.net
Out of context: Reply #11
- Started
- Last post
- 13 Responses
- sp0
in concept .net sounds good...especially for someone like me who enjoys any xml project...but, the licensing scheme is bogus and in the end, the application falls short of other technologies.
if you want to get into web services, it is better to develop in open-source languages, and in something that will work better across a diverse platform.
keep in mind that a lot of those "high-end" corporate offices are usually running some form of enterprise linux.
every developer and admin in the world not on MS payroll knows that windows servers have not reached a stable enterprise level yet.
the fact that .net is a proprietary language, requiring the use of MS servers, it isn't the best solution from any standpoint.
my last job, a corporate office with 6 factories evaluated moving everything to .net...but the cost outweighed the benefits...so we kept aix unix for all servers and went with open source strategies.
the biggest problem with MS technologies isn't the tech itself, it's their cost and licensing system. and the fact they want sole control over everything you do.
which ironically doesn't fit with the open-ness of xml - which is one of the new debates because of MS office moving towards a quasi-open structure...using xml.
a lot of xml professionals worry that this could impose undue restrictions on xml.