MS goes Open Source....with YOUR source..... 
Author Message
 MS goes Open Source....with YOUR source.....

Before you go off coding happily into C# or "vb".net, I'd like you to do me
a favor.....give me all of your source code.

Yes....ALL of it.  You know that program that you've been selling for
several hundred dollars per license and that free DLL you wrote for the
recognition and that new code that put you in the drivers seat with that
large corporation that wants to own the rights to your new faster, better
widget!

Am I crazy?  Not at all.  For that's precisely what you'll be doing if you
depend solely on c# or "vb".net to do your future coding.

Let me explain (this'll only take a second).....  With this new .net stuph,
your code is "compiled" into an IL file, that is interpreted and compiled
into machine language "just in time" to run.  Right?

It is the nature of this scheme that outside people and companies be able to
make their own programming languages sit neatly atop .net (this is really
just to poke Sun in the eye over the whole JAVA thing).

In order to do so, you have to know how to write the IL code so that it is
interpreted correctly by the jit compilers like the Windows CLR.  Knowing
this, it is a simple thing to DECOMPILE any IL so that you have the writer's
source code.

But, wait!  You don't need to go to all the trouble of studying how ILs are
built and compiled!  Microsoft has given you a decompiler!  It's named
ILDASM.EXE and is free with the .net SDK.

Just run any IL through ILDASM.EXE and you get to view the techniques used
by the author that allow his cool widget to wiggle the way it does.

Where does this leave third party software writers?  Well, they can still
write DLLs in C++ or VB6 and run them as "unmanaged code" in a .net app.
But, they will suffer a performance hit for this - you see, .net needs a
wrapper for COM components.

You remember COM....the thing that MS said would save us all from rewriting
our apps and widgets over and over?  Well, .net is turning it's back on the
COM specification, as is Microsoft.

And, if third party developers are discouraged from writing 3rd party
controls because of this, what will make .net as widely used as VB6?  Go
ahead and say it...we all know it...absolutely nothing.

See, it was the 3rd party vendors, code reuse and common, every day
programmers, wanting recognition of their coding skills, that developed the
components that made VB6 the most successful programming language ever.

But, you may not have written many (or any) 3rd party software.  Maybe
you're just a programmer who does a great job at programming, and enjoys
writing code.  Well, the bad news doesn't stop with the 3rd party guys....

You see, by making all ILs "open source" (as the case presently is with
.net - remember the decompiler ILDASM.EXE) your salaries will begin to
decrease.  Why?  Simple.  Why pay you for your skill when we can get anyone
to decompile your code and copy your skills for less?

With ,net, once we have your program (your IL) we have your code.

When everyone has access to your code (read "brain"), just as with all
commodities, it's worth less.

Think I'm over-reacting?  Go ask Microsoft about keeping your code safe from
prying eyes.  They'll tell you just what they told me.  "We're aware of
these concerns, and we're looking into what can be done."

Problem is....if you make the IL where it could be relatively safe from
prying eyes it is also safe from the CLR.  Remember the CLR reads an "open"
standard IL.  So, nothing can be done....Microsoft just doesn't want to say
so.

And, no, I'm not against "open source".  It's neat.  There's just no money
in it.  See for yourself.  How many roaring software success stories has
Linux spawned?  Can't think of any?  Me either.

.net = open source
   (c# + ILDASM.EXE = source code)

open source = less money
   (who buys what they can get free?)

less money = fewer 3rd party controls
   (smart people go where the money is)

fewer 3rd party controls = lower MS market share
   (you now have to be bi-lingual in coding to make the same pay)

lower MS market share = your skills are less demand
   (leads to further erosion of your earning potential)

So, why is Microsoft pushing in a direction that will turn off developers,
and expose them to losing their source code to everyone that gets a copy of
their IL?

I think it's several things.

1)  Fear.  Microsoft was not immune to the web euphoria that gripped the
nation over the last 3 or so years.  Gates openly stated that the internet
revolution had caught Microsoft off-guard, but that he would make sure that
did not happen again.  They came into the internet game late.  They needed
to make a big play and .net is the result.  They may feel that they just
have too much invested and too much to lose to back out now.  It would take
some awfully big balls to say that they made a mistake with .net, and start
over.

2)  Vanity and pride.  Microsoft has 90%+ of the world's PC's running some
version of their OS.  What would motivate MS to take such a lunge at Sun's
Java (which is what c# is)?  MS already has the largest base of coders, apps
and desktop clients on the planet.  Do you really think that this will
change significantly with .net?  I doubt it.

3)  Greed.  Microsoft has already stated that it's goal is to make users pay
monthly for using Microsoft Office.  .net is a huge step in that direction.
For applications running on servers across the internet, decompiling an IL
file is much less of a threat.  Nobody sees your IL )if it stays on your
server), only your web page.

But, how many current programmers write web services?  How many people will
pay for what was free for years like directions, movielistings, etc.?  How
will you do graphics manipulation across the web?  What about the vast
majority of the United States and the world where 56K is as good as it will
be for quite some time?  The internet isn't ready for web-service modeled
applications and neither is the public.

4)  More greed.  Something new to generate revenue.  Ever wonder why
Microsoft doesn't let an application or language live long enough to make it
really stable?  In fact, I cannot recall one single product that got all of
the kinks worked out before it was eliminated.  Forget "all of the kinks",
how about "most of the kinks" even?  We trade one set of problems for a
newer set of problems at a higher cost (education, support, training, etc.).

The fact is that our current standards COM, VB6 and C++6 are more than
adequate for today's programming. DLL Hell?  Not if you code right.

In the Visual Basic User Groups I have attended, the users are downright
pissed off at what Microsoft has done to them.  VB.NET indeed!

The most common question is "What can I do in .Net that I can't do now?"
The answer?  Nothing.

This is a gamble for Microsoft.  Unfortunately, even if Microsoft wins,
millions of programmers will lose.

.net?  I say .NOT!

Jim Hubbard



Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:18:45 GMT  
 MS goes Open Source....with YOUR source.....
Jim,

I just want to make a comment on one thing - the decompiling thing. If that
were so true, why are companies still adopting Java when you can easily
decompile Java bytecode programs in a similar fashion?

--
Manohar Kamath
www.dotnet101.com - .NET Tutorials
www.dotnetwire.com - .NET News
www.dotnetbooks.com - .NET Books


Quote:
> Before you go off coding happily into c# or "vb".net, I'd like you to do
me
> a favor.....give me all of your source code.

> Yes....ALL of it.  You know that program that you've been selling for
> several hundred dollars per license and that free DLL you wrote for the
> recognition and that new code that put you in the drivers seat with that
> large corporation that wants to own the rights to your new faster, better
> widget!

> Am I crazy?  Not at all.  For that's precisely what you'll be doing if you
> depend solely on c# or "vb".net to do your future coding.

> Let me explain (this'll only take a second).....  With this new .net
stuph,
> your code is "compiled" into an IL file, that is interpreted and compiled
> into machine language "just in time" to run.  Right?

> It is the nature of this scheme that outside people and companies be able
to
> make their own programming languages sit neatly atop .net (this is really
> just to poke Sun in the eye over the whole JAVA thing).

> In order to do so, you have to know how to write the IL code so that it is
> interpreted correctly by the jit compilers like the Windows CLR.  Knowing
> this, it is a simple thing to DECOMPILE any IL so that you have the
writer's
> source code.

> But, wait!  You don't need to go to all the trouble of studying how ILs
are
> built and compiled!  Microsoft has given you a decompiler!  It's named
> ILDASM.EXE and is free with the .net SDK.

> Just run any IL through ILDASM.EXE and you get to view the techniques used
> by the author that allow his cool widget to wiggle the way it does.

> Where does this leave third party software writers?  Well, they can still
> write DLLs in C++ or VB6 and run them as "unmanaged code" in a .net app.
> But, they will suffer a performance hit for this - you see, .net needs a
> wrapper for COM components.

> You remember COM....the thing that MS said would save us all from
rewriting
> our apps and widgets over and over?  Well, .net is turning it's back on
the
> COM specification, as is Microsoft.

> And, if third party developers are discouraged from writing 3rd party
> controls because of this, what will make .net as widely used as VB6?  Go
> ahead and say it...we all know it...absolutely nothing.

> See, it was the 3rd party vendors, code reuse and common, every day
> programmers, wanting recognition of their coding skills, that developed
the
> components that made VB6 the most successful programming language ever.

> But, you may not have written many (or any) 3rd party software.  Maybe
> you're just a programmer who does a great job at programming, and enjoys
> writing code.  Well, the bad news doesn't stop with the 3rd party guys....

> You see, by making all ILs "open source" (as the case presently is with
> .net - remember the decompiler ILDASM.EXE) your salaries will begin to
> decrease.  Why?  Simple.  Why pay you for your skill when we can get
anyone
> to decompile your code and copy your skills for less?

> With ,net, once we have your program (your IL) we have your code.

> When everyone has access to your code (read "brain"), just as with all
> commodities, it's worth less.

> Think I'm over-reacting?  Go ask Microsoft about keeping your code safe
from
> prying eyes.  They'll tell you just what they told me.  "We're aware of
> these concerns, and we're looking into what can be done."

> Problem is....if you make the IL where it could be relatively safe from
> prying eyes it is also safe from the CLR.  Remember the CLR reads an
"open"
> standard IL.  So, nothing can be done....Microsoft just doesn't want to
say
> so.

> And, no, I'm not against "open source".  It's neat.  There's just no money
> in it.  See for yourself.  How many roaring software success stories has
> Linux spawned?  Can't think of any?  Me either.

> .net = open source
>    (c# + ILDASM.EXE = source code)

> open source = less money
>    (who buys what they can get free?)

> less money = fewer 3rd party controls
>    (smart people go where the money is)

> fewer 3rd party controls = lower MS market share
>    (you now have to be bi-lingual in coding to make the same pay)

> lower MS market share = your skills are less demand
>    (leads to further erosion of your earning potential)

> So, why is Microsoft pushing in a direction that will turn off developers,
> and expose them to losing their source code to everyone that gets a copy
of
> their IL?

> I think it's several things.

> 1)  Fear.  Microsoft was not immune to the web euphoria that gripped the
> nation over the last 3 or so years.  Gates openly stated that the internet
> revolution had caught Microsoft off-guard, but that he would make sure
that
> did not happen again.  They came into the internet game late.  They needed
> to make a big play and .net is the result.  They may feel that they just
> have too much invested and too much to lose to back out now.  It would
take
> some awfully big balls to say that they made a mistake with .net, and
start
> over.

> 2)  Vanity and pride.  Microsoft has 90%+ of the world's PC's running some
> version of their OS.  What would motivate MS to take such a lunge at Sun's
> Java (which is what c# is)?  MS already has the largest base of coders,
apps
> and desktop clients on the planet.  Do you really think that this will
> change significantly with .net?  I doubt it.

> 3)  Greed.  Microsoft has already stated that it's goal is to make users
pay
> monthly for using Microsoft Office.  .net is a huge step in that
direction.
> For applications running on servers across the internet, decompiling an IL
> file is much less of a threat.  Nobody sees your IL )if it stays on your
> server), only your web page.

> But, how many current programmers write web services?  How many people
will
> pay for what was free for years like directions, movielistings, etc.?  How
> will you do graphics manipulation across the web?  What about the vast
> majority of the United States and the world where 56K is as good as it
will
> be for quite some time?  The internet isn't ready for web-service modeled
> applications and neither is the public.

> 4)  More greed.  Something new to generate revenue.  Ever wonder why
> Microsoft doesn't let an application or language live long enough to make
it
> really stable?  In fact, I cannot recall one single product that got all
of
> the kinks worked out before it was eliminated.  Forget "all of the kinks",
> how about "most of the kinks" even?  We trade one set of problems for a
> newer set of problems at a higher cost (education, support, training,
etc.).

> The fact is that our current standards COM, VB6 and C++6 are more than
> adequate for today's programming. DLL Hell?  Not if you code right.

> In the Visual Basic User Groups I have attended, the users are downright
> pissed off at what Microsoft has done to them.  VB.NET indeed!

> The most common question is "What can I do in .Net that I can't do now?"
> The answer?  Nothing.

> This is a gamble for Microsoft.  Unfortunately, even if Microsoft wins,
> millions of programmers will lose.

> .net?  I say .NOT!

> Jim Hubbard




Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:57:56 GMT  
 MS goes Open Source....with YOUR source.....
Disassembling MSIL code is one thing...

but what about a real C# DECOMPILER?

  http://www.saurik.com

simply pass name of a DLL/EXE assembly,
and you get C# source code!

gives very impressive results
(not error free, but extremely useful first release)

Many thanks to Jay Freeman (saurik) for
supplying this tool with the source code!


Quote:
> Before you go off coding happily into c# or "vb".net, I'd like you to do
me
> a favor.....give me all of your source code.

> In order to do so, you have to know how to write the IL code so that it is
> interpreted correctly by the jit compilers like the Windows CLR.  Knowing
> this, it is a simple thing to DECOMPILE any IL so that you have the
writer's
> source code.

> But, wait!  You don't need to go to all the trouble of studying how ILs
are
> built and compiled!  Microsoft has given you a decompiler!  It's named
> ILDASM.EXE and is free with the .net SDK.

> Just run any IL through ILDASM.EXE and you get to view the techniques used
> by the author that allow his cool widget to wiggle the way it does.



Sat, 30 Aug 2003 04:06:59 GMT  
 MS goes Open Source....with YOUR source.....
x86 assembly isn't really that hard if you've the debug symbols, and MS are
supplying those for NT. In a way, W2K is open source.

(It's simply HUGE and COMPLEX, uncommented C# code of that size would also
be a huge project to reverse engineer)

/Carl



Sat, 30 Aug 2003 04:23:47 GMT  
 MS goes Open Source....with YOUR source.....

Quote:

> Jim,

> I just want to make a comment on one thing - the decompiling thing. If that
> were so true, why are companies still adopting Java when you can easily
> decompile Java bytecode programs in a similar fashion?

Most of them use obsfucators.

Artur



Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:19:00 GMT  
 MS goes Open Source....with YOUR source.....

Quote:
> Most of them use obsfucators.

Really?  "Most"?


Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:59:21 GMT  
 MS goes Open Source....with YOUR source.....
This is nothing new.  Decompilers of some sort have been around about as
long as compilers.  Let us all remember that compilation is not a
cryptographic process, it is merely a form of translation.  Granted IL and
Java byte code are easier to read in their assembly form than x86 assembly,
they are also far more useful in many ways.  Few people seem to notice, but
our society still relies pretty heavily on good old fashioned honesty.  ;-)

--
Nathan Allan


Quote:
> Before you go off coding happily into c# or "vb".net, I'd like you to do
me
> a favor.....give me all of your source code.

> Yes....ALL of it.  You know that program that you've been selling for
> several hundred dollars per license and that free DLL you wrote for the
> recognition and that new code that put you in the drivers seat with that
> large corporation that wants to own the rights to your new faster, better
> widget!

>...



Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:21:43 GMT  
 MS goes Open Source....with YOUR source.....
uh oh !
here is one more paranoid !

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
 The greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising every time I fall
!

Quote:
> Before you go off coding happily into c# or "vb".net, I'd like you to do
me
> a favor.....give me all of your source code.

> Yes....ALL of it.  You know that program that you've been selling for
> several hundred dollars per license and that free DLL you wrote for the
> recognition and that new code that put you in the drivers seat with that
> large corporation that wants to own the rights to your new faster, better
> widget!

> Am I crazy?  Not at all.  For that's precisely what you'll be doing if you
> depend solely on c# or "vb".net to do your future coding.

> Let me explain (this'll only take a second).....  With this new .net
stuph,
> your code is "compiled" into an IL file, that is interpreted and compiled
> into machine language "just in time" to run.  Right?

> It is the nature of this scheme that outside people and companies be able
to
> make their own programming languages sit neatly atop .net (this is really
> just to poke Sun in the eye over the whole JAVA thing).

> In order to do so, you have to know how to write the IL code so that it is
> interpreted correctly by the jit compilers like the Windows CLR.  Knowing
> this, it is a simple thing to DECOMPILE any IL so that you have the
writer's
> source code.

> But, wait!  You don't need to go to all the trouble of studying how ILs
are
> built and compiled!  Microsoft has given you a decompiler!  It's named
> ILDASM.EXE and is free with the .net SDK.

> Just run any IL through ILDASM.EXE and you get to view the techniques used
> by the author that allow his cool widget to wiggle the way it does.

> Where does this leave third party software writers?  Well, they can still
> write DLLs in C++ or VB6 and run them as "unmanaged code" in a .net app.
> But, they will suffer a performance hit for this - you see, .net needs a
> wrapper for COM components.

> You remember COM....the thing that MS said would save us all from
rewriting
> our apps and widgets over and over?  Well, .net is turning it's back on
the
> COM specification, as is Microsoft.

> And, if third party developers are discouraged from writing 3rd party
> controls because of this, what will make .net as widely used as VB6?  Go
> ahead and say it...we all know it...absolutely nothing.

> See, it was the 3rd party vendors, code reuse and common, every day
> programmers, wanting recognition of their coding skills, that developed
the
> components that made VB6 the most successful programming language ever.

> But, you may not have written many (or any) 3rd party software.  Maybe
> you're just a programmer who does a great job at programming, and enjoys
> writing code.  Well, the bad news doesn't stop with the 3rd party guys....

> You see, by making all ILs "open source" (as the case presently is with
> .net - remember the decompiler ILDASM.EXE) your salaries will begin to
> decrease.  Why?  Simple.  Why pay you for your skill when we can get
anyone
> to decompile your code and copy your skills for less?

> With ,net, once we have your program (your IL) we have your code.

> When everyone has access to your code (read "brain"), just as with all
> commodities, it's worth less.

> Think I'm over-reacting?  Go ask Microsoft about keeping your code safe
from
> prying eyes.  They'll tell you just what they told me.  "We're aware of
> these concerns, and we're looking into what can be done."

> Problem is....if you make the IL where it could be relatively safe from
> prying eyes it is also safe from the CLR.  Remember the CLR reads an
"open"
> standard IL.  So, nothing can be done....Microsoft just doesn't want to
say
> so.

> And, no, I'm not against "open source".  It's neat.  There's just no money
> in it.  See for yourself.  How many roaring software success stories has
> Linux spawned?  Can't think of any?  Me either.

> .net = open source
>    (c# + ILDASM.EXE = source code)

> open source = less money
>    (who buys what they can get free?)

> less money = fewer 3rd party controls
>    (smart people go where the money is)

> fewer 3rd party controls = lower MS market share
>    (you now have to be bi-lingual in coding to make the same pay)

> lower MS market share = your skills are less demand
>    (leads to further erosion of your earning potential)

> So, why is Microsoft pushing in a direction that will turn off developers,
> and expose them to losing their source code to everyone that gets a copy
of
> their IL?

> I think it's several things.

> 1)  Fear.  Microsoft was not immune to the web euphoria that gripped the
> nation over the last 3 or so years.  Gates openly stated that the internet
> revolution had caught Microsoft off-guard, but that he would make sure
that
> did not happen again.  They came into the internet game late.  They needed
> to make a big play and .net is the result.  They may feel that they just
> have too much invested and too much to lose to back out now.  It would
take
> some awfully big balls to say that they made a mistake with .net, and
start
> over.

> 2)  Vanity and pride.  Microsoft has 90%+ of the world's PC's running some
> version of their OS.  What would motivate MS to take such a lunge at Sun's
> Java (which is what c# is)?  MS already has the largest base of coders,
apps
> and desktop clients on the planet.  Do you really think that this will
> change significantly with .net?  I doubt it.

> 3)  Greed.  Microsoft has already stated that it's goal is to make users
pay
> monthly for using Microsoft Office.  .net is a huge step in that
direction.
> For applications running on servers across the internet, decompiling an IL
> file is much less of a threat.  Nobody sees your IL )if it stays on your
> server), only your web page.

> But, how many current programmers write web services?  How many people
will
> pay for what was free for years like directions, movielistings, etc.?  How
> will you do graphics manipulation across the web?  What about the vast
> majority of the United States and the world where 56K is as good as it
will
> be for quite some time?  The internet isn't ready for web-service modeled
> applications and neither is the public.

> 4)  More greed.  Something new to generate revenue.  Ever wonder why
> Microsoft doesn't let an application or language live long enough to make
it
> really stable?  In fact, I cannot recall one single product that got all
of
> the kinks worked out before it was eliminated.  Forget "all of the kinks",
> how about "most of the kinks" even?  We trade one set of problems for a
> newer set of problems at a higher cost (education, support, training,
etc.).

> The fact is that our current standards COM, VB6 and C++6 are more than
> adequate for today's programming. DLL Hell?  Not if you code right.

> In the Visual Basic User Groups I have attended, the users are downright
> pissed off at what Microsoft has done to them.  VB.NET indeed!

> The most common question is "What can I do in .Net that I can't do now?"
> The answer?  Nothing.

> This is a gamble for Microsoft.  Unfortunately, even if Microsoft wins,
> millions of programmers will lose.

> .net?  I say .NOT!

> Jim Hubbard




Sat, 30 Aug 2003 13:36:46 GMT  
 MS goes Open Source....with YOUR source.....

Quote:

> > Most of them use obsfucators.

> Really?  "Most"?

Most I've seen. Please remember that I'm talking about commercial or
semi-commercial products, not free programmer hacks (which often come
with source code included, not need to decompile :).

Three proprietary java apps I have installed on my machine - jbuilder
foundation, java acrobat reader and viewlet builder are all obsfucated.
All other java apps I have are open source (and thus obviously
non-obsfucated).

Two java projects I've worked on - one is quite small and was not
obsfucated, because it was meant to be only used inside customer
intranet. Second bigger - one of the first questions from customer was
how to protect against decompilation. It is not deployment ready yet, so
we do not obsfucate it internally, but we will certainly do when we
release it.

Yes, I'll say most. Could you point me to any commercial, proprietary
app written in java, which is not obsfucated ? I don't know even single
one, but some might exists somewhere - this is why I say 'most', not
'all'.

I don't know about situation at server side - but in this case almost
nobody sees the class files, so decompilation from third party is not a
risk. I'm talking (and original poster was also meaning this) about
client side apps.

Artur



Sat, 30 Aug 2003 20:41:36 GMT  
 MS goes Open Source....with YOUR source.....

Quote:
>You see, by making all ILs "open source" (as the case presently is with
>.net - remember the decompiler ILDASM.EXE) your salaries will begin to
>decrease.  Why?  Simple.  Why pay you for your skill when we can get anyone
>to decompile your code and copy your skills for less?

This is not true.  Nowadays, being a good programmer isn't about having
"secrets" that you jealously guard.  The best programmers I've met share
their ideas and knowledge, and still fetch excellent rates.  Of course, you
may have libraries of software that you wish to market and keep proprietry,
but your income as a salaried worker or contractor depends on your ability
to come up with the good ideas in the first place.

Joseph


Quote:
> Before you go off coding happily into c# or "vb".net, I'd like you to do
me
> a favor.....give me all of your source code.

> Yes....ALL of it.  You know that program that you've been selling for
> several hundred dollars per license and that free DLL you wrote for the
> recognition and that new code that put you in the drivers seat with that
> large corporation that wants to own the rights to your new faster, better
> widget!

> Am I crazy?  Not at all.  For that's precisely what you'll be doing if you
> depend solely on c# or "vb".net to do your future coding.

> Let me explain (this'll only take a second).....  With this new .net
stuph,
> your code is "compiled" into an IL file, that is interpreted and compiled
> into machine language "just in time" to run.  Right?

> It is the nature of this scheme that outside people and companies be able
to
> make their own programming languages sit neatly atop .net (this is really
> just to poke Sun in the eye over the whole JAVA thing).

> In order to do so, you have to know how to write the IL code so that it is
> interpreted correctly by the jit compilers like the Windows CLR.  Knowing
> this, it is a simple thing to DECOMPILE any IL so that you have the
writer's
> source code.

> But, wait!  You don't need to go to all the trouble of studying how ILs
are
> built and compiled!  Microsoft has given you a decompiler!  It's named
> ILDASM.EXE and is free with the .net SDK.

> Just run any IL through ILDASM.EXE and you get to view the techniques used
> by the author that allow his cool widget to wiggle the way it does.

> Where does this leave third party software writers?  Well, they can still
> write DLLs in C++ or VB6 and run them as "unmanaged code" in a .net app.
> But, they will suffer a performance hit for this - you see, .net needs a
> wrapper for COM components.

> You remember COM....the thing that MS said would save us all from
rewriting
> our apps and widgets over and over?  Well, .net is turning it's back on
the
> COM specification, as is Microsoft.

> And, if third party developers are discouraged from writing 3rd party
> controls because of this, what will make .net as widely used as VB6?  Go
> ahead and say it...we all know it...absolutely nothing.

> See, it was the 3rd party vendors, code reuse and common, every day
> programmers, wanting recognition of their coding skills, that developed
the
> components that made VB6 the most successful programming language ever.

> But, you may not have written many (or any) 3rd party software.  Maybe
> you're just a programmer who does a great job at programming, and enjoys
> writing code.  Well, the bad news doesn't stop with the 3rd party guys....

> You see, by making all ILs "open source" (as the case presently is with
> .net - remember the decompiler ILDASM.EXE) your salaries will begin to
> decrease.  Why?  Simple.  Why pay you for your skill when we can get
anyone
> to decompile your code and copy your skills for less?

> With ,net, once we have your program (your IL) we have your code.

> When everyone has access to your code (read "brain"), just as with all
> commodities, it's worth less.

> Think I'm over-reacting?  Go ask Microsoft about keeping your code safe
from
> prying eyes.  They'll tell you just what they told me.  "We're aware of
> these concerns, and we're looking into what can be done."

> Problem is....if you make the IL where it could be relatively safe from
> prying eyes it is also safe from the CLR.  Remember the CLR reads an
"open"
> standard IL.  So, nothing can be done....Microsoft just doesn't want to
say
> so.

> And, no, I'm not against "open source".  It's neat.  There's just no money
> in it.  See for yourself.  How many roaring software success stories has
> Linux spawned?  Can't think of any?  Me either.

> .net = open source
>    (c# + ILDASM.EXE = source code)

> open source = less money
>    (who buys what they can get free?)

> less money = fewer 3rd party controls
>    (smart people go where the money is)

> fewer 3rd party controls = lower MS market share
>    (you now have to be bi-lingual in coding to make the same pay)

> lower MS market share = your skills are less demand
>    (leads to further erosion of your earning potential)

> So, why is Microsoft pushing in a direction that will turn off developers,
> and expose them to losing their source code to everyone that gets a copy
of
> their IL?

> I think it's several things.

> 1)  Fear.  Microsoft was not immune to the web euphoria that gripped the
> nation over the last 3 or so years.  Gates openly stated that the internet
> revolution had caught Microsoft off-guard, but that he would make sure
that
> did not happen again.  They came into the internet game late.  They needed
> to make a big play and .net is the result.  They may feel that they just
> have too much invested and too much to lose to back out now.  It would
take
> some awfully big balls to say that they made a mistake with .net, and
start
> over.

> 2)  Vanity and pride.  Microsoft has 90%+ of the world's PC's running some
> version of their OS.  What would motivate MS to take such a lunge at Sun's
> Java (which is what c# is)?  MS already has the largest base of coders,
apps
> and desktop clients on the planet.  Do you really think that this will
> change significantly with .net?  I doubt it.

> 3)  Greed.  Microsoft has already stated that it's goal is to make users
pay
> monthly for using Microsoft Office.  .net is a huge step in that
direction.
> For applications running on servers across the internet, decompiling an IL
> file is much less of a threat.  Nobody sees your IL )if it stays on your
> server), only your web page.

> But, how many current programmers write web services?  How many people
will
> pay for what was free for years like directions, movielistings, etc.?  How
> will you do graphics manipulation across the web?  What about the vast
> majority of the United States and the world where 56K is as good as it
will
> be for quite some time?  The internet isn't ready for web-service modeled
> applications and neither is the public.

> 4)  More greed.  Something new to generate revenue.  Ever wonder why
> Microsoft doesn't let an application or language live long enough to make
it
> really stable?  In fact, I cannot recall one single product that got all
of
> the kinks worked out before it was eliminated.  Forget "all of the kinks",
> how about "most of the kinks" even?  We trade one set of problems for a
> newer set of problems at a higher cost (education, support, training,
etc.).

> The fact is that our current standards COM, VB6 and C++6 are more than
> adequate for today's programming. DLL Hell?  Not if you code right.

> In the Visual Basic User Groups I have attended, the users are downright
> pissed off at what Microsoft has done to them.  VB.NET indeed!

> The most common question is "What can I do in .Net that I can't do now?"
> The answer?  Nothing.

> This is a gamble for Microsoft.  Unfortunately, even if Microsoft wins,
> millions of programmers will lose.

> .net?  I say .NOT!

> Jim Hubbard




Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:44:43 GMT  
 MS goes Open Source....with YOUR source.....

Quote:
>This is not true.  Nowadays, being a good programmer isn't about having
>"secrets" that you jealously guard.  The best programmers I've met share
>their ideas and knowledge, and still fetch excellent rates.  Of course, you
>may have libraries of software that you wish to market and keep proprietry,
>but your income as a salaried worker or contractor depends on your ability
>to come up with the good ideas in the first place.

I have to second this notion, adding that with our obviously in-progress
transformation into a service economy, it is our skills, abilities, and ability
to generate ideas which will rule our future days. Products themselves
are becoming less meaningful, as evidenced by the open software
industry, where it's really the service that people get when they participate
that matters.

Those who don't understand and embrace this inevitability will be
victims of roadkill economics, just like the early 20th century agrarians
who resisted industrialization.

C//



Sun, 31 Aug 2003 10:54:37 GMT  
 MS goes Open Source....with YOUR source.....

Quote:

> Those who don't understand and embrace this inevitability will be
> victims of roadkill economics, just like the early 20th century agrarians
> who resisted industrialization.

One thing is going for open source for various reasons, second is being
forced to expose your work even if you don't want to.

All programming I do for fun and place on net is released under public
domain. I do not care if somebody will take this code and make profit.
If he will send me his corrections, good, if not, he will have to
resynchronize everything if I'll make a change. This is ok for me, but I
cannot expect everybody to follow same route. Some people want to infect
their code with GPL. Other people want to keep their source closed. I
personally hate GPL - even more than closed source (at least with closed
source they play fair :). But people should have a freedom of choice.
Easy decompilation, like in java bytecode or CLR, deprives them of this
freedom. I agree that closed source, highly guarded code is thing of
past, but it should be a market which will decide, not just a
tool/language which requires you to expose everything.

Artur



Sun, 31 Aug 2003 22:25:05 GMT  
 MS goes Open Source....with YOUR source.....
A lot of Jim Hubbard's post was interesting and worth considering.  However,
I guarantee you NOTHING is going to bring down programmer rates.  They will
keep going & going & going (not unlike the Energizer Bunny...).

If you're talking about major shrink-wrapped $$$ products and you're now
armed with some chunks of disassembled code, you still need PLENTY to turn
that stuff into a product that isn't an exact clone of whatever you're
stealing from (or else you get slapped with a major lawsuit).  So now you
have to offuscate your own stealing by building in new wrinkles or benefits
into your "new" product.  It will take a few serious eggheads to pull that
one off -- and that kind of talent is worth just as much money as the talent
it took to create the stuff you're trying to steal.

I also agree with the person who noted that groups that try to live off of
other's code will lose in the end because they'll waste too much time trying
to live out of another group's shadow, while the the original group
meanwhile is enhancing and trumping their own work.  It's a losing
proposition in a hugely competitive and rapidly changing environment.

But if you really want to go there, "stealing" in this manner is not unlike
the common practice of "sampling" sound data off already recorded musical
works to make your own work, which as we all know, is now a major part of
the recording industry.   Clone too closely with your stolen building-blocks
and you're facing legal action.  Use the stolen blocks to create a valid
work in its own right, and you deserve the $$$ selling your record brings
you.

Programmer rates will only go up because there just aren't enough eggheads
around to do all the stuff every corporation wants to get done.  And it will
only get "worse" (wink wink).  It only gets worse because the penetration of
this need in society deepens each year, while we keep turning out less and
less folks capable of doing it.  Not only do few people have the aptitude
for it, but among that group, even less are capable of keeping up with the
ever increasing rate of change.

I'd like to conclude by noting the ".NOT" joke is already stale.  I'm
studying this stuff because I'm sure it's gonna amount to .SHOWMETHEMONEY.


Quote:
> Before you go off coding happily into c# or "vb".net, I'd like you to do
me
> a favor.....give me all of your source code.

> .net?  I say .NOT!

> Jim Hubbard




Wed, 03 Sep 2003 10:26:51 GMT  
 MS goes Open Source....with YOUR source.....

Quote:
> I don't recall ever writing a non-trivial piece of code that could be
> reused in other applications.

With respect, that's not something to shout about <g>.

Quote:
>  Most of the code I write for clients is
> only applicable to their business.  In addition,  the code that I
> write for them becomes their property when I am gone.  If they don't
> protect it in some way, then that is their problem.

So its not your problem, that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist!?!

--
David.



Wed, 03 Sep 2003 12:14:34 GMT  
 MS goes Open Source....with YOUR source.....
I don't recall ever writing a non-trivial piece of code that could be
reused in other applications.  Most of the code I write for clients is
only applicable to their business.  In addition,  the code that I
write for them becomes their property when I am gone.  If they don't
protect it in some way, then that is their problem.

If I was developing the next killer first person simulation game I
would worry about the source code getting stolen.  However if I were
writing that kind of software I wouldn't be using VB or C# any way.

So what's the big deal?



Quote:

>>This is not true.  Nowadays, being a good programmer isn't about having
>>"secrets" that you jealously guard.  The best programmers I've met share
>>their ideas and knowledge, and still fetch excellent rates.  Of course, you
>>may have libraries of software that you wish to market and keep proprietry,
>>but your income as a salaried worker or contractor depends on your ability
>>to come up with the good ideas in the first place.

>I have to second this notion, adding that with our obviously in-progress
>transformation into a service economy, it is our skills, abilities, and ability
>to generate ideas which will rule our future days. Products themselves
>are becoming less meaningful, as evidenced by the open software
>industry, where it's really the service that people get when they participate
>that matters.

>Those who don't understand and embrace this inevitability will be
>victims of roadkill economics, just like the early 20th century agrarians
>who resisted industrialization.

>C//

Tom Childers
President, Tom Childers, Inc.

http://www.arltex.com


Tue, 02 Sep 2003 07:46:56 GMT  
 
 [ 17 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. PDO OODBMS goes Open Source

2. CImageList source-- GONE?

3. HELP: compiling MS C7 source in Borland C 4.5

4. MS Windows CAI program demo source wanted!

5. MS-DOS Profiler (PROBE source?)

6. MS-DOS NRO (an 'NROFF'- 'RNO'-like Source in C)

7. The MS Source Code Control Interface

8. MS VC++ 6.0 & MKS Source Integrity

9. Dependancy generation for ANSI C source code for MS-DOS

10. Might MS release source to explorer ?

11. Help sources for MS Visual C++ development environment

12. getopts() source for MS-DOS?

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software