×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Buys Teamprise, Will Ship Linux Tools

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the things-get-complicated dept.

Programming 200

spongman writes "Microsoft's Senior Vice President, Developer Division, S. Somasegar has announced that Microsoft has acquired Teamprise from Sourcegear, LLC, and will be shipping it as part of the upcoming Visual Studio 2010 release. Teamprise is an Eclipse plugin (and related tools) for connecting to Team Foundation Server, Microsoft's source-control/project-management system. What's most interesting about this is not only that Microsoft has realized that heterogeneous development platforms are important to their developer customers, but the fact that Microsoft themselves will now be developing and shipping products based on those heterogeneous platforms, including 5 versions of Unix."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

200 comments

Logic (-1, Offtopic)

DirtyCanuck (1529753) | more than 4 years ago | (#30083848)

How can Microsoft control Open Source? Flood the gates with software to get a foot in the door. They (and google) both have the manpower to really take over what the "standard" open source operating system is. Having control over the masses from the ground up is crucial to success. Just ask.... Microsoft.

Re:Logic (3, Insightful)

WarJolt (990309) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084608)

Microsoft doesn't need to control open source. Microsoft just needs to put it in a pretty box that someone is willing to pay for.

Re:Logic (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30084712)

Much like Apple did. This isn't a poor attempt at a troll -- if Microsoft want a hold on open-source software they could do worse than follow the kind of approach Apple took. Leave many of the guts the same, but pay professionals to fully sculpt the UI that the open-source programmer is less likely to be interested in designing. This wouldn't necessarily have to be an operating system (why would Microsoft want an open-source OS to compete with Windows? As a replacement, perhaps, but given the money they make from Windows I'd doubt they'll concede defeat in selling operating systems easily) but any software at all. I'm sure most people here are well aware that presentation and useability are two of open-source software's failings. Too many people say "But I don't care how it looks. If it works, what more do I want?" and forget that this isn't how the vast bulk of people think...

Re:Logic (4, Insightful)

wisty (1335733) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084772)

Microsoft has a policy to not use open source, because they can't guarantee it's pedigree. If a malicious person puts stolen code into an OSS project (or more realistically, if a programmer uses company resources to develop the code, without permission from the company; or somebody pastes GPL code into a BSD project) then people who rely on the code might be vulnerable to lawsuits. http://weblogs.asp.net/jgalloway/archive/2007/05/02/why-microsoft-can-t-ship-open-source-code.aspx [asp.net]

At least, that's their excuse.

If open source was such a dangerous thing to touch, then I think Google, IBM and Apple would have been hit already.

Re:Logic (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30084822)

Wrong reasoning for IBM and Google.
Some time ago (don't know if it is still this way) IBM was divided basically in two separate blocks, one working on OSS and the other on proprietary closed source software with the veto of the two sharing any piece of code for fear of accidenta infringement.

Google, instead, offers basically no proprietary, closed source software. The software is either on their server (and thus allowed to contain GPL code and still be kept private because it is not distributed) or OOS (Chrome). Possible exception: Picasa, I have to check :)

Re:Logic (3, Insightful)

the_womble (580291) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084980)

Surely any code could have code copied in breach of copyright in it?

Re:Logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30085838)

Yes, but if it is closed source, it is much harder to find.

Re:Logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30086098)

Thus only copyright-breaching criminals use closed source..

Re:Logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30086136)

and in a leap of logic: all closed source is stolen code.

Re:Logic (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085810)

There is always some risk of infringing code getting into your products through the actions of either your employers or third parties who provide the code to you (and there are very few companies who don't use code licensed from third parties). OSS has the downsides though that it may be harder to find who to pin the blame on and that by making your code public you increase the risk of someone finding the infringement and suing you over it.

Still I think the post you linked is overblowing the risk. As you say a number of companies with pretty deep pockets ship OSS and even MS was (and maybe still is) shipping some BSD code in the TCP/IP stuff.

P.S. The post you linked doesn't seem to be actual comment from MS just comment from someone who claims he wrote the post after speaking to "someone who is in a position to really understand both Microsoft and open source" whatever that is supposed to mean.

Re:Logic (4, Interesting)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085144)

Microsoft has the manpower and the money to deliver. Their problem is backwards compatibility cruft and hardware support if they would start over.

Given the fact that Linux already poses a thread to Windows, it would not hurt for Microsoft do develop and releasy a Unix(y), free software OS alongside of Windows. Why?

A) To prove that they can actually make a good OS. Press and restecpa right there.
B) They can offer a stable and advanced OS to people/companies that do not care about legacy compatibility.
C) They can always port over a closed source version of Office and make it compatible with exchange and whatnot (and release that code under a free software license that is like the GPL, but isn't so that Linux projects can't take over that very code
D) Keep marketshare. If people don't want to use Windows anyway; they can use their other OS.

Everybody would probably be happy.

Re:Logic (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085508)

Microsoft doesn't need to control open source. Microsoft just needs to put it in a pretty box that someone is willing to pay for.

With a couple of proprietary additions (additions, not changes which would be subject to the GPL) so that it's incompatible with other versions.

Re:Logic (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30084888)

LOL. And what ? 0.87% of the desktop users would care, the rest wouldn't.

Its funny how Linux has only succeeded in places where either its completely stripped down to not allow user interaction (busybox) or completely maintained where user interaction is not needed (servers). Funny that, its almost like normal people have complete rejected it from a usability standpoint.

Maybe the Linux devs need to make a trip to Redmond,WA to learn how to make an OS that 90% of the world uses on their desktops.

Linux is (still) for nerds. Windows is for average people. OSX is for gay people who like shiny stuff and black turtlenecks.

Fully integrated Mono on Linux with Eclipse? (4, Interesting)

deanston (1252868) | more than 4 years ago | (#30083852)

I rather have the equivalent of VS on Linux than just another Eclipse plug-in. Here comes the Embrace...

The more things change... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30084562)

Microsoft themselves will now be developing and shipping products based on those heterogeneous platforms, including 5 versions of Unix.

It isn't the first time. Microsoft used to provide tools for accessing Visual SourceSafe repositories from UNIX. Needless to say, these tools were utterly terrible yet allowed them to claim that VSS "supported UNIX". I don't expect Microsoft to go out of their way to "support UNIX" this time around any more than they did previously.

Re:The more things change... (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084576)

The moment I saw that, my first thought was "Gee, I wonder which platforms will lag behind in new features and testing."

Re:The more things change... (1, Insightful)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084850)

To be nit picky, I also noticed that there are only 4 versions of Unix. Linux not being Unix and all.

Re:The more things change... (2, Informative)

Locutus (9039) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085506)

I don't know if Source Safe was originally DOS based, UNIX based, or both but I do recall seeing the UNIX version of Visual Source Safe variant and it really sucked. The UNIX box GUI was CDE and Motif based but the Visual Source Save GUI was based on Windows 3.x. They made no effort to integrate it into the UNIX desktop as if they were saying, "We are Microsoft, Windows is our product, this is a Windows based product so be happy you have it at all."

FYI, Microsoft produced Visual Source Safe after purchasing One Tree Software. From the wikipedia page, it was a 16 bit commandline app when they purchased the company. It was not client server based but could be used like MS Access with shared network disks. Microsoft bought them in 94 but it wasn't until 2005 that the product became client server based.

LoB

Re:The more things change... (2, Insightful)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 4 years ago | (#30086058)

Well to be fair the Windows version of VSS really sucks too. Oh, and 2005 STILL isn't really client server based; they tacked a Web server onto it that VSS can use over the internet, but its still handling the database format in the exact same way. And you don't have to use the web service feature at all.

I had no idea SourceGear had this project going at all, which suprises me a bit because I use their Fortress project in place of VSS.

Well ... (4, Insightful)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084572)

"If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won." - Linus Torvalds [brainyquote.com]

Re:Well ... (2, Insightful)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084636)


Not if they use Mono.

Re:Well ... (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084854)

How does the language matter?

Re:Well ... (5, Informative)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085054)

How does the language matter?

Mono isn't a language per se. Mono is an import of the .Net framework. The trouble is that this framework is controlled by Microsoft. Firstly, the Windows version will always be ahead of other platforms relegating other platforms to inferior, buggy or feature incomplete versions. This could result in security vulnerabilities and lagging behind in version availability. More dangerous however, is that Microsoft can withdraw approval for Mono at any time, if they wish. If Mono became a popular basis for running software on Linux, then Microsoft could bring it all crashing down whenever they felt Linux had grown to be enough of a threat. Or they can start charging licence fees. Once a software base is installed, it can be very hard to move away from it *cough*Office*cough*.

Basically, rather than true cross-platform compatability, what you get is Microsoft controlling a framework that Linux apps would become dependent on. A bad, vulnerable situation, imo. That's why I dislike proprietary systems such as Moonlight that are built on it. If we overhauled software patent law then it would be less of a threat, but it remains a technical advantage to Windows.

Re:Well ... (0)

Sc4Freak (1479423) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085464)

Most of Mono (which is C# and the CLR implementation) is not vulnerable to Microsoft.

The C# language specification and Common Language Infrastructure are EMCA standards and are covered by the Microsoft Community Promise [microsoft.com] . Since Mono is a clean-room implementation of .NET and C# (both EMCA standards), they do not infringe on any of Microsoft's copyrights. And the Community Promise means that Microsoft guarantees that it won't use any of its patents against third-party implementations of .NET and C# like Mono.

Re:Well ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30085992)

Mono is also how you say 'monkey' in Spanish. I'm just saying...

from Linus' viewpoint... (2, Insightful)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085118)

...it is irrelevant.
Stallman might not like it, though.
But we are talking about Linus now.

Re:Well ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30085180)

not quite the same.. they're just buying their way in...

___

btw.. if you want diffmerge (freebie from sourcegear), get it now before microsoft has a chance to screw it up or put 'er up on the shelf next to Me and Bob.

http://sourcegear.com/diffmerge/

Re:Well ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30085424)

That Microsoft ships software on Linux is not news, Microsoft have been doing that for a while now.
Ever since Microsoft bought Fast Search & Transfer some time back, it has been shipping the Fast ESP platform on Linux and some other Unix platforms.

Say goodbye to the Linux versions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30084582)

Last time I had an experience with M$ buying a company, it was RAV and the first thing they did was discontinue the Linux support.

silly (3, Insightful)

jipn4 (1367823) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084594)

This is software for accessing repositories stored in Microsoft's "Microsoft Visual Studio Team Foundation Server " from Linux and Eclipse. I have never seen a usable Microsoft POSIX or Linux product; even if they don't deliberately sabotage it, they apparently don't have the expertise to produce such a thing. Teamprise may have some capable Linux developers now, but how long do you think those are going to stay?

You're much better off throwing out Microsoft's crappy server software and replacing it with a nice, high quality open source solution. Not only do you get better version control and team software, you're also assured that the Linux and Eclipse clients will keep working.

Re:silly (1, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084652)

so windows server 2003, sql serevr 2005 are crappy software? your education is lacking.

Re:silly (3, Insightful)

Splab (574204) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084690)

So is yours. While MS SQL 2003 and 2005 are some very nice products you should remember that they bought most of the SQL software from others (Ingres). The original MS SQL server sucked donkey balls and was retired some time back.

Re:silly (2, Informative)

carld (460344) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085002)

If I recall correctly that was Sybase, not Ingres.

Re:silly (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085380)

correct and it wasn't bought outright. It was a dumb move by Sybase to partner with Microsoft on a 5 year deal which resulted in Microsoft owning some version of Sybase SQL's source code. The rest is history.

LoB

Re:silly (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 4 years ago | (#30086074)

Some years ago is quite a while now, and MS has been mucking with it since, adding a bunch of new features... and the product continues to improve. I don't think your argument stands up.

Re:silly (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084898)

so windows server 2003, sql serevr 2005 are crappy software?

Compared to anything but Windows Server 2008 (which I hate with a burning hate every time I try and open Telnet on a new server and go "oh, right, WTF, Microsoft, WTF...") and Microsoft's original SQL Server?

Re:silly (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30085352)

What the hell are you using telnet for? SSH, man!

Oh, you're using Windows as a server platform, that explains it...

Re:silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30085234)

so windows server 2003, sql serevr 2005 are crappy software? your education is lacking.

Starting sentences with small caps. Check.
Spelling errors. Check.
Complains about others lack of education. Check.
Irony overload. Check.

Re:silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30085558)

so windows server 2003, sql serevr 2005 are crappy software?

Yeah, sorry to break your Microsoft bubble, but it is.

your education is lacking.

Looks to me like your education is lacking. What basis for comparison do you actually have?

Re:silly (2, Interesting)

batkiwi (137781) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084704)

I've actually not found a better enterprise solution to team development than the newest version of TFS. Especially in corporate environments.

Perforce still beats it as a pure source control manager, but that's FAR from free software, and the whole package isn't as nicely integrated as TFS.

Re:silly (1)

jipn4 (1367823) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085114)

and the whole package isn't as nicely integrated as TFS.

Look, I didn't say that you should never use TFS. If you're running a Windows-only shop, knock yourself out and use TFS; like all Microsoft solutions, it's "nicely integrated".

I'm saying that once you need something like Teamprise, you're probably better off just moving to a non-Windows team development server.

(Keep in mind that TFS is really a me-too product, after both open source and other vendors had demonstrated the value of such systems.)

Re:silly (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 4 years ago | (#30086066)

If TFS is honestly the best enterprise solution out there, then we're all doomed. I can't stand it and everyday I hear muttered (or yelled) around the office, "TFS sucks!"

Re:silly (2, Insightful)

benjymouse (756774) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084720)

I'm working with TFS on a daily basis and I am thoroughly impressed - with the possible exception for the code "merging" tools. I am curious, what "nice, high quality open source solution" would be an alternative? This is not a jab or anything, but using TFS was the first time I realized how much an integrated source control, team collaboration site, project management integrated solution makes sense.

So, is there an open source integrated solution or combo which will meet the following requirements?

  • Integrated work items with specialized and extensible work item types for tasks, bugs, issues etc.
  • Configurable policies which e.g. demands (or not) a work item reference when checking out and/or checking in.
  • Work items, tasks, issues etc. editable through a web interface, but also right from inside the IDE.
  • Work items, tasks, issues etc. editable through Excel or some other spreadsheet (regrettably project managers favorite tool is *still* Excel - but having it integrated so the rest of us don't have to mock around inside columns and rows to update status is a big relief).
  • Source control without quirks when e.g. renaming files or removing files and adding files back with the same names (I've had bad experience with subversion)
  • Shelving - storage of not-completed changes on the server without checking in. We use it to share suggestions and if we cannot make the daily deadline on consistent checkins.
  • Configurable policy which can be set to reject commits/checkins if a build has not been completed locally and/or if too many tests fails and/or if test coverage is too low and/or if there are too many/certain warnings (e.g. security related).
  • Dashboard with project manager-friendly rollups and graphs with speed, test coverage, test completions, tasks, status etc.
  • Branching based on metadata - not on actual directory copying and separate repositories/directories on the server (goes to performance).

Re:silly (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084842)

Collabnet's Teamforge might do most of what you're after there - but its not open source or free. Its cheap for the solution though, costs the same for 25 users as TFS does for 1.

There isn't any open source equivalents though... unless you take a load of pieces that do parts of your requirements, eg subversion for version control, hudson for continuous integration, mantis for bug tracking, etc. All the pieces are out there, but you'll have to do the work integrating them yourself.

Re:silly (2, Insightful)

jipn4 (1367823) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085014)

There isn't any open source equivalents though... unless you take a load of pieces that do parts of your requirements, eg subversion for version control, hudson for continuous integration, mantis for bug tracking, etc. All the pieces are out there, but you'll have to do the work integrating them yourself.

You don't have to do the work, you just install a Linux distribution that packages it all up. Or you get a turnkey "virtual appliance".

Re:silly (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085494)

Integrating,. not installing

Getting Mantis installed and configured is easy. No problems there. Getting it so your bug number gets linked to a revision number when you commit some source files to subversion is another matter. Its not that difficult, but the end-to-end configuration is still something someone has to do.

This is why we have the 'packaged' systems that do all that work for you, unfortunately, no-ones put a load of them together in this way in a F/OSS project.

Re:silly (2, Insightful)

jipn4 (1367823) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085104)

So, is there an open source integrated solution or combo which will meet the following requirements?

Shelving, configurable policies, and branching based on metadata are standard parts of most major distributed version control systems. They're all integrated into Eclipse and other IDEs.

Integrated work items, issue tracking, dashboard, unit testing, code coverage, continuous integration, are provided by several front-ends and additional tools. That's not a one-size-fits-all thing, since different languages, tools, team compositions, and team sizes are best served by different tools (the fact that TFS is a one-size-fits-all solution is a net minus). Many provide good web interfaces and IDE integration.

I won't name specific ones, because there are so many, but since you mention Subversion--it is obsolete.

Linux distributions let you mix and match those tools very easily: you just pick whatever components you need (version control, bug tracking, etc.). For common configurations, you can get virtual images or commercial hosting as well.

TFS may be the best choice if you run a Windows-only, VisualStudio-only shop because it "knows" a lot about that environment. Once other platforms are involved, you're better off using a non-Microsoft team development server.

Integrated Systems - no suggestion, just comments (2, Insightful)

QuestorTapes (663783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085188)

Quick disclaimer: I don't use TFS, and don't care for integrated solutions - not just MS, but any of them.

> ...using TFS was the first time I realized how much an integrated source control, team collaboration
> site, project management integrated solution makes sense.

In some scenarios. I know any number of companies where the MS integrated solution you use would fail utterly to be useful, because the people would not use the tools properly. Not just developers, but project managers, users, etc.

The *nix/open source advocates generally don't favor all-in-one packaged systems. The vast majority of the time, the system has specific, glaring deficiencies, While it often works well for a specific group, it fails to support others adequately.

This condemnation has been levied against Eclipse regularly, and from personal experience, I can tell you that the Visual Studio IDE alone, while it is absolutely adored by many, is in many ways a useless tinkertoy for others. MS (and other all-in-one solution providers) don't provide the perfect experience. They target a specific group, and often their "solutions" actively undercut the work of others. Some specifics:

> * Integrated work items with specialized and extensible work item types for tasks, bugs, issues etc.

Working with a system now at one assignment that is remarkably poor. It works beautifully...for on-call help desk support. It actively -impedes- tracking of bugs and tasks for development. I actually use a full external tool and update the approved system at the end. This is awfully inefficient: only 10 times more productive than trying to use the approved tool.

> * Work items, tasks, issues etc. editable through a web interface, but also right from inside the IDE.

That's handy - if everyone uses it. Where I'm on assignment, no one can be bothered to update information. I track things in my a web-enabled system, as I said. Several times a week, someone asks me to print out information in that system. It's become the system of record for a lot of this information, and anyone can use it; but I'm the only one who does. Everyone else's data is in little silos.

> * Work items, tasks, issues etc. editable through Excel or some other spreadsheet (regrettably project
> managers favorite tool is *still* Excel - but having it integrated so the rest of us don't have to
> mock around inside columns and rows to update status is a big relief).

Again, handy -- if anyone uses it. Not so handy when people actively break it by mucking around with the Excel sheets.

Just kill Excel use.

> * Source control without quirks when e.g. renaming files or removing files and adding files back with the
> same names (I've had bad experience with subversion)

Others have complained about similar issues, but they aren't universal. Chances are you're not managing the files properly in subversion. But subversion isn't the be-all and the end-all of open source revision control. It was never intended to be, just a better CVS.

Git is very nice, and there are -many- others to look at. Check Wikipedia.

> * Shelving - storage of not-completed changes on the server without checking in. We use it to share
> suggestions and if we cannot make the daily deadline on consistent check-ins.

Never used it. Frankly sounds like a hack; why not use a branch?

> * Configurable policy which can be set to reject commits/check-ins if a build has not been completed
> locally and/or if too many tests fails and/or if test coverage is too low and/or if there are too
> many/certain warnings (e.g. security related).

> * Dashboard with project manager-friendly roll-ups and graphs with speed, test coverage, test
> completions, tasks, status etc.

Tons of options and tools. Again, not an "integrated" one I can recommend, as I don't care for integrated.

> * Branching based on metadata - not on actual directory copying and separate repositories/directories
> on the server (goes to performance).

Hmmm. Sounds like a hack on top of a hack. Git's management of revisions sounds like it would meet your needs, although not the way you're describing the implementation aspect. I'm always wary of cases where someone asks for a tool that accomplishes "this goal", and mandates that "the underlying implementation should do that". It often ignores better implementations.

I liken it to someone who asks how to improve sort performance in C using X method. where you discover later he wants to sort database results that could be selected using order by and bypass the entire problem.

Actually had that one happen. over 14K lines of hand-optimized C++ code, and the programmer who wrote it responded to "why didn't you use an ORDER BY clause in the query" with "what's ORDER BY?"

The only reason they're going cross-platform (1)

Hillview (1113491) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084598)

The only reason they're going cross-platform is that the tools are written in Java, which is already cross-platform.

Re:The only reason they're going cross-platform (1)

lamapper (1343009) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084702)

The only reason they're going cross-platform is that the tools are written in Java, which is already cross-platform.

Perhaps this is true, though I have never been a big fan of Java anyway. Seems silly to load Java libraries, files and stuff, just to install a non-Java dependent application. Silly really and a bit irritating.

As I started coding PHP Model - View - Controllers (MVCs) it seems that the model itself is less efficient than PHP code + HTTP, but I have to do some testing before I can be sure. Seems that the MVC unnecessarily recreates features built into HTTP and PHP. My guess is that tests will show a PHP MVC to be less efficient than PHP + HTTP, but that is just a hypothesis at this point. I wonder if performance will take enough of a hit that result in the server running the MVC to be able to host fewer connections, pages, etc...

As for cross-platform, in my experience only if you develop in Linux are your cross platfrom compatible with other operating systems. Since Microsoft does so many "unique" things in a non standards compliant way (leave you to discuss why as I already have an opinion based on experience in the industry) if you develop on a Microsoft platform you almost invariably create something that is incompatible with other operating systems.

Very one sided. Thus experience teaches you, avoid a Microsoft development environment if you want to port your application to any other operating system environment. If you only cater to Microsoft Operating systems this does not apply.

Re:The only reason they're going cross-platform (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30085162)

Honestly if you believe that you haven't spent enough time on non-linux *nixes.

I spent a bout a few years back on freebsd/openbsd. Without linux compatibility libraries there are a *TON* of open source applications that will not compile against *bsd without patching due to linuxisms used in their source. I don't have any specific citations to speak of, but it shouldn't take much work to google around and see just how many hassles there are. And that is BEFORE including 'obsolete' linux kernel versions, 2.4, 2.2, 2.0, some of which are the best version for the hardware you're running (90 percent of consumer electronics running linux seem to be stuck on patched 2.4 kernels and uclibc, trying compiling most linux apps against either of those!)

My point being: For all the gripes about Windows incompatibility, the average linux developer is just as oblivious to x-platform compatibility, and often more likely to be compatible with Windows than other *nixes.

Just my 2 cents.

Believe it when I see it...restart my 7 year clock (5, Insightful)

lamapper (1343009) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084632)

To date, Microsoft has only hampered open source, open data formats, Linux, Unix and FOSS at every step of the way. So I do not believe it, can not believe it, will not believe it (words ~ FUD) until I see a 7 year positive track record with respects to anything non-Microsoft.

When they have shown by their actions, over seven years, that they have changed, than and only than will I consider purchasing Microsoft products again.

For each violation, I reset my 7 year clock from that day. Just reset it this week.

Basing my purchase decisions on their actions ONLY and not their marketing FUD, is the only way I can be sure not to ever be vendor locked-in ever again. So much time and money has been wasted by me, my friends, my family and other IT professionals over the last 20+ years...wasteful and unnecessary.

I will believe it when I see it. To date it has always been FUD!

Re:Believe it when I see it...restart my 7 year cl (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30084856)

No one...NO ONE...cares about your righteous anger. Stew in your hole.

Re:Believe it when I see it...restart my 7 year cl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30084946)

No one...NO ONE...cares about your righteous anger. Stew in your hole.

No, I don't care.

Regards,
No one

Re:Believe it when I see it...restart my 7 year cl (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084920)

I'm not sure that even Google can pass that requirement.

Re:Believe it when I see it...restart my 7 year cl (2, Interesting)

sFurbo (1361249) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085074)

The algorithm is slightly more sophisticated:
Every company starts with a 6 months grace period, where we will not by their product. Every time they do something unintentionally evil, the grace period starts over. Every time they do something intentionally evil, the grace period is multiplied by 1.4 and starts over.

This worked fine until 1997, when MS' grace period became longer then the remaining lifespan of the universe, sparking suspicion that they planned to use a buffer overflow to reset their grace period. It was thus decided to limit the grace period to 7 years, to avoid possible bugs in the algorithm. Of course, MS' conduct after the revision have dismissed the theory, but the 7 year grace period remains.
The 7 year period have also made it possible to purchase IBM goods again, after their grace period had over 9000 since the early 80's.

Re:Believe it when I see it...restart my 7 year cl (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085264)

darn right and just look at their purchase of Danger and what they did there. They tried to change the technology from what was working to Windows and when that failed, they gutted the division of many of it's developers to work on another project, Pink, which would replace the Danger products. They have always, and continue, to make sure Windows is job #1, #2, #3 etc because their profits have always been based on Windows no matter the market share of any other product.

The only thing interesting here is how they'll kill this and if their customers are resistant enough to oppose the Windowsization of the productline.

LoB

Re:Believe it when I see it...restart my 7 year cl (1)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085534)

While trusting Microsoft on several seemingly "non-evil" moves would be foolish, "resetting your clock" for everything you consider a "violation" isn't less foolish. See, even if Microsoft ever becomes FLOSS-friendly they won't just say "Hey, let's not hamper this FLOSS project, we're FLOSS-friendly company!" if they see benefit in doing it.

I'm sure that everybody (myself included) would consider Google FLOSS-friendly, and I'm certain they did enough "clock-reset"-worthy "violations".

Both kinds of attitudes are extreme.

Just look at their recent track record and consider how much you can trust them. And that's never "fully", nor "not at all". Currently they are much worse then many other players, but are slightly better than what they used to be (mostly because they can do less to hurt FLOSS right now, and they have no choice but to play a little more friendly).

Also, this story doesn't show that Microsoft are becoming trustworthy for FLOSS folks, you are the first post here mentioning such possibility. It shows that FLOSS is doing well, and won a small victory here.

Re:Believe it when I see it...restart my 7 year cl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30085924)

While certainly they spread FUD, I'd say most of their marketing is hype. Personally, I don't go for either the FUD or the hype. Is their hype OK with you, or is it just that it doesn't bother you as much as the FUD?

Re:Believe it when I see it...restart my 7 year cl (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30086086)

You do not stand alone. In 1993, one could call Microsoft and ask for help; today, get out your credit card. I remember a day when m$ was a part of the micro computer industry; now m$ is its apex predator. 20 years ago, when I spoke these words, I was talking about IBM/UNISYS/Teradata, m$ is now what these companies were. I have shown my family, friends, colleagues, and supervisors that one does not need gates, when one doesn't need windows; and as times get harder, these people listen more.

Announced on ... Friday 13th (2, Funny)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084724)

That is announced on ... Friday 13th. Halloween is over, so could it be they needed another telling day?

Microsoft have done this before... (5, Interesting)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084764)

> but the fact that Microsoft themselves will now be developing and shipping products based on those heterogeneous platforms, including 5 versions of Unix."

Are you sure? You may find Microsoft do the same thing here and just strip the Linux functionality out. When Microsoft took over Connectix and their excellent Virtual PC Software and proceeded to strip Linux functionality (that was already there) out of the product. On the Connectix version there was a Linux utility that handled control back to Windows when the CPU was idle. On the Microsoft version they took that out, so the CPU always ran at 100%. It made Virtual PC useless for Linux.

Re:Microsoft have done this before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30084796)

Yep - but they will support it until everyone has developed an addiction first . . . a variant of embrace and extend . . . embrace and extinguish.

Re:Microsoft have done this before... (1)

NeoStrider_BZK (1485751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084820)

Lets not forget XENIX. In early 90s, MS sold XENIX - its own brand of UNIX (they obviously bought from someone else and ported to x86).
They're probably thinking: "If those open source companies can make shell out at free products, so can I"...

Re:Microsoft have done this before... (2, Informative)

Locutus (9039) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085358)

IIRC, XENIX was in the 80s and UNIX and mainframe OS's were what businesses used. Small businesses used UNIX based PCs because DOS was not even in the same ball park as UNIX as far as an OS is concerned. It wasn't until the late 80s and early 90s that Microsoft gold plated their monopoly on the desktop OS market so Xenix was hedging their bet.

I hadn't heard that they ported it to x86 only that it was x86 based.

Once Microsoft had their monopoly and knew it, they've used it to protect their position. They do not hedge their bets and instead, they outright purchase companies and products and eliminate the cross platform nature of that product or they terminate the product. There's nothing in Microsoft's long history which shows that this will be any different. Like other things, it'll just take a few years for them to destroy the *nix customer base and products so that the Windows-only product is the only option left. It is how they do business.

LoB

Re:Microsoft have done this before... (1)

FunPika (1551249) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085110)

Good luck to them with that, considering that Teamprise is written in Java I believe. So I guess to strip Linux support they somehow need to change it so it CAN'T run on any operating system with a JRE, or port the code to .NET or something.

Re:Microsoft have done this before... (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085324)

written in Java? That's not going to last very long at Microsoft and it'll be ported to .NET. The early ports might work on the .NET step-child called Mono but that'll last only long enough for Microsoft to get all the customers on the .NET version and then the cross platform stuff starts failing. At Microsoft, it is all about running on Windows and if it runs on something else, then it reduces profits from Windows and must be terminated. IMO

LoB

Re:Microsoft have done this before... (2, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085444)

Microsoft drops the price on Windows every chance they get for OEMs and large purchasers, even sometimes down to free. I don't think they're worried about cross-platform applications reducing the Windows profits so much as a platform they don't control, and thus can make faster/better software than everyone else reducing their profits on other fronts.

I bet more people are running Office 2007 on Windows XP than are running Vista these days. Just sayin'.

Re:Microsoft have done this before... (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085374)

They do not need to migrate, just hardcode C:\ or use \ as file separators instead of the java.io.File.separator constant

Re:Microsoft have done this before... (2, Interesting)

Locutus (9039) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085280)

this reminds me of when Netscape had 80% market share and it was shown that Microsofts IIS server would process MS Internet Explorer browser requests faster than Netscape Navigator requests. There was something about the IIS server running noop loops.

They don't get the "Evil Empire" label for no good reason. IMO.

LoB

Re:Microsoft have done this before... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085370)

On the Connectix version there was a Linux utility that handled control back to Windows when the CPU was idle. On the Microsoft version they took that out, so the CPU always ran at 100%.

Ironically, if you use VMware instead of Virtual PC, you don't have this problem. It's almost like Microsoft doesn't want you using their software.

Would you buy? (5, Funny)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084780)

The question to anyone considering buying a Unix from MS is

Would you buy a used horse from a convicted horse-rapist?

Re:Would you buy? (1)

s1lverl0rd (1382241) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084808)

I don't understand you. Try a car analogy.

Re:Would you buy? (4, Funny)

Zoshnell (573838) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084906)

Would you buy a used car from a used car rapist?

Re:Would you buy? (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084928)

Ouch... how do you even do that? The exhaust pipe?

Re:Would you buy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30084990)

I'm sure I've seen a picture of that somewhere.

Re:Would you buy? (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085138)

Oh come on, "somewhere". If such picture exists, it was on /b/.

Re:Would you buy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30085284)

Such pictures do exist and you don't have to go to 4chan to find them. I'd add "thank fuck" to show my dislike of 4chan, but that would imply that I frequently like to hunt for pictures of people fucking exhaust pipes, so I won't.

Re:Would you buy? (1)

bytta (904762) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085172)

Ouch... how do you even do that? The exhaust pipe?

Rule 34: If it exists, there is porn of it. No exceptions.

Re:Would you buy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30084934)

me@analogymachine:~$ ./horse_to_car_analogy.sh

Executing s/horse/car/g... [ OK ]

Analogy produced: "Would you buy a used car from a convicted car-rapist?"
me@analogymachine:~$

Thank god I have created a script for the people like you...

Re:Would you buy? (3, Funny)

rishistar (662278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30084914)

The question to anyone considering buying a Unix from MS is

Would you buy a used horse from a convicted horse-rapist?

Well, better than buying an *unused horse* from a horse rapist. That would be a sign that something is seriously wrong with it.

Re:Would you buy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30085012)

The question to anyone considering buying a Unix from MS is

You're too late - for the best part of a decade the most popular commercial Unix was Xenix, made by wait for it, Microsoft.

Re:Would you buy? (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085546)

I wrote device drivers for Xenix, so its not like I don't know. However, I had no choice.

When I did have a choice, I ran BSD on a PDP11/60. (I now run BSD on Sparc64).

The guy who said the unused horse was an even more suspicious offer was right!

Re:Would you buy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30085602)

Well, that depends on whether or not you like sloppy seconds.

Trust (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30084950)

The thing is, you have to have trust [wikipedia.org] in version control to be prepared to use it. You are putting your business in its hands, so it had better not break [groklaw.net] or introduce errors on purpose [theregister.co.uk] . Trust depends [wikipedia.org] upon [theregister.co.uk] your reputation [burst.com] . Reputation matters [technologyevangelist.com] .

Would you put your trust in the safety of your product in the hands of a company to whom the continued life of your product represented part of a competitive threat to their platform?

5 Microsoft versions of Linux (4, Funny)

Huntr (951770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085006)

Lemme guess: Home, Ultimate, Pro, Pro-er, and Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

How is this a troll? (s/b +5 Funny) (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085246)

Seriously, how is the idea of Microsoft editions of Linux a troll. I'd say this should be +5 Funny.

Re:5 Microsoft versions of Linux (1)

macbuzz01 (1074795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085628)

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious wouldn't work as a version name, b/c it's more than 8 characters. Somewhere it would be chopped to Supercal, which coincidentally is also the name of the only CAL you can by for Server 2013.

Re:5 Microsoft versions of Linux (1)

SenFo (761716) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085890)

You're a funny troll, and I'm going to feed you. Do you like Cheetos?

Supports missing parts of MSFT tool suite (1)

ksni (684287) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085326)

Teamprise does enable (much richer) intergration with Team Foundation Server from tools such a Borlands requirements management solution CaliberRM. This isnt explicitly about cross platform support, surely its about bolstering the TFS proposition and its very much MSFT recognising that they do not have a complete tool solution for Enterprise solution development. So from a Windows / .net development shops standpoint, Teamprise can be seen as an enabler to getting the best out of tools that are currently missing from the MS toolkit.

Is this really even newsworthy at all? (0, Troll)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 4 years ago | (#30085356)

Microsoft realise (or at least make it look like they do) that working with Linux, rather than against it, is better for business. Film at 11.

If you have a brain, you're already using Emacs as an IDE. Yes, I know that statement will get refuted by the GUI hordes; the same enlightened thinkers who actually believe that C++ and XML are Good Things, and who are afflicted with that logical fallacy known as an appeal to modernity ("that crap is so 1970s!") where UNIX in general is concerned. That's why I said, "If you have a brain."

As for version control, I'm not sure, (my CVS on Sourceforge is good enough for me when I have need of such) but from what little I've read, it seems that SVN is what the cool kids are using these days.

Re:Is this really even newsworthy at all? (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 4 years ago | (#30086174)

So how's that project coming? Oh, been working on it for 10 years and still not done?

I think the green glow from your monitor has warped your mind..

Teamprise is not bad, TFS sucks (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 4 years ago | (#30086026)

It's one of those products I have to use every day as TFS is our repository (yeah, I wonder too how much our architects got paid off to choose them). TFS has been a disaster since day one, but we're now entering our third year of using it, so there's no going back at this point in the eyes of many (heck, our previous source control was VSS!).

Teamprise is not bad, I'm a fan of the Eclipse platform and so it's nice to use something I'm already familiar with, even if the backend blows.

I've been collecting tons of TFS downtime emails over the last year, keeping them as ammo for some kind of change in the future, or a really hilarious Daily WTF.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...