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.
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.
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.
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.
At least they are finally admitting that it's beta quality.
First root is completely safe, and now beta software is fine for production environments?
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
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.
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
Yeah... alright, next Duke Nukem Forever comes out.
Their language products have been pretty decent of late.
;-)
Perhaps. I'm willing to give you that... but a SQL server? Yikes. I think I'll hold off for the final release... and then a round or two of patches, just to be safe
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
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.
Why is a Microsoft beta less credible than open source 0.87 alpha 'releases', which tend to find their way into many a Linux distribution.??? ;-)
Isn't all Microsoft software still in beta? Perhaps its only that their software performs like its still in beta?
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
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.
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
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
And you don't have to pay for Google's beta stuff - unlike production stuff from MSFT.
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.
RTFA,
No one is paying for shit. Microsofts BETA liscence forbids you from running production servers on beta software. They are simply offering an exemption from this restriction. They are not charging for the software, they are simply letting you go live with the beta software before the production version is ready if you wish to do so. Then, you will buy the production liscence when available (ie when it's released).
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
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.
Alpha - Program compiles without errors, and can start.
Early Beta -Program can run for several minutes without crashing or doing something really bad.
Beta - Program can run for a while, and won't lock up the system if left running overnight.
RC1 - Program can be used to complete modest tasks, and save the data. Data can even be reloaded in another session.
RC2 - You have to know how to crash it. Otherwise it seems to be able to run for hours.
Version 1 - The program only crashes or screws up when you start pushing it to its limits, such as opening lots of files, using many of its features in a single session or using them repeatedly, or when you demo it to stockholders.
SP1 - Fixes most of the deluge of bugs that came in after Version 1
SP2 -Now only obscure and really difficult to resolve bugs exist. The damn thing actually works.
SP3 - You can actually get lots of work done, and user error far surpasses program error in frequency of screw-ups.
Friends don't let friends drive beta.
I'm not bill g and don't work at microsoft, but I'll wager my left testicle that the backlash from them breaking *every* vb app with a service pack or security update would be so violent and sudden that it simply won't happen. You have (or you may) no idea about the sheer volume of legacy custom code floating around out there that was written in VB. The idea that they would actually break all of that is nothing but the wet dream of a thousand open source zealots wanting to chirp "I told you so" over and over. Ain't gonna happen.
Yet another stupid moderation. Someone should probably point out to the parent the fact that the betas are free.
Oh wait, nevermind. I just did.
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
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.
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.
Why is a Microsoft beta less credible than open source 0.87 alpha 'releases', which tend to find their way into many a Linux distribution.??? ;-)
:P [/fun] People tend to tolerate unexplainable crashes a bit better when they have a bit of hope that something better is coming.
Thing is, when you have to provide you full source code for everyone to see, you tend to produce quite clean and bugfree code, and if you don't succeed in the bugfree part, you always come out better if you tell people where the problems are. If you're lucky, someone will fix it for you. If you're even more lucky, you will be able to fix your bugs.
WHat I wanted to say is, even though very many FOSS apps get out into the world named as 0.0.0.1alpha whatever, this naming often hides quite a bit of honesty towards the community, and sometimes people tend to give lower version numbers, or even label their works as beta even though they think it's better than that, for the simple reason that they know: more eyes can notice more bugs, even ones you couldn't find at first.
In one sentence: I - usually, not every time and not above all - trust more FOSS apps labeled as beta than closed source apps labeled the same.
[fun] I think even MS would've come out better if labeling the whole win9x line as pre-alphas
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Allow me to quote something I posted in a different story a moment ago:
That pretty much sums it all up."Feature-complete" may as well be in another language.
What's in a name? One man's "feature complete" is another guys unscratched itch.
In many cases, open source software is someone's hobby or pet project in much the same way as some guys play with their '57 Mustang.
It makes little sense to tell the guy with the Mustang to quit polishing the chrome and trying to make the number 2 on the gearshift stand out "just so". Why not allow the developer with his pet database the same freedom?
If the software does what you need it to do, then fire it up and let 'er rip. But don't tell the guy who's behind it that he's being too picky or taking too damn long. It's his pet. Let him play with it.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
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.
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.
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.
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