Slashdot Mirror
MS: Beta Software Good Enough for Production Use
RMX writes "CNet is reporting that
Microsoft is starting to license test software for real-world use
.
In particular, Visual Studio 2005 and the April "community technology preview" of SQL Server 2005 are both supposed to be released sometime in the second half of the year. But Microsoft is claiming the pre-release versions are stable already, so they're licensing the pre-released versions on the grounds that they 'are already suitable for running production business applications.'"
Didn't Google start all this?
The main thing is, if something breaks, the company just puts its hands up and says "opps, sorry it's a Beta", and I bet there will still be plenty of users (businesses) who are willing try them.
In addition to the accountability shift, companies can roll out patches in a more timely fashion. With beta-security-patch, MS is free to distribute patches to plug holes even on a daily basis.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
That's an awfully bold assumption, but I guess they don't want to give away the betas, as then most people would just use the beta all the way through. Good logic, I don't see why not.
That un-announced future applications such as SQL Server 2010 were so "awesome" and "full of stuff you need" that they'll be licensing them now, before they've actually started work on them.
Right. And the bugs -- they're features! Duh.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
That worked for Windows 95.
Given Microsoft's current track record I would be a little hesitant to deploy any of this in a production environment. I mean... who are they trying to kid here?
It's ok, we'll just release updates for it later
I wish they would just hurry up and push windows antispyware down with windows update. I know its not the best out; but it would stop 90% of support calls because some idiot has a pr0n dialer.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
Well, it's good enough for Google too.
404 File Not Found5 &tid=8) was not found.
The requested URL (developers/05/04/18/2227220.shtml?tid=109&tid=18
If you feel like it, mail the url, and where ya came from to pater@slashdot.org.
I think MS is looking at not meeting profit forcasts finally and pushing out software early so they can get a boost to their cashflow early so they meet 2nd quater forectasts is entirely possible. The company's stock has been flat for so long it's just a matter of time before their profits go flat or begin to decline.
If it's not beta, they should just release it and say "Look! We beat our time frame for the release (after we concelled the previous release dates)!".
It never fails to amaze me how some people are willing to pay for the priviledge of beta-testing Microsoft's software for them...
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Just look at Google's email service (still in beta). It works like a charm. The same applied to Adobe's Linux PDF reader...even the [Linux] kernel itself, in most cases works, without any serious problems.
Two words - Windows XP.
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Does the article say MS is discontinuig the production versions of SQL Server and VS? No.
Does the article say you must buy the beta if you want to license today? No.
What's the big deal? It sounds to me like there's enough customer demand to charge for the beta version of the apps for those customers who so choose. If MS has all the "free" teaters they need yet stil has customers clamoring for features/improvements in the next version, I see no reason why they can't charge these folks for early acceess.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Well this does fit their level of intelligence. Bugs ... fine! Security holes ... fine!! Your business will "live".
Sigs are nice guns
At least they are finally admitting that it's beta quality.
I think it's basically a veiled, yet public admission of their release policies ever since Microsoft was founded.
since when does microsoft release stable software?
Well... considering that my computer just crashed trying to write this...
MS software for devs has always been excellent. With the enormous amount of beta testing, I'm ready bet that this will be no exception.
First root is completely safe, and now beta software is fine for production environments?
ship it.
Wasn't that their methods in the 80s?
Well, normally in the past we would have released it by now, but becuase you are always complaining about security, the piece of crap is caught in a security review, and marketing is getting worried that we won't ship on time. So here have at it, and we told you so.
Ted
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
At least that they label the boxes with something like "unsafe at any speed" to give customers a hint of what will probably happen if their use them.
Basically, Microsoft is allowing customers, if they so choose, to develop production systems using the beta software. If they want to, and you think it's a good idea, insert usual don't come crying to us if your computer exploded boilerplate here.
The difference is that Microsoft hasn't usually allowed beta software to be used in production usage at all. They only licensed it for test usage, which, frankly, I'm sure most people were just fine with.
So, Microsoft is saying, well, heck, if you really want to, sign this piece paper (see disclamier list, etc, etc.) and enjoy.
I'd be surprised if this really had any impact, but it's interesting marketing.
Their customers have such low expectations that licensing a beta should be quite profitable. What's the worse it could do? Destroy their credibility as a software company? Hah.
Microsoft had a go live license for Visual Studio 2002 as well.
Did you pay for any of them there google betas? cause I sure didn't, and if you did some varmint mighta ripped you off.
I also reckon you might want your database a tad bit more stable than you want your nifty little search engine doo-dad.
Starsucks
Microsoft relying on the public to test its software, and charging for the priviledge... hey, it's worked for every other piece of software they've released.
MS has been giving us Beta software for production use. Why do you think airports, rental car companies, etc have been displaying BSoDs? ;D
I would happily test their software for a small fee. Sounds like a great deal.
What keeps me going is my inertia.
Yeah... alright, next Duke Nukem Forever comes out.
You mean the software they sold before is actually good enough to pass for a release candidate?
Let's see... NT4 with SP3 was okay, but installing SP4 was a mistake, as all 3 systems that I had NT on bluescreened. After that I stopped installing NT3 SPs... supposedly SP6 is okay.
Windows 2000 was practically unusable until SP3. Windows XP was horrible without SP1 (couldn't even run it on a VIA KT266A mobo for 5 minutes without it farking up the disk), and just plain bad with SP1. With SP2 it seems almost sale-worthy, seriously.
With Microsoft, *any* piece of software developed in house is best not to be deployed in the real world until 2-3 "Service Packs" whiz by.
Microsoft doesn't have a good track record for producing quality _official_ versions (and yes, I fix MS networks for a living) - why should we trust their betas? It's a way for them to "try" more ideas on the unsuspecting public, increase revenue, and decrease the amount of support needed for their software (since they don't have to support it at all?)
wtf? software quality, industry-wide, seems to get worse daily - this is not exactly going to help.
Are unstable and full of bugs ... .NET) are just unusable crap. ;-)
Their release candidates (Like Windows
And they try to tell us that their betas are usable?. Maybe software goes to the MBID* after they leave beta stage
* MBID=Micro$oft Bug Inclusion Department
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
The Open Source community has been doing this for years.
Cheers,
RoadkillBunny
Windows 95. Most definately beta software released to the public, just didn't have the beta label.
A nice move to make corperate clients happy.
Clients need to feel like they're getting some bang for their buck. So why not give them more buggy software, but this time they have an excuse, it's beta.
IMHO, It's just to nice marketing ploy.
Money cannot buy happiness, but can buy something soo darn close, that you can't really tell the difference
In a shock news release today Microsoft annmounced that you will no longer be able to distinguish between Beta and Production software. This follows a long period of de facto ....
Just FYI, you can order a FREE (no s&h) CD of Visual Studio 2005 Beta 2 here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/getthebetas/
s e/
If you want to distribute programs you make with it, you have to sign the GoLive aggreement here: http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/vs2005/golive/licen
Nipples.
;P
Now, I don't think this is actually new on MS's part. They've been selling Beta software under the guise of point-oh releases for more than 20 years. Think about it... If software is well designed and simple, it's going to have very few if any bugs in it. What DOS like that? No. Windows 2.0? Windows 3.0? Windows NT 3.51? Windows NT 4? Windows XP? No on all counts. There were tons of patches. But Microsoft promulgated the notion of "production ready" software and claimed to be giving their customers the best quality. What is happening is that MS is not, suddenly releasing betas as production ready. They are finally being honest about the fact that complex software is ALWAYS beta quality because there are always problems. It doesn't matter if it's proprietary or FOSS, it's so complex that there will always be an uncrossed 't' or an undotted 'i' (or more realistically a forgotten function or two that get accidentally called when someone else decides to use the same name without knowing that other function exists).
By Microsoft being a little more truthful about the quality of their software they can afford to become a little sloppier. Expect to see more "great things" from the Microsoft camp.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
You know, I think that, considering the majority of Slashdot, I'd be considered a Microsoft fanboy... ...but did someone forget to take their retard pills this morning?
Seriously, this is stupid. Why even do testing at all, just give the program to the users, have something that reports to Microsoft when it crashes, and just give them updates to fix problems as they're found.
Oh, my bad. Windows XP already exists.
(Yes, I just did a 180.)
I mean they launch operating systems that are only alpha quality.
I should know: I've been running their betas for the last 10 years now, stuff like Windows Server 2003 and Internet Explorer 6.0.
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
If you want the features in a Microsoft Beta product, you can usually get them in production quality over here -> www.apple.com
Being that no M$ products are really ready for production on launch date, isn't this really just admitting the reality that Service Packs are what make software stable not QA?
And never will. Imagine the liability if they accepted responsibility for the work lost to a crash, or time spent finding a work-around for their bugs?
It's make 5 million euros a day look postively mild!
Are we still supposed to wait for SP2, or does this mean that SP1 is the one that will be ready for production work?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
That is an unintended consequence of the Internet. It is now so easy to upgrade that companies don't even bother to release a finished product anymore.
This is news? Seriously, I'm not the most hardcore MS basher alive, but they've been doing this from the begining, now they're just going to admit to doing this.
... how much the release of Tiger influenced this decision?
___________
PocketGamer.org - For Gamers on the Go..
Now correct me if I am wrong, but am I the only one that hasn't paid a cent for all of the Google software? I don't care if it's Alpha, Beta, or production. They provide some of the best services for some of the least (visually) intrusive advertising on the market. If Microsoft wants to offer their products for free until they go gold, then by all means...
but don't count on us fixing bugs until we feel like it.
...
However, you can pay us now.
Ignore the Man with the Diet Orange Crush
Seriously, it's bad enough getting beta quality in shipped software, but one has to wonder if MSFT is admitting it's beta quality, can it be even more untested?
And what kind of support can one expect for such a "beta" version? Will they say "Come back in one year and we'll think about maybe fixing the bug"?
Will in Seattle
Anyone remember Millenium (cringe!). That is STILL beta software!
Here is a page where you can order a copy of Visual Studio 2005 Beta 2 for free (as in beer of course).
My photolog
If I program something in Visual Studio 05, and there is a beta bug in it and my enterprise server app with 100000 customers fails, can I sue M$?
Tonnes of pension funds find it easy to invest in MS and keep it safe. But now there are more and more oldies 'expiring' and cashing out to their kiddies spending/credit cards.
Theres not enough current notquitesooldies to keep the funds up and buying the stocks of the kiddies.
Any trade in 'virtual goods' back and forth is just a pyramid scam, todays winners taking from tommorows winners, aslongas theres an increasing amount of new 'suckers'. ie population growth.
This plan falls apart once you have flat population growth.
Its time corporates died and there were 100000s more tiny companies out there.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Don't click the link
I almost always wait until version 3 of Microsoft software. I will not install a beta version. Seems version one is the beta version.
Why is it sitll beta then?
Foxed Design
The interesting point is their constant hyping of .NET, especially in early chapters. Their religious zeal for .NET and C# is not matched by any clear superiority of those technologies over Java/Eclipse, although they try to convince you otherwise. It can't be long before significant numbers of developers simply start wandering away from the MS camp towards greener pastures, especially those that are 1) free, 2) really cross-platform (the book's authors make curiously equivocal remarks in this regard) and 3) provide a large ready-to-integrate framework like Eclipse.
Don't expect any earth-shaking change, just a gradual wearing away of the MS developer base and an increasingly desperate MS unable to evolve its business model.
I like Microsoft as much as most people here, but this move doesn't really make me think "oooOOoo...so evil". Look at the Linux world! So much out there is plainly Beta, but we all still use it. How many of us were using Firefox when it was still in Beta? How about any other program? There are tons out there, I would assume half my linux box is all beta =)
So why is it so terrible when Microsoft mimics Linux? They realize that some people are willing to take the risks, so why not let them? It increases the testing base, people are happy, if something blew up they knew the consequences. Really there's not too much of a downside to this, as any linux developer will attest.
I won't be part of any MS bashing on this move.
To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
Oh big bad ms, thanks god you can choose unstable buggy prealphas with linux.
You bad man! I am afraid i CANNOT recommend that book from amazon to anyone else.
:(
Dear me
That explains all those holes, turns out their stuff has been beta all this time...
kinda weird to announce that 15-20 years after the fact.
--10scjed IANAL,AFAIK
I suppose that if anybody wants to try this stuff out. You can go to one of the MSDN events in an area near you. you can go to and register.
You steal men's souls.. and make them your slaves...
If you get used to this kind of idea, where the beta is released and then they update it until it's finished, then the "finalized" product could become an unreachable milestone in your disclaimer you signed. Then, Microsoft doesn't have to take any responsibility for your software crashing because it never comes out of the GoLive status. Why would anyone depend on something like that?
The answer: because that's how Microsoft does business. Unless someone releases something that they feel will threaten the model, then that's how business is going to be.
I wouldn't go so far as calling it evil, but it's something to worry about (slower updates on new software until it's out of GoLive) in the future.
And you don't have to pay for Google's beta stuff - unlike production stuff from MSFT.
Can you imagine customers demanding migration to a beta product, after getting wound up by some sales pimps? Its bad enough to do a migration prior to SP1 of any MS OS being released. The other side is that the billable hours for support will be spectacular..... Thanks MS, way to support the channel.
Wait a minute, I thought I was using beta software all along?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
I understand it's slashdot, but come on!
Microsoft is NOT selling this community preview... And poster should have stated it clearly.
It's already ready available for MSDN subscribers, and will be available for MSDN subscribers only, not sold as a aseparate product before going gold...
It's just license loophole for customers using and already developing with VS.Net 2005, to allow deploying live systems (beta EULAs prohibit that).
I don't see anything wrong with that (of course you may say it's bad because it may help microsoft and its customers)...
Now burn my carma - I don't care.
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
Please, clarify this to me: Is there a Microsoft release that is actually NOT beta?
Balmer, you crazy FOX! You've managed to figure out how to charge for beta-quality software without any support, warranty or implied fitness for use. Now developers have no reason to use beta-quality free software that is without support, warranty or implied fitness for use unless to get infected by apatenticitis or intellectual property cancer.
Always one step ahead, Microsoft is.
I thought all MS software was beta?
(or put another way, "what does THIS change?")
Not trolling, but maybe venting. I spent all last weekend trying to get VirtualPC to finish installing the pre-installed WinXP - finally ended up borrowing XP CDs and installing it from scratch, which to my amazement actually worked. Fifteen minutes ago VPC crashed with an "out of memory" error. (WTF? OSX VM...), and corrupted my hard-fought XP install. Thank god these are easy to back up/restore... though it is taking a few minutes to re-copy the 4.8gb environment package.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I thought they're just copying Debian; where "Stable" has a bunch of security holes (for example in postgresql), so it's recommended you run "Unstable" in production.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/getthebetas/country/
For a beta version of visual studio.
Selling software specifically designated as beta or pre-release is apparently a Microsoft original. Other companies have (which is the typical, normal way of doing things) released beta and "pre-release" software to the public for testing and evaluation. But they don't charge for them.
Anybody stup^H^H^H^Hbrave enough to use a beta version of anything from anyone for production use is asking for trouble.
The point of beta testing is to throw something out into the wild to see if it stands up. No matter how much rigorous testing is done, something is bound to fall through the cracks. Microsoft making the statement that it's "good enough for production use" and asking money for it would lead some PHBs to think they can get in early on the next latest widget from microsoft and assume it will work perfectly.
The reality is that nothing is secure or stable, and the first release to the public is far, far away from being anywhere near stable.
I've tried becoming a beta tester of software from various commercial companies and I have yet to see any of them actually allow me, even if I had to sign up, do so for free. Every one of them wants something more than a simple alias registration from me. I recently found a flaw in microsofts antispyware software and they don't even have a feedback form for that. Their private and internal newsgroup on that subject is a joke and I seriously doubt anyone who is responsible for that product even looks at that newsgroup. I think this is arrogant of them and they should be grovelling to the public at large to give their products a serious shakedown, even offer up rewards for flaws/bugs found.
To me, claiming any software younger than 2 years already thrown out into the wild as 'production ready' is not only putting the cart before the horse but trying to convince everyone that it's supposed to be that way. Software takes a very very long time to mature and immature software to me is simply not 'production ready'.
I just hope they get really lucky and nothing disasterous actually happens, because if some manager somewhere pushes their IT department to implement such a release and have the company's data chewed to hell because of an unforseen circumstance, it could leave a very bitter taste in that company's mouth. Right now microsoft is a giant, and just like in real life, they are slow, cumbersome and if they fall, the damage could be pretty serious.
Don't mod me as funny, because this joke microsoft's pulling on its customers is not funny at all.
Microsoft is very good at selling called Software Assurance. When you buy SQL 2000 (as an example) you can buy software assurance at the same time (in 1 year chunks). Software assurance provides you with free upgrades for its term.
If software assurance costs 15% per annum (it can cost less depending on your pricing aggreements), its very well possible that buying sql 2005 today with software assurance is cheaper than waiting for the "final" product at a higher license point.
It strikes me that this is really about MS buying beta testers, and pushing forward the quarterly numbers.
But there release software already is the beta!
Everyone with half a brain knows that a 1.0 version of ANYTHING from MicroSoft is full of bugs, and that they should wait AT LEAST for the 1.1 somewhat less-buggy version. (Remember, MicroSoft usually gets it right about the third time around).
So why would ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND want to use a 0.x beta version of their software for production use????? That is absolutely INSANE!
Chalk another one up for the MicroSoft marketroids if they can pull this scam off!!!
Friends don't let friends drive beta.
This is an old tradition at Microsoft. Started doing this with DOS. And charging for upgrades/bugfixes, too.
Did they omit sending me ads because the thing is in beta?
Not that I can tell...
I read 'MS Production Software Good Enough for Beta Use'
It's "Nothing to see here. Please wait until the story is officially released. If you would like to see a pre-production version please subscribe. Slashdot and OSTG do not accept responsibility for any financial/mental damages that mispelled/mistyped beta stories may cause. Otherwise, move along."
Alas, few people get to see that part.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
I think a lot of people fail to realize that Microsoft is its own BIGGEST beta tester. Hell, even alpha. I believe most of their infrastructure runs on pre-production/beta/RC software and is has to hit, and maintain, certain thresholds in those environment as criteria for "release" sign-off.
So, it can be safe to say that beta software is relatively safe. It's just these one-off situations where Joe Blow Sys Admin, who can't find his ass with two hands, screws something up that always seem to make the press.
"It's not rocket science, Smithers! It's only brain surgery!" --Mr. Burns
This has nothing to do with MS profits, it has to do with market demand. People want to use to use sql2005 express and .Net 2.0. But with the current licensing agreement, you can't use it for production stuff. How do you expect microsoft profit to go up if they aren't charging for the license?. Golive license. Please take your fud elsewhere thanks.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
I would not even qualify Microsoft's Production software worthy of the Beta nameplate.
:)
You are all a bunch of idots.
Microsoft used to take alpha software, call it stable and release it to the unsuspecting public! At least beta software should have gone through some more rigorous testing....
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Willing to bet most of the heavy lifting of that economic boom (aka dotcom bubble) was done by various flavours of UNIX rocking on some pretty big iron. But yeah, I'll stick windows in a pipe and smoke it.
There was also a GoLive license for the BETA of the .NET Framework 1.0 about 4 years ago.
It is also worth stressing the fact that this is development software, for use by developers. It is not something anyone would expect Gramma to install.
I think it's fair to be worried about the ramifications of this style of license to even be offered. Right now it's optional. If it catches on, it may become standard. That's something to worry about.
I know that you are joking, but Server 2003 definitely seemed beta when I first got my hands on it. Some parts just didn't seem to function quite right. The documentation on the CD was full of blank pages for goodness sake, and the MSDN website had little or no info on it. Setting it up was like walking blindfolded. Uncharted territory.
That they foist buggy junk on the masses...
Only now they admit it & try to make a virtue out of it.
They are starting to get desperate IMHO.
I've never seen production- quality work from MS....how is this any different?
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
I think quality of MS's released software in the last few years (5 or so) has advanced from Alpha quality to near Beta quality. None of it is production quality.
:-)
I would prefer Beta Firefox to "production" IE any day. For that matter I would prefer Beta Firefox to production Firefox.
Think Deeply.
Nice to see noone on /. reads anything else about an article - just moans.
The beta2 go-live license is in specific response to customer demand. It was optional for VS.NET2003 BETA 2 (.NET1.1) - you had to apply for it. For VS.NET2005 BETA 2 (.NET2.0) they have included it by default. Previous beta's had a clause specifically disallowing public use.
It's not that MS thinks its finished. It's more that customers think its stable enough to use - and MS has listened and allow it.
Righto.
Wait a minute... But aren't all Microsoft products released under a beta status? I mean... Just look at the crashes! Whenever a Microsoft product is reaching a semi-final status (usually SP2 or SP3), they just release a new product or OS (in beta status, obviously) to replace the previous one.
It's kind of like this:
Microsoft Final = Beta
Microsoft Beta = Alpha
Microsoft Alpha = Segmentation Fault.
João Pinheiro
In all fairness, the only thing still "beta" about gmail is its business model.
Google is the new Soviet Russia/All Your Base/Natalie Portman/Beowulf Cluster.
The filesystem is the package manager
1. Production quality software out of Redmond is Beta Quality.
2. Slap a dress on a pig and somebody will ask it to dance.
*sigh*
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
How buggy with MS Beta products be if MS has the crutch that it is "still in development"?
Many have likened the policy to Google's Beta products, but I take exception. Google's Betas are more like Developer builds. Consider maps.google.com. In the few weeks it has been out, it has already improved search results, improved print output, added flyover imaging, and improved the resolution of those same images (in the DFW metroplex anyway).
Now that is Beta software I can handle. When I try to do something and it isn't as successful as I would like it to be, I remind myself it is Beta, but the features improve so fast, I can almost watch them grow.
MS on the other hand is not known in it's culture for this type of development. I am afraid this Beta release business will just be another crutch for MS to issue poor quality code.
In a worst case scenario, it will be a way to 'lock in' users with free Beta software, then expire the Beta with a required upgrade to high/over priced software. They have to either switch applications, or pay the high fee. Fair you say? Only if MS is going to publish the retail price of the release software when you sign up for the Beta.
Image the surprise of the developer who codes up something in VS 2005 but gets slapped with a $1500 license fee when he goes to compile it for production use!
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
What was the date of that article again??
They've been releasing beta versions all along, now its just official.
gee can I sign up and pay money to be microsoft's beta tester
pleeeeeease pleeeease let me pay - I want to so bad.
I mean they make the best software in the world - never crashes or anything and never any phonehomeware or spyware or anything - I would give anything to be Steve's and Billy's beta tester
pleeeeease pleeeease let me pay.
Having software released to the public while it is still in beta is not a bad thing, in fact its a subtle move by microsoft towards the open source metality.
Having software used and thereby audited by the public before it is released as stable increases the reliability of the software. Microsoft programmers are still tasked to getting the software into stable, rather than having moved on to other things after the release.
Beta software also provides the public a chance to review the full product or something close to what it will be, without breaking any laws, and without the annoyance of limitations like those found in demos.
Thumbs up from me
Total cost, delivered, is $0.00 (free as in beer). Whatever that means. It's not unusual for MSFT to do that, nor is it unusual to be loved by anyone.
Part Number Qty. Product Name Price Item Total
121-00015 1 Visual Studio Team Suite 2005 English CD/DVD Beta 2 $0.00 $0.00
Subtotal: $0.00
Shipping and Handling: $0.00
Tax $0.00
Total: $0.00 (USD)
Please expect delivery of product within 2-4 weeks, depending on availability of product and ship to location.
Usually, it's more like a couple of days (XP Sp2 took that long, for instance).
Sure they work well. But how much would you have paid to join in the beta program?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
> MS: Beta Software Good Enough for Production Use
Actually, Netscape went a big step beyond that.
In late 2000, Netscape unleashed version 6.0 of their browser onto the public.
Netscape 6.0 is the first and only major piece of software that I have seen widely distributed to the public that was not even fit for alpha-level (internal only) testing.
The release of Netscape 6.0 was a shocking peek at just how far Netscape had fallen. But, even more tragically, it helped to usher in a sad new era where companies have stopped caring about software quality altogether.
Taking their cue from toothpaste marketing, the major software companies now have one overriding goal: Brand Recognition. Marketers have found that quality is simply not essential to creating a commercially successful software product. In turn, this raises the important question: "Why even spend the money to create a quality product?"
y'all just don't realize what Microsoft has done for the art of programming. Before Microsoft people expected the software to work. Now, thanks to Microsoft, you can ship crap and nobody complains. As long as it only crashes a couple times a week it is ok.
disingenuous
Pronunciation Key (dsn-jny-s)
adj.
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who... exemplified... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
Okay. Has anyone else noticed that you still have to be an MSDN subscriber? The basic basic MSDN subscription package is $100, and it goes up from there. No, thanks. I don't want to pay to be your beta software. Find someone else to bend over for you, Billy.
'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
As soon as teh VS 2005 Beta was out some bright prof at my college decided that our class (and the labs!) should use the beta for a c# class. How we were supposed to turn in projects that worked was a mystery to me. I had to rewrite one section of code three times to work around different issues. When functions can't return the same value when given the same input, something is very wrong. I'll never know why we used that beta, our school shook hands with the devil so any of their software would have cost us the same. I'm sure it is better now but it was hell to use that first beta.
As a developer that has been programming on Linux professionally since 1997, I've always enjoyed sidetrip projects that allow me to use Visual Studio.
Open source could learn a thing or two from Microsoft's IDEs. Especially in the non-java realm.
The current .Net implementation lacks nullable value types which is just poor design and makes them useless for use with databases and web services.. They are fixing it in the upcoming version.
by "catches on" I mean "Microsoft thinks they can get away with forcing it upon everyone." Sort of like Software Activation. Not "worth something" to the free market, but still "caught on."
Bullshit, I couldn't login to Gmail for an hour yesterday.
n
Search for gmail down and find 1.87 million results (courtessy of Google, if it works):
http://www.google.com/search?q=gmail+dow
BTW, somewhere I have a screenshot of Google.com down.
Allow me to quote something I posted in a different story a moment ago:
That pretty much sums it all up.This is one of the reasons why I stopped bothing with gaming on the PC. You buy a game and then have to play patch of the week just to get the damn thing to work. (Ultima Online anyone?)
Console games are on a fixed media (CD, Cart, whatever) and the manufacture can't release craptastic code without performing whack of play testing. A PC game manufacturer just shrugs it off an pushes out to get the door before the next quarters fiscal report knowing full well that they can just 'patch' it later.
isn't that what they have been doing so far? Considering the service packs are fixes for the OS alone, i consider their products beta until they release SP4.
the initial aughust '95 win95 release was the same thing I was playing with a month prior.. and then like 2 months later beta 2 was released to MSDN subscribers.
Believe it or not this is what customers are asking for. VS 2005 won't be gold for a few months yet but it's needed now for AMD64 bit code. Ideally MS should have had the tools out before the OS. In the mean time we've been using it for a while now and it is solid for our needs. Who cares if some fringe features aren't in there yet. Let us use it so we can get our 64bit code out.
This is "Offtopic", dear brainless moderators.
used to just license their alpha software as production releases? I guess it's a good thing they've finally got to the beta state ;-)
John_Chalisque
Duh! Windows XP was released nearly 4 years ago and it's still beta. Talk about old news on /. again. :)
If you're not significantly smart enough to avoid buying beta products that's your bad.
I think any company has the right to sell products at any stage of development they want. If people didn't consume this stuff they'd probably stop selling it.
"Freedom and Justice for All" is a registered trademark of The United States Govt Inc. Not available in all areas.
GoLive licenses have been done before, and I'm sure they'll be done again. I mean, sure, it's Beta software, but it's been put through some really serious paces before it was released. I've been using VS 2005 Beta 2 candidate builds for quite a while now, and they are quite stable. If you do run into a problem with VS 2005 Beta 2, log a bug on it! We really do look at each of these logged issues; they certainly don't disappear into any sort of black hole.
No, but I used to work for Microsoft.
Since when has it been aceptable to charge people money to beta test for you..
Im sorry but if you want me to beta test either a free beta with no obligations or pay me to test it for you.
I am not paying for a product that is clearly still in the testing phases.
To be fair i wouldnt normaly buy a microsoft product anyway , but that is not the point .
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Since most(being polite!) MS software are beta quality so this would be more like licensing alpha sofwares. and then u will have to pay extra to "upgrade" to (MS production)beta software. MS is smart. Dont you notice Company is charging people for testing instead of paying them:)
Could somebody point out the newsworth bit here? All I can see is a story about Microsoft providing supply for a commercial demand.
"Microsoft is claiming the pre-release versions are stable already"
I think they meen... as stable as the rest of their crap.
Coding Monkey.org - Spanging the heavy spade of truth into t
Nice to see bad reporting is still happening. Windows NT was not the cause of the Navys experience, a badly written database application was (and since they dont say what the database application was, we cant go around namecalling). Im not a Microsoft fanboi (jesus, why do I have to even write that?!) but to just attribute a Ship Management failure to the OS when the article said that it was the application and database itself is just FUD pure and simple.
I've used last month's release as well as the first beta release, and they are nothing like what I would expect from production software.
Sure theres a _lot_ of nice new stuff in there (a lot of which has been around a while in open and non open source java IDEs), but the releases fully deserve their beta / alpha statuses from my experience.
Microsoft's basic problem is that it's unable to release software at anything like regular intervals. Whereas the MacOS is updated once or twice a year, Microsoft is struggling to release Longhorn after what, 5+ years. Ditto for IE. Visual Studio has also been waiting far longer for an update than its competition. Trying to sell your beta software might sound like a solution to this problem, but its not if the beta software really is only beta quality.
In the internet age, where a year can see immense changes and where the companies pushing those changes are no longer Microsoft, either Microsoft has to speed up its processes or its monopoly is bound to slowly fade.
The Linux crowd (whom you all love...) has been doing this for years.
Heck, they claim alpha versions they can't even get to compile cleanly are good enough for production work.
I thought this was *current* policy?
Let's face it, even XP SP2 is still beta. Tried installing Recovery Console AFTER loading SP2? Forget it.
Hasn't Quark been doing this for years, too?
How many other companies do this? Several.. Take a look at a fileforum list of releases. 90% of them are shareware which is labeled as "Alpha" "Beta" or "RC1, RC2, RC3". Microsoft is just following in the footsteps of so many other software developers.. Hell take a look at games.. When was the last time anyone played a game that didn't require a patch as soon as you got it installed?
How many next versions contain bug fixes? There is no clear "beta" demarcation - it is simply a continuum at which a point is reached where "management" decides a product is good enough. This is true of all software.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Visual Studio .NET 2002 .NET 2003 .NET 2005
Visual Studio
Visual Studio
Root is safe.
Beta is production.
Cats and Dogs, living together.
Mass hysteria, people!
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
That is why their released products are so unstable, as they are really just relase candidates.
Seriously tho, this is a BAD idea, using beta products in production that have features that are subject to change..
Nothing worse then having a control that you are using be dropped in the next release...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I was an M$ developer for years. Many M$ developers, especially those with full M$DN subs have been doing this for years. So M$ comes out with a new license and some FUD to make "outsiders" think that M$ products can be just as usable as OSS products at the same stage of development? This whole article was /. flamebait/troll and guess who bit?
Nothing to see here, these are not the 'Droids you're looking for, move along.
new, how?
It's pretty solid. we've been using it for many months now. No issues whatsoever, and perfectly suitable for simple knock up apps.
It's only the express versions, so that's the target user.. some quick basic apps..
works very well..
Ms beta these days is probably better quality, thatn their release versions of yesteryear..
Can you read? Can you click on a link?
Microsoft isn't charging for these betas, so how on earth could this generate any cash flow?
God, idiots make me sick.
I am sorry to tell you this, but most Microsoft software does work very well.
.Net guys are at assembling simple business applications. I doubt those will be easy to maintain, but, frequently, code maintenance is not the point.
They may not be the coolest, fastest, more capable, more secure or more stable available, but they sure do the job.
I have seen a whole lot of MS SQL Server databases on production, without a single glitch. The user interface for managers is more than adequate. I always say it's the best product they make (after the natural keyboard and their optical mice).
If properly managed, WinXP is quite stable. I use it at one machine at home and it gives me no headaches.
As for development tools, it scares me how quickly
I think Microsoft software fits its niche, where you do not want to spend much training your IT staff but are willing to pay some money in order to get a brand and some support. It may not be suitable for 24x7 operations, but, for some, it's a good choice.
And true, Microsoft is not a nice company. They don't play nice and they give capitalists a bad name.
Of course, I prefer to use FOSS when possible, but I can imagine myself using proprietary solutions where they make sense.
Running an IT infrastructure is about solving a problem the best way you can, not making a point by ignoring reality.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
How many of us are running Fedora, Debian Unstable, and/or a whole slew of beta software on our production boxes?
Well, some people do want the newest features because they think they need them.
Of course, this also gives plenty of trouble.
Once, I worked on a company that had a customer that complained about our application not working on Oracle Application Server. After I looked at it and found out that they used the beta version, management told me to get back to work and told the customer that we do not support our product on other companies betas.
And I fully understood the choice of the customer, as the OAS beta version had much more interesting features, features that our product did use. But I agree with management. We cannot support our product on other people's betas.
So, when you use beta software, be prepared to loose support not only for the beta application, but for all applications used with it.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof for my post which this sig is too small to contain.
The Captain is responsible for everything that happens on the ship. The OS is responsible for everything that happens in the PC.
Plain and simple.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
This isn't news. They did the same thing with both previous versions of Visual Studio.Net as well as many previous server products.
If the OS crashed because of the problem, then I would agree, but in this case it didnt - the application failed due to database overflow, which locked out the controls. Think about it this way, how can you blame linux when mysql cant handle the data given to it? Thats what this boils down to.
We all know that Macro$loth's definition of Beta would equal most real world coders Alpha code and their stable release equals Beta
Point being that Beta VS is probably just fine for most things. And since it's free, it allows developers to see if it's worth paying for again for mostly the same thing...
I've been to conferences where the speakers have bragged about running their client sites on Win2000 betas 6 months or more before RTM, and .NET-based websites close to a year before the official release.