From: Adam Flinton 

Geo wrote:
> "Adam"  wrote in message
> news:4295bb77{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/26/dotnet_longhorn/
>>
>>"A security architecture touted as one of the core benefits of
>>Microsoft's next major Windows upgrade look like being the next casualty
>>of the Longhorn death march.
>
>
> Ok so much for the db filesys and now this. What's left?
>
> I mean NT 3.5 brought more speed and reduced memory requirements, 3.51
> brought fax and disk compression and a better set of drivers, 4.0 brought a
> new UI and a new printing system, 2K brought a whole new domain model based
> on DNS and share freedom from machine names. XP brought nothing worthwhile
> that I could see and now it looks like longhorn may not either? (first the
> dbfilesys got dropped and now the programming environment is iffy? what's
> left?)
>
> Is this what happens when your geek filled development team quits and is
> replaced by a bunch of Harvard grads?
>
> Geo.
>
>
Well..

All the stuff like indigo was apparantly pulled from the ecma/iso/.Net
story coz MS woke up to the fact that then lots of others could use it to
talk to their machines (e.g. Novell). Gosh it's almost like http/xml can be
done by anything with an e-pulse....

So there's one core lump which is going from being part of the .Net story
(kinda like J2EE is to Java) to just built on .Net. It's a pity & it
kind muddies the whole MS ECMA/ISO/.Net marketroid "play nice with
others" story.

So while you may get indigo (may but hopefully will) it will not be part of
.Net (it's a bit like the way Apple has pulled various (esp media) things
from being just there to being "special items" in 10.4)

& so....well there's still avalon........& xaml....(pronounced by the
.Net'ers I meet as Camel (I think they are taking the Greek Ch as in XP
= Chi Rho).


So......(& you & Tony are going to love this....) the big win
is....you get to program Longhorn using.....using....using....XML!!!!

Hurrah.

I can just feel Tony cringe at the verbosity of a programming lang expressed in XML

 From what I can see.....it's a bit like using JSP'es using beans i.e.
it stitches together prebuilt clr code.

Of course given Rich S'es aversion to people using xml as a solution one
would have to assume that this must be a crap idea.



Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5