Flutterby™! : .NET terms

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

.NET terms

2003-08-25 17:10:53.1503+00 by Dan Lyke 5 comments

Uh oh. I'm running Windows Update on my home XP box, and reading through a gazillion license agreements, when I come across:

  • You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.

This seems to mean that my discussing relative speeds of managed versus unmanaged code is in violation of the license agreement. So, sorry, no more ragging on the speed (or lack thereof) of C#.

[ related topics: Dan's Life Microsoft Software Engineering Work, productivity and environment ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: .NET terms made: 2003-08-25 17:29:58.818581+00 by: td

Unless some other provision forbids it, it sounds to me like you can rag all you want, as long as you don't mention test results. For example, you could publish your benchmark code & let people run it for themselves. .NET lets you write code for third-party use, without them having to agree to uSoft's EULA, right?

#Comment Re: .NET terms made: 2003-08-25 20:00:34.3092+00 by: baylink

Is anyone surprised that Microsoft continues to put unrelated, ridiculous terms deeply embeeded within it's EULA's? Just be glad you aren't a HIPAA controlled establishment: you can't run XP at *all*. (Must run most current OS's, can't run XP SP2 because of the "must allow Microsoft to snoop as root" clause snuck into the OS EULA in the *service pack*.

I keep saying it: stick a fork in Microsoft -- end of business 2005, they're done.

An unnamed MS exec has said that Longhorn (you know, the OS that won't run *any* old code) is a "bet the company move".

Yup. It is.

They still have monopoly reflexes, but they're less and less a monopoly.

#Comment Re: .NET terms made: 2003-08-26 01:43:06.285631+00 by: Dan Lyke

td, yep, that sounds like a reasonable workaround. And I've run into this in a license agreement before, just not in something where I'd actually made comments about relative speeds already.

Jay, I think you're optimistic. And ya know, they already gave the "bet the company" spiel on the whole .NET thing. But yeah, for personal use I'm moving everything I can to other platforms, and I keep promising to start on the friends I support who run Windows soon, but that's going to be a lot of pain while I try to explain why "x" doesn't work.

#Comment Re: .NET terms made: 2003-08-26 01:56:40.908149+00 by: ebradway

I dread the day (and I know it's coming soon) when I have to venture into .NET. It seems all the companies that managed to stay afloat after switching to all-MS platform, are being dragged into .NET (I'm sure by the means that MS always drags people onto their latest API - by breaking the old API).

The software I use daily, ESRI ArcGIS, is currently Windows-only. I'm sure they have developers itching to jump into .NET (it's already a very internet-savvy application).

But MS is probably going to get their hands forced at some point to start putting effort back into older systems as businesses become more and more conservative with their applications. The dot-com crash is giving the more conservative managers at big companies more leverage to say "let's focus on getting what we already have working before we jump into something new." And at least around Chattanooga, that HIPAA rule will keep about 15K desktops on Win2K (and that's a conservative estimate of the number of desktops operated by BCBS TN, Cigna, and Unum/Provident).

#Comment Re: .NET terms made: 2003-08-27 16:02:24.671839+00 by: baylink

Oh, W2K hasn't had that game played on it (yet), huh? Good to know, I think.

Nope, I don't see any reason to modify that opinion yet. I've got 2.5 years to be right.