Cat Fight in a Pet Store: J2EE vs. .NET
Subject:   .NET vs Java is bigger issue than just code
Date:   2003-12-18 19:51:56
From:   anonymous2
Response to: .NET vs Java is bigger issue than just code

"It is clear that microsoft is not offering anything new or improved with .NET. to the
development community."

The .NET CLI is very much an improvement for the development community.

"The motive of microsoft is to repackage open standards as a Microsoft product
to be marketed to masses who are not educated..."

That statement itself is pure flaming IMO!

"Micosoft wants to use its 95% of market share..."

Yet another uneducated statement as Microsoft by far does not entertain a 95% market share in server side technologies (what you are mentioning is their Desktop OS and browser market share), which J2EE and .NET are within the scope of this article.

"...they only care
that it works as Microsoft has conditioned them for it to work."

Conditioning isn't a flaw introduced by Microsoft, it is merely a part of marketing which is employed by any vendor - SUN too.

"It is up to the open source community to expose .NET for what it is, a cheap rip off
of existing standards."

The open source community has exposed .NET for what it is. Not a cheap rip off of existing standards, but a much needed evolution of J2EE already great architecture. None less than Ximian have launched the MONO project bringing the .NET Framework to the open source community and porting it to virtually any other hardware/OS vendor. Since the open source community rarely does something without a true need and appreciation, I believe that is a compelling statement in favour of .NET. Apart from that, C# and the .NET Framework are open standards themselves, embrace (here and their unobtrusively extend them too) open standards, and are only tied to Windows API's where it was feasable beyond doubt!

Concluding, I think it is healthy for J2EE to have a competitor and .NET IMO is certainly proving to be a noteworthy competitor that will hopefully force SUN to reconsider their sluggish responsiveness.