I am trying to convince my web server admins to upgrade our version of the .NET framework from 2.0 to 3.5. I was wondering what are the best reasons to upgrade, from a server admin prospective. Obviously, there are the over arching ideas of keeping up to date, security, and so forth. I am looking for some hard and fast reasons that will make it harder for them to say no.
+6
A:
It should not be a major deal for them to upgrade the .NET framework version because it is not going to affect what you already have there (such as 2.0 apps). It will also enable you to develop new applications in the updated framework so that things like LINQ and better ASP.NET AJAX is built in.
Talking about convincing them to upgrade actual applications to the 3.5 framework is a different story altogether and you will need to do some sort of cost-benefit analysis on upgrading your applications to convince them (if this is in fact what you were looking for).
TheTXI
2009-05-20 14:13:40
A:
.Net 3.5 installs next to, not in place of .Net 2.0, so it isn't an upgrade in the sense that everything suddenly gets better (or worse) or actually changes the existing server in any way.
The value is being able to develop new code that takes advantage of the new features in the framework.
Geoff
2009-05-20 14:14:10
Well, not *quite* true; it adds service packs to both 2.0 and 3.0, both of which should at least be validated...
Marc Gravell
2009-05-20 14:16:48
+1
A:
If you use AJAX then ASP.Net AJAX was inbuilt for 3.5 and also LINQ for SQL is a good plus
But here is a site .Net Frameworks that shows the difference and added features from .net frameworks 1.0 and on. Compare those features to what you'll actually use to show its a huge plus.
TStamper
2009-05-20 14:14:24
A:
A good argument in favor of upgrading is that you are not upgrading the .NET runtime (the CLR) by upgrading from 2.0 to 3.5. From a server admin perspective the .NET 3.5 install is really just adding new libraries.
Andrew Hare
2009-05-20 14:14:31
+4
A:
From a server admin perspective? Not a lot, to be honest. The .NET framework is mainly a developer stack (LINQ, ASP.NET MVC, etc). The decision of which version of the OS/IIS would be more interesting from the admin angle.
I think you're going to have to justify 3.5 on a development basis (offsetting the resource cost of deployment/validation etc), not a sysadmin one.
Marc Gravell
2009-05-20 14:14:38
Agreed. Applying the update to .NET will only require some very minor checkups to make sure old stuff doesn't get effected, which would be rare. Typically this would be something that a SysAdmin could do without having really to worry much about it. At the same time, unless you are wanting to apply those patches to the 2.0 libraries, there shouldn't be a need to upgrade if you aren't planning on future development using the updated framework.
TheTXI
2009-05-20 14:29:08
A:
Not sure if this would sway them from a server admin perspective, but I think LINQ support and Silverlight support are two of the more attractive features with 3.5.
Overhed
2009-05-20 14:14:46
A:
The best argument is going to be more for the application developers -- new functionality. As long as they're releasing security patches for .NET 2.0 it'll be hard to make a pure sysadmin-y type argument.
A better tack might be to persuade the higher-ups. "Hey, there's this new functionality like ASP.NET AJAX that's going to make us way more productive, produce more functionality in a shorter amount of time". Then they can lean on the sysadmins.
Clyde
2009-05-20 14:15:26