>>Removing the .NET name from products...
>
>Gee, Bruce. That's just marketing clarification going on and pulling back the reins on ".NET" being splashed on too many products, which caused confusion.

Quite so. MS bit off more than it could chew, with the original naming plan.

>.NET -- the technology -- meaning .NET Framework, ASP.NET, ADO.NET, Visual Studio, etc -- is alive and thriving, not having trouble, as you say.

Of course I can't help but hear about this .NET popularity amongst folks on the UT, and in some other websites - but, just for example, IT managers at my agency still will not yet allow *any* .NET development or apps (not that some dev people are not experimenting with .NET anyway, of course). But it's pretty late in the .NET game for IT brass to be so restrictive on .NET. I have gotten no solid reasoning on why .NET apps are not yet allowed at all, except that they are still waiting to see how everything falls out over time. A *little bit* conservative...but there's no .NET here yet.

And I am in a slight fed "tech-vacuum" here, but still, we are upgrading most other software, including vfp8 - but still avoiding .NET entirely - which is the other reason I gave my answer: that .NET is not doing as well as I might have expected for a big MS technology plan. Maybe it's not "in trouble" exactly, but it's also not looking very good from my perspective.