.NET for Apache

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.

Re:Mono?

The Mono project hasn't started work on an Apache module yet. But Mono's ASP.NET support is designed such that an Apache 2 module shouldn't have to be longer than around 80 lines of code. It's trivial when you have the right framwork, but we are still a few weeks away from that.

If the guys who've done this have based their work on Mono, they certainly haven't informed the project. My educated guess is that this uses the .NET framework on Windows and Apache 2 for Windows. No great deal.

Now THAT would be interesting...

Microsoft using Apache instead of IIS. Now that's an interesting thought. Microsoft would have no issues with using Apache because it's license would allow them to lock up their changes without a problem. They write a module to let it use .net and *whamo* they look like open source advocates. As long as it's the right kind of open source.

Re:Now THAT would be interesting...

Alternatively, if they ported the core of Apache and used the same exact interface for administration et all, they could have an intall time option - install IIS, install Apache, install both.

It'd be a brilliant move to claim they support the #1 web platform, to keep their own IIS users happy, to win users back from Linux/Unices, and to stay relevant.

Interesting concept...

This is great.

At last we'll have Code Red ported to Linux!

Don't scream

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.

Re:Don't scream

Whoah there!!! That's some concentrated FUD you're spreading there (FUD is like vegemite...anything more than a thin layer will leave a bad taste in your mouth).

As for implementations, check out Mono [go-mono.com]. Pure, open-source .NET. Sure, it's not finished yet, but it proves that competing implementations *are* possible, if someone is motivated enough to get off their ass and code the thing...The specs are publicly available.

I doubt you've been seriously using Java from its inception, 'cause if you had, you would've remembered how long it took before we saw non-Sun JDKs...give .NET time, and we'll see competing implementations.

Sure MS is evil, but this is a win for Apache too. MS is basically conceding that their web server is sub-par...and they have no reason to compete with apache. The evolution of the app server (J2EE, .NET etc) has made Apache a trivial communication layer to implement the HTTP protocol. So MS never has to develop a quality web server (something they are aparently incapable of,) and Apache will run on every computer that isn't running some bass-ackwards NES server.

Frankly, the only loser with this announcement is Sun. The fact that Apache supported J2EE and not .NET was an implicit endorsement of J2EE. Now, with this announcement, Sun loses that endorsement. Frankly, considering how Sun has treated the Apache group, they deserve this.

Re:Don't scream

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.

Re:Don't scream

Yes and Yes. Go to http://www.asp.net and you can download compilers and participate.

Sorry to disillusion you.

Re:Don't scream

Mono is only going to implement the VM, you most likely are still going to need tons of libraries.


This is wrong. All someone has to do is go to the mono project [go-mono.com]'s home page and see that they are implementing the vast majority of the .NET framework - most noteably the classes pertaining to web applications (ASP.NET).

Re:Don't scream

Conecpts

(sic) behind open source and free software are permeating *every* company these days

Uhm... you clearly don't understand the concepts behind open source and free software at all if you think that giving away compilers falls even remotely in the same category.

under the ownership-stripping GPL

All code under the GPL is copyrighted (owned) by the person (or group, or organisation) that wrote the code. GPLed code has owners. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Re:Don't scream

Both .NET and Java are proprietary technologies: neither is standardized, and both only have proprietary implementations available for them. What is not proprietary is ECMA C#, which may turn out to be a decent language.

Now, as for "free", you cannot compare .NET with Java. Sun makes available a very high quality implementation on many platforms and provides sources for it. Microsoft makes available one implementation for Windows, and provides an unusable reference implementation under a restrictive license for others. Since you need to have an expensive Microsoft Windows license in order to run their .NET implementation, their "free" .NET implementation is, in fact, not free.

Conecpts behind open source and free software are permeating *every* company these days, [...] Microsoft recognizes that to be competitive in some markets (web browsers like IE, Graphic API's like DirectX, and ystem-neutral platforms like .NET), even they need to give stuff away for free.

Microsoft engages in traditional marketing techniques, nothing more. Calling that "free" or "being permeated by open source" is ridiculous. The only way that open source "permeates" Microsoft is by making them fear for their monopoly.

Re:Don't scream

Oh? Is there an equivalent to the Java Community Process for .NET? Can I download compilers that target .NET (ie, the CLR) from Microsoft for free (gratis) like I can the Java SDK from Sun?

Java may be, strictly speaking, proprietary, but it is nowhere near "every bit" as such as anything from Microsoft.

Bad example; you could have done better in refuting the statement that Java is every bit as proprietary as .Net.

Its not the fact that the compilers and runtime are free (as in beer) that is important, its the fact that the process by which Java and its libraries are developed are more open (although not totally) than .Net, and in the way that not only Sun can develop these components. IBM, Oracle, etc. are involved in determining the direction of Java, and no, Sun doesn't always get their way (see the Java Spec Request for RMI security, which was vetoed by non-Sun members of the committee). Does MS have a formal, documented process whereby outside vendors, some of whom are competitors of MS, can determine the directon of .Net? How about implementations. IBM has implementations on a number of platforms, including Windows. They obtained a license from Sun to release these versions (and actually obey the license terms, unlike MS), but there are clean room versions as well, such as from GNU. If mono tries to duplicate the entire .Net platform, will they be safe from MS IP claims? I am skeptical.

Java is not written to favor any one operating system. Sun delivers versions for Windows, Linux, and Solaris (their own OS) simultaneously. Can we say the same about .Net? Will ADO.net work on Linux or Solaris at all, ever? Again I am skeptical, and I have to say, for good reason.

Cool... or Uncool?

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);

Re:Function

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.

No big surprise

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 services?

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

Biggest announcement? Ha!

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.

Re:Biggest announcement? Ha!

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.

yup...

i guess this would be the "embrace" part of "embrace and extend."

A link to the article would have been nice...

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

• "We will, at last, know peace in our time" [google.com]

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

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.

Re:.net is not evil

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.

Re:WTH?!?!?

Java is a stupid slow language

I'm too lazy to bring up the ./ article, but there were some benchmarks less than a year ago showing that for most applications (graphical I/O being the notable exception), the latest IBM JIT JVM outperforms C++ using the MS VC++ compiler with the default optimizations.

I'll agree that sometimes the JVM takes forever to load, but the latest IBM JIT JVM continuously profiles your code and then does the equivalent of compiling the most commonly run parts with all of the optimizations turned on. I would guess that C++ does better relative to Java on non-x86 platforms, at least if you're using one of the older JITs. This is becuase the register-starved x86 looks pretty much like a stack-based machine in comparison to say the IBM POWER, HP PaRISC, or Sun SPARC CPU families. However, the latest IBM JIT probably does wonders to naorrow the gap on machines with 16 or more general purpose registers.

Re:WTH?!?!?

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.

the hype-o-meter is going wild

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.

Covalent != Apache

this is a Covalent thing not a apache thing.
you will have to pay $$$ for this