>>>
>>>There is FUD in a move from one platform to another, no doubt, but my main issue is that M$ has screwed me once and I don't want them to have that opportunity again.
>>
>>That more than makes sense to me. Especially since they didn't go out of their way to provide a migration for the huge investment of legacy code that has been created.
>>
>>They did the same thing to VB programmers. Will we be surprised when they invent the next new platform and do the same to .NET developers???
>
>They will, it's just a matter of time. Effectively, they've been doing some of it in each version of .NET. They change things that break code, they go off in different directions, they put forth new data acess techniques, and eventually they will get rid of .NET completely and we'll have to rewrite everything again.
>
>It's interesting what we let them do, just because they have a EULA. Imagine if a manufacturer of hammers could stop supporting hammers and all its old hammers just stopped working. Why is this allowed with software? Why doesn't business get Congress to force M$ and others to offer a clear an reasonably easy path to the new technology or keep supporting the old technology or open-source or sell the old technology to someone who will? Instead M$ has you over a barrel and can force you into a move despite the fact that your app may work just fine and you feel it's got 5 (or whatever) additional years left in it. I certainly wouldn't suggest that people use assembly or Fortran programs forever just because they still work, but shouldn't it be up to the owners of the software? Shouldn't they be able to change on their timetable? There are, of course, similarities with hard goods since a car might be discontinued and it will eventually be unrepairable due to lack of parts, but software is intangible and easily changed, so why should M$ (and others) get the right to break my product and effectively cause damage to my company and clients?
>
>Perhaps if they abandon their software, the clauses in the EULA preventing the decompilation of their software should be invalidated.

A hammer is slightly simpler than a software development language/tool/framework, don't you think?

Also, they are not trying to force anyone to move to .NET.

Please don't get me wrong because I don't completely trust Microsoft, either. But it would genuinely surprise me if "they get rid of .NET completely," as John put it and you agreed, any time soon.

Besides, what ever led anyone to believe they could keep using the same tools forever in the software business? I have been writing software since 1980, the mainframe assembly language days, and never for a minute expected that. In fact it's one of the things that made this line of work appeal to me, that you don't just drill the same rivet for 40 years. That would drive me nuts!