will see a stronger MSN, not a complete .Net platform as touted.

 

[Abe]

Microsoft Question 4

If you want to read the whole thing go to:
http://www.sun.com/dot-com/realitycheck/index.html

(I think this hits the nail on the head about why the .net platform won't be as big as some people think (and MS hopes..)
-------------------------------------------
Microsoft Question 4: Sun's claims that Java and XML are joined at the hip violates XML's main benefit- independence from any platform or programming language. Why is Java any better at processing XML than any other language? Exactly what is this special relationship that Sun talks about? What makes Java different in terms of XML than any other programming language?

Sun Answer: You're right, Chuck. We have said that the two are joined at the hip. We may not have been clear about our intent, so here it is:

There is a natural and wonderful affinity between Java technology and XML. The first creates portable code in an object-oriented fashion; the second defines a method of exchanging portable data and documents across the Internet. Both satisfy a tremendous demand among developers and customers for independence and choice. They want interoperability of portable data on a range of different platforms, and they're finding that on the Java platform -- not to mention the benefits of higher productivity and rapid time to market.

Now let's look at the alternative that you are suggesting. What happens, Chuck, when XML hits a computer in the Microsoft world? In the world that the Java community envisions, that program can run on any computer. That's just not so in the Microsoft world. It will only run on Microsoft .NET (presuming, of course, that it was available today).

Are you beginning to pick up a theme here, Chuck? Independence. Choice. Interoperability. Portability. People like these things. That's why they are voting with their feet (and pocketbooks) for the Java platform... and that's why to Sun (and millions of others), the Java platform is optimal for XML processing.