This is a discussion on Is Whidbey the beginning of the end for the developer ? - Framework and Interface Programming ; Then, by your definition, all software "added-in" to the OS become part of the OS. In this case, MS Excel is part of my OS? "RobertW" <RobertW@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:9915CD50-0B1B-47CB-8F17-9DEB8D00A802@microsoft.com... > Call it what you will.. As a former ...
Then, by your definition, all software "added-in" to the OS become part of
the OS. In this case, MS Excel is part of my OS?
"RobertW" <RobertW@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> Call it what you will.. As a former professional OS developer (UNIX), I
> consider all ths "services" (of a server or workstation ) that are (for
> most part) included with the OS or sold as add-ons (by the developer of
> OS), as part of the Operating Sytem. The OS is more than a kernel.
> "Scott M." wrote:
>> Actually it's not really the OS that is doing the authentication. It is
>> Domain Server using Access Control Lists (ACL's). There is, in fact, an
>> interface to these ACL's as you suggested would be a good idea.
>> "RobertW" <RobertW@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> It all looks great but I was a bit concerned that it aims to reduce
>> >> the amount of code that needs to be written by the developer by 70%.
>> > ..
>> >> For instance, I was particularly pleased with my implementation of
>> >> Roles Based Forms Authentication that I had mastered in C# but now I
>> >> understand that it will all be wasted now that this functionality will
>> >> be covered by the new Membership classes.
>> > Pardon me for saying so, but isn't role-base forms authentication
>> > something
>> > that the OS "should" handle for you easily, if the OS, in fact, is
>> > doing
>> > the
>> > authentication in the end. Should you really have to be clever to do
>> > something so basic?? In the end, no, programming was not meant to be
>> > difficult.
>> > If you studied computer science, then you should be familiar with the
>> > concept of "abstracting" or "black-boxing" (back when I went to school,
>> > object-oriented programming wasn't "hip" yet, but same idea).
>> > Basically,
>> > if
>> > the writers of the OS (including libraries) are competant enough, you
>> > should
>> > get an interface that hides as much details of what goes on behind the
>> > scenes
>> > as possible; you shouldn't have to know how the OS does things in order
>> > to
>> > develop a program for it (especially since .NET is supposed to be OS
>> > independent and even run on Linux with mono). Do you think your
>> > "role-based
>> > forms authentication" would run on Linux as you had written it? (and
>> > if
>> > you
>> > tell me you don't care, you're missing the point of .NET programming.)
>> > Disclaimer: I am not an authority, I am not an expert, and my opinion
>> > doesn't amount to a hill of beans as I haven't written a program in
>> > over 2
>> > years. I probably won't come back to look for a reply. I'm here
>> > because
>> > I'm
>> > about to start learning C#, mostly for my own amusement (and who knows,
>> > I
>> > might look for a work as a developer again in the future). It sounds
>> > like
>> > I'll have to pay attention to the upgrades coming in .NET as they might
>> > make
>> > my life simpler (of course, remembering that I'll probably have to toss
>> > in
>> > a
>> > chunk of change to upgrade, which i'm not sure i'm willing to do.)
>> > -Rob