Why does NET Framework exist?

All I wanted to download was an encryption program to archive
my tax folder and encrypt it.

Googling, I find that truecrypt was deprecated in favor of
axcrypt, which is find because once a year I just want to
use the most compatible free encryption program to archive
and password protect my tax folders.

It was easy to download and archive the standalone installer
for axcrypt on winxp http://www.axcrypt.net/download/

But when I try to install axcript, it complains that .NET
Framework has to be installed. And when I go to the page
it tells me, I can't find a full installer (that doesn't
require the web) because I want to archive the installers
also with the DVD that I burn.

All I can find is a stinking "web" installer, which is just
a word for not-the-real-installer. I don't want to trust
that the web installer will work in years from now, so, I
just want the full installer.

I'm so frustrated that all this work has to be done for
no good reason. Why do programs REQUIRE .NET stuff anyway?

What good is .NET anyway?

On Tue, 24 May 2016 18:07:08 +0000 (UTC), Judith Kenner
wrote:

All I wanted to download was an encryption program to archive
my tax folder and encrypt it.

Googling, I find that truecrypt was deprecated in favor of
axcrypt, which is find because once a year I just want to
use the most compatible free encryption program to archive
and password protect my tax folders.

It was easy to download and archive the standalone installer
for axcrypt on winxp http://www.axcrypt.net/download/

But when I try to install axcript, it complains that .NET
Framework has to be installed. And when I go to the page
it tells me, I can't find a full installer (that doesn't
require the web) because I want to archive the installers
also with the DVD that I burn.

All I can find is a stinking "web" installer, which is just
a word for not-the-real-installer. I don't want to trust
that the web installer will work in years from now, so, I
just want the full installer.

I'm so frustrated that all this work has to be done for
no good reason. Why do programs REQUIRE .NET stuff anyway?

What good is .NET anyway?

Here is the Microsoft explanation of their .net framework product.

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...vs.110%29.aspx

Stormin' Norman wrote:

Here is the Microsoft explanation of their .net framework product.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...vs.110%29.aspx

I thank you for that pointer, and I read it, but, I must say that
you pointed me to a meaningless M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G explanation which
means it's filled to the brim with total crap which is meant to make
the most humdrum and useless things *sound* important.

It doesn't tell me *anything* about why "I" would want it.

Nonetheless, since you took the time to point me to it, I took
the time to read it.

Here's what it says and what that "means" (to me at least)...
The .NET Framework is a technology that supports building and running
the next generation of applications and XML Web services.
The .NET Framework is designed to fulfill the following objectives:
To provide a consistent object-oriented programming environment whether
object code is stored and executed locally, executed locally but
Internet-distributed, or executed remotely.
To provide a code-execution environment that minimizes software deployment
and versioning conflicts.
To provide a code-execution environment that promotes safe execution of code,
including code created by an unknown or semi-trusted third party.
To provide a code-execution environment that eliminates the performance
problems of scripted or interpreted environments.
To make the developer experience consistent across widely varying types
of applications, such as Windows-based applications and Web-based applications.
To build all communication on industry standards to ensure that code based
on the .NET Framework can integrate with any other code.
-------------------
MARKETING DESCRIPTION:
The .NET Framework is a technology that supports building and running
the next generation of applications and XML Web services.
MEANING TO AN APP USER:
Absolutely nothing is useful to a user in that sentence.
It's just meaningless bull to a person just installing software.
-------------------
MARKETING DESCRIPTION:
The .NET Framework is designed to fulfill the following objectives:
MEANING TO AN APP USER:
All those objectives can be done *without* Net framework!
So, it's just useless bloat, according to the marketing description.
-------------------
MARKETING DESCRIPTION:
To provide a consistent object-oriented programming environment
whether object code is stored and executed locally, executed locally
but Internet-distributed, or executed remotely.
MEANING TO AN APP USER:
Huh? This is for a coder.
This is useless for a user.
Plus, a coder can write in an object-oriented language *without*
NET Framework anyway. So it adds zero value.
-------------------
MARKETING DESCRIPTION:
To provide a code-execution environment that minimizes software
deployment and versioning conflicts.
MEANING TO AN APP USER:
Huh? What? Nobody can write versions of code without NET Framework?
Since when is a "code execution environment" needed over and above
Windows? Does NET Framework replace Windows? Nope. SO it's useless.
-------------------
MARKETING DESCRIPTION:
To provide a code-execution environment that promotes safe execution
of code, including code created by an unknown or semi-trusted third party.
MEANING TO AN APP USER:
Huh? See above. What total bull crap they write.
Code execution environment? Who are they fooling?
-------------------
MARKETING DESCRIPTION:
To provide a code-execution environment that eliminates the performance
problems of scripted or interpreted environments.
MEANING TO AN APP USER:
What? Another "code execution environment" bull crap "advantage"?
Can't people write scripts and use interpreters *without* NET Framework?
-------------------
MARKETING DESCRIPTION:
To make the developer experience consistent across widely varying
types of applications, such as Windows-based applications and Web-based applications.
MEANING TO AN APP USER:
What? The "developer experience". Why would a user care about the
developers having a consistent experience across dozens of programs?
-------------------
MARKETING DESCRIPTION:
To build all communication on industry standards to ensure that code
based on the .NET Framework can integrate with any other code.
MEANING TO AN APP USER:
Oh great. It ensures that Net framework works.
-------------------

Do you see what I'm talking about?
There is ZERO value to the user of Net framework as far as I can tell.

Does anyone know of any value to the app *user* of net framework?

Wolf K wrote:

And use an encrypter that doesn't need .NET to install.

That's the right answer, really.

Gizmo tells me the best free encryptors are
1. AxCrypt
2. AES Crypt

In that order:
http://www.techsupportalert.com/best...on-utility.htm

I generally take the recommendations, so I tried to install AxCrypt
but Gizmo didn't say it was a POS that *requires* the NET Framework
bloatware just to work.

Neither did the AxCrypt web site mention that it's only half an
installer, althought the AxCrypt installer did very gracefully
point me to the Windows 10 site which had the Net Framework
bloatware, but not the FULL installer (just the half installer).

So, AxCrypt is a loser from the start, in that it only is 1/2
an installation and it only points you to another 1/2 of an
installation, for about 1/4 of an installation - which is an
immediate fail had I known it was that bad from the start.

I just want to encrypt a file for heaven's sake, not install a ton
of crapware just so that developers can have a "consistent experience"
which is all that the MARKETING site said was of any value to
NET Framework (which by the way, is *already* on my system, since
every version of the idiotic NET FRAMEWORK bloatware is incompatible
with every other version of the exact same thing.

I still don't know why NET FRAMEWORK exists other than to make
life miserable for the users.

Anyway, I'm done ranting. Now I'll try to install the second-best
free encryption tool named AES Crypt at www.aescrypt.com

Let's hope its developers shunned the NET Framework marketing tool.

On 24/05/2016 19:51, Wolf K wrote:
On 2016-05-24 14:33, Judith Kenner wrote:
Stormin' Norman wrote:

Here is the Microsoft explanation of their .net framework product.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...vs.110%29.aspx
I thank you for that pointer, and I read it, but, I must say that
you pointed me to a meaningless M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G explanation which
means it's filled to the brim with total crap which is meant to make
the most humdrum and useless things*sound* important.

It doesn't tell me*anything* about why "I" would want it.
[etc]

Nice analysis. ;-)

As always, Wikipedia delivers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework

".NET Framework (pronounced dot net) is a software framework developed
by Microsoft that runs primarily on Microsoft Windows. It includes a
large class library known as Framework Class Library (FCL) and provides
language interoperability (each language can use code written in other
languages) across several programming languages. Programs written for
.NET Framework execute in a software environment (as contrasted to
hardware environment) known as Common Language Runtime (CLR), an
application virtual machine that provides services such as security,
memory management, and exception handling. (As such, computer code
written using .NET Framework is called "managed code".) FCL and CLR
together constitute .NET Framework."

Interpreted as best I can:

".NET is a method of enabling programs to be written for a variety of
platforms by creating a virtual machine within which the program runs."

As far as I can tell, it has a ways to go, but is a good first step
towards OS-blind programming. That being said, I don't think it's
achieved much market share, but since as a user I wouldn't know when a
program is running on .NET, that claim doesn't amount to much.

Have a good day,


Yes, so in theory it should mean there are more developers out there
developing more good stuff that users want.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

On 24/05/2016 19:47, Judith Kenner wrote:
Wolf K wrote:

And use an encrypter that doesn't need .NET to install.

That's the right answer, really.

Gizmo tells me the best free encryptors are
1. AxCrypt
2. AES Crypt

In that order:
http://www.techsupportalert.com/best...on-utility.htm

I generally take the recommendations, so I tried to install AxCrypt
but Gizmo didn't say it was a POS that *requires* the NET Framework
bloatware just to work.

Neither did the AxCrypt web site mention that it's only half an
installer, althought the AxCrypt installer did very gracefully
point me to the Windows 10 site which had the Net Framework
bloatware, but not the FULL installer (just the half installer).

So, AxCrypt is a loser from the start, in that it only is 1/2
an installation and it only points you to another 1/2 of an
installation, for about 1/4 of an installation - which is an
immediate fail had I known it was that bad from the start.

I just want to encrypt a file for heaven's sake, not install a ton
of crapware just so that developers can have a "consistent experience"
which is all that the MARKETING site said was of any value to
NET Framework (which by the way, is *already* on my system, since
every version of the idiotic NET FRAMEWORK bloatware is incompatible
with every other version of the exact same thing.

I still don't know why NET FRAMEWORK exists other than to make
life miserable for the users.

Anyway, I'm done ranting. Now I'll try to install the second-best
free encryption tool named AES Crypt at www.aescrypt.com

Let's hope its developers shunned the NET Framework marketing tool.


Which version of .NET did it need?

I always thought a recent .NET was included in Win10 just as it was in
Win 7.

Or maybe it's an optional update if you do a check for updates.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

Judith Kenner wrote:
Stormin' Norman wrote:

Here is the Microsoft explanation of their .net framework product.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...vs.110%29.aspx

I thank you for that pointer, and I read it, but, I must say that
you pointed me to a meaningless M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G explanation

Code libraries exist to reduce developer effort.

Say I write the following program in some
imaginary language.

Begin
printf( sqrt(x) );
End

Well, I wouldn't be done yet. Now I have
to sit down and write myself a square_root()
function. Maybe I have to review my grade
school notes, on how to work out a square root.

In a .NET world, there is already a sqrt()
function. If I "include" the .NET materials
by reference, in my project, I'm saved
the labor of writing that function.
Now, my program is only three lines
(plus who knows how big the manifest or
project files might be). The executable
can be tiny too. Maybe it's only a 20KB
download, with the 500MB .NET library the
user already has, doing my SQRT() for me.

*******

And rather than the "numbers" associated with
it, being a "version", they identify the layers
in a cake.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...DotNet.svg.png

The functionality becomes higher and higher level
as you go up the stack. The design was reasonable
up to about version 3.5. Later versions are introduced,
then not backported to all supported OSes, as a means
of "handcuffing" customers. So if some oaf binds
..NET 4.6 to a "Store App", perhaps you cannot
run that on Windows 7. So at some point, it became
a tool of leverage, rather than "the developers friend".

Once a program "pulls in" a layer in the cake,
the customer sucker is then stuck doing Windows
Updates on that layer, forever. If there are
fifteen .NET updates waiting for me in Windows
update, then ngen.exe is triggered to recompile
all assemblies on the machine, wasting my time,
and sometimes, even preventing the OS from
offering services for a few minutes at boot time.
I had this happen on Windows 7 the other day, and
used my "good ole" ngen.exe command to
clear the queue of recompile jobs. For some
reason, the OS did not hurry up and clean up this
mess, and then decided to do a few right after
boot. On WinXP, this was permanently busted,
which is when I learned of what command to use.
Now that WinXP no longer gets Windows Updates,
I've seen my last "ngen.exe" run on WinXP.

So on the one hand, a customer downloads a 500MB
library just the one time, and then as many tiny
programs as the user could want, leverage that
library. But any semblance of "reasonable"
goes out the window, with respect to cost
to the user (a nuisance), and the never ending
newer cake layers. (Which as you could guess,
they have to squeeze their buttcheeks together
pretty hard to come up with materials to
put in the next cake layer.)

And it may not last forever. The Win10 programming
environment, isn't exactly promoting .NET. Now
the idea is, developers are supposed to use
HTML and JS to write code. So I really don't
know how much longer we'll see .NET and
Silverlight. But I suppose, with so much inertia
invested in that cake, we'll be using that
cake... forever. Eradicating the cake will be
tough and expensive.

Now you know why, when I write a program (which isn't
often), I pull in *source*, not libraries, so my
work of art doesn't depend on anybody. (I compile my
programs in MinGW, as Visual Studio is a ridiculous
development environment. Intended for people who
like fixing busted stuff.)

And while it may look like an analog of Java,
at least with Java you can "write once, run anywhere".
Whereas .NET today, is only on Windows.

*******

There is this. But I don't know how this fits
into the picture. Will it make .NET "as good as Java" ?
I thought Mono was all but dead, but I see the keyword
Xamarin is in the article (a company just recently
bought by Microsoft). This stuff is like a bad
soap opera...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)

To date, I don't think *any* Mono experiment here, worked...

Paul

On Tue, 24 May 2016 18:33:23 +0000 (UTC), Judith Kenner
wrote:

I thank you for that pointer, and I read it, but, I must say that
you pointed me to a meaningless M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G explanation which
means it's filled to the brim with total crap which is meant to make
the most humdrum and useless things *sound* important.

You might consider switching to decaf. That said, since you don't
like the Microsoft description, the simple explanation is; some
developers choose to build applications which utilize the .net
framework libraries. If you don't want .net, then use a different
application.


As for why it exists, as with virtually everything from Microsoft, it
exists to generate revenue. The more developers who write
applications which rely on Microsoft libraries, the greater the
likelihood that users will see Windows as indispensable.

On 5/24/2016 2:07 PM, Judith Kenner wrote:
All I wanted to download was an encryption program to archive
my tax folder and encrypt it.

Googling, I find that truecrypt was deprecated in favor of
axcrypt, which is find because once a year I just want to
use the most compatible free encryption program to archive
and password protect my tax folders.

It was easy to download and archive the standalone installer
for axcrypt on winxp http://www.axcrypt.net/download/

But when I try to install axcript, it complains that .NET
Framework has to be installed. And when I go to the page
it tells me, I can't find a full installer (that doesn't
require the web) because I want to archive the installers
also with the DVD that I burn.

All I can find is a stinking "web" installer, which is just
a word for not-the-real-installer. I don't want to trust
that the web installer will work in years from now, so, I
just want the full installer.

I'm so frustrated that all this work has to be done for
no good reason. Why do programs REQUIRE .NET stuff anyway?

What good is .NET anyway?

7 Zip free from SOurceForge

On Tue, 24 May 2016 18:07:08 +0000 (UTC)
Judith Kenner wrote:

it complains that .NET
Framework has to be installed.

Without the framework what will hold
up the net?

On 24/05/2016 2:33 PM, Judith Kenner wrote:
Do you see what I'm talking about?
There is ZERO value to the user of Net framework as far as I can tell.

Does anyone know of any value to the app*user* of net framework?

Yes, the value to the user is that if that user has a program that
requires the .NET framework, then that user can run that program if the
..NET framework is installed. No use in being cranky about it, you need
it to run a program, then you have to install it, simple as that. It
makes no other difference to you. If you have a program that needs it,
and you need that program, then you need to install it.

Yousuf Khan

In Judith Kenner
wrote:

It doesn't tell me *anything* about why "I" would want it.

You would want it in order to run the software you chose.

Think of it as needing a Java virtual machine on on your system in order
to run Java software.

--
St. Paul, MN

On Tue, 24 May 2016 18:07:08 +0000 (UTC), Judith Kenner wrote:

I'm so frustrated that all this work has to be done for
no good reason. Why do programs REQUIRE .NET stuff anyway?

The fact that almost everyting can be done without .NET only made me
conclude that it's because the the development tools are mostly free - even
the main development environment application isn't crippled much. This makes
it excellent for all software developers. Commercial and non-commercial, and
companies and private software developers.

The other reason is that it was made by the same company that made Windows,
so seamless integration, feature coverage and compatibility toward the OS
are extremely high in comparison with other development tools from other
companies, open source projects, or private developers.

The last reason is because some software developers still think that newer
applications are always better, so they choose the newer development tools
despite that the older one is still very much capable of completing the job.

What good is .NET anyway?

For consumers? None except that in general, .NET applications are generally
consume less disk space because most of the .NET libraries are already
installed in the system.

That being said, .NET applications themselves consume memory of nearly twice
larger than those without .NET (e.g. ATL, MFC, GTK, VCL). The only framework
that compete with .NET in terms of memory consumption is the open source Qt
framework.

On Tue, 24 May 2016 17:11:34 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 24/05/2016 2:33 PM, Judith Kenner wrote:
Do you see what I'm talking about?
There is ZERO value to the user of Net framework as far as I can tell.

Does anyone know of any value to the app*user* of net framework?

Yes, the value to the user is that if that user has a program that
requires the .NET framework, then that user can run that program if the
.NET framework is installed. No use in being cranky about it, you need
it to run a program, then you have to install it, simple as that. It
makes no other difference to you. If you have a program that needs it,
and you need that program, then you need to install it.


"Cranky", excellent description, an under used word.

Brian Gregory wrote:

Yes, so in theory it should mean there are more developers out there
developing more good stuff that users want.

OK. I get that. It lets a lousy developer code better software.
OK. Score 1/2 point for the users.