>Jess,
>
>Your arguments are interesting. From someone who has built two frameworks for two different clients let me respond.
>
>>Unlike some who are becoming dependent to two or three instead of MS alone that is if they decided to be a plain user of the framework only, and not studying the architecture behind.
>
>These two clients are dependant on me and their staff to support and evolve their frameworks. The cost to these clients to add a feature to the framework would buy a half dozen upgrades to a commercial framework.
>
>>Frameworks are good but if a developer wanted to benefit even on the long term basis, he/she should study the architecture behind, otherwise, it is another unstoppable bucks of money will come out of his/her pocket for the next versions.
>
>The long term costs of maintaining a framework is far greater than the cost to upgrade a comercial framework. One can call this dependency on the vendor or one can see it as having the vendor working for you (and quite cheaply as well). You build the apps and the vendor builds the framework.

Absolutely yes to this if a developer is satisfied with the ideas or inputs of others. Dependency is not bad at all but you will be confined to their ideas. We are developers with different unique ideas. Cost is sometimes offset by intangibles benefited by developers who are willing explore beyond their comfort zone. That's why we are 'developers' not 'end users'. Are we developers of what? Maybe app for end-users or frameworks for developers/end-users...