Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Buys Teamprise, Will Ship Linux Tools
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."
I rather have the equivalent of VS on Linux than just another Eclipse plug-in. Here comes the Embrace...
nuf sed.
Table-ized A.I.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
"If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won." - Linus Torvalds
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.
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.
The only reason they're going cross-platform is that the tools are written in Java, which is already cross-platform.
-Troll, Flamebait, and Offtopic are NOT equivalent to disagreement.
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.
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!
Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
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...
That is announced on ... Friday 13th. Halloween is over, so could it be they needed another telling day?
> 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.
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
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.
Would you buy a used horse from a convicted horse-rapist?
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
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 :)
I'm not sure that even Google can pass that requirement.
No one...NO ONE...cares about your righteous anger. Stew in your hole.
No, I don't care.
Regards,
No one
The thing is, you have to have trust in version control to be prepared to use it. You are putting your business in its hands, so it had better not break or introduce errors on purpose. Trust depends upon your reputation. Reputation matters.
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?
Surely any code could have code copied in breach of copyright in it?
Lemme guess: Home, Ultimate, Pro, Pro-er, and Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
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.
...it is irrelevant.
Stallman might not like it, though.
But we are talking about Linus now.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
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.
Here be signatures
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 separat
Seriously, how is the idea of Microsoft editions of Linux a troll. I'd say this should be +5 Funny.
This is my sig.
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
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
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.
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.
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.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
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.
Embrace, Extend, Enhance
I'll try anything once. Twice if it tastes good
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.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Yes, but if it is closed source, it is much harder to find.
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?
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.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
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.
Sure. It's just more easily found out in open source.
Thus only copyright-breaching criminals use closed source..
and in a leap of logic: all closed source is stolen code.
More to the point, Microsoft is certainly going to keep this product as a Linux/Unix solution, just like Hotmail is still running Linux....
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, what you're really saying is that just that you're content making terrible business decisions and, as such should never be put in charge of IT.
Good luck achieving success in The Real World[TM].
Aren't some parts of Services for Unix from OpenBSD?
I can be sure not to ever be vendor locked-in ever again
God, you really are pathetic. 7 year clock? Get a life, or a better excuse. You want to know what FUD is? It's this "vendor lock-in" bullshit. You aren't locked into anything. I've used Microsoft products along with Apple, Commodore, and many more I've forgotten. I've never lost any data or been forced to purchase software in order to use my data. Hardware? Yes. But software? No, you have no excuse except your own laziness, stupidity, or bigotry. No one believes your garbage except the people who have the same problems you do, and that's pretty sad.
Lemme guess: Home, Ultimate, Pro, Pro-er, and Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
There are - let us say - 200 or so Linux distributions.
"You can't tell the players without a program." List of Linux distributions
after everything fuddles said about the penguins being ill bred, dysfunctional commies etc....
as the wwworm turns?
Nice, so now m$ is going to figure out ways to make Unix BSOD as well (or the Unix equivalent to that).
The world is how you make it
I remember something along these lines where I used to work. One of my co-workers was looking for a car and found one that was going quite cheap for the specs. Essentially it had almost no km's, was in immaculate mechanical condition, and had no body damage.
The key to the low price was in the disclaimer near the bottom, which was something like:
Was used in the adult production "in da butt", so interior cleaning may be recommended
would not hurt for Microsoft do develop and releasy a Unix(y), free software OS alongside of Windows. ... Everybody would probably be happy.
Except MS's shareholders...
Deliberately create, to some degree, a competitor to their current cash-cow and *not* make any money off of it? Seriously?
Surely any code could have code copied in breach of copyright in it?
But if it's closed source, then the only people who know about it are the perpetrators... making it difficult to get sued over it.
Hotmail never ran Linux. It ran (still runs on the back end?) FreeBSD.
Well, yeah, but with open source anyone can SEE that it is there.
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 :)
I disagree. I know that Google uses a lot of OSS stuff on the back end, but most of their desktop applications are closed source. Chrome is the only exception that I can think of. To name a few closed source Google apps: Picasa, Google Earth, Google Desktop, Google Toolbar and Google applications for Android (GMail, Google Voice, Google Sync, etc...)
"Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
Who said they wouldn't make any money from it?
If Windows would die, Microsoft would already have a stand in replacement. Support. Closed source office.
But most importantly: No need for Red Hat? It's either don't use Windows and pay a competitor, or not pay a competitor. It's that simple.
What it comes down to: Damange controll may cost money and wouldn't earn you any money... _directly_.
Here be signatures
Kind of like SLES and RHEL. I don't really see anything wrong with doing that. It's okay to make money and people like shiny.
Don't think of it as a flame, more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage.
i agree .. i think if nothing else MS should make a front end for X11, so you could choose gnome, kde, windows(of some sort), etc. also i think MS should consider something like what apple did, and novell, something unix underneath, something else on top. but for them to tuck tail and do this would be great in tech terms but unlikely. or if ms wasnt so mean to protocols nad such like they have been in the past for samba and email.
Press Release from Microsoft
CNN story
Thanks for playing... Maybe there's something juicy in here you could use? November 9
Also if it's closed source then *somebody* must have sold you the license to it and if you get in trouble you can go back to them and drag them into the lawsuit too. If it's a typical open source project, then there's really nobody you can lean on if someone finds you're infringing. At least that's another reason I've heard for licensing code from $big_corp rather than using something open source.
But most importantly: No need for Red Hat? It's either don't use Windows and pay a competitor, or not pay a competitor. It's that simple.
For MS's shareholders it is just about the money, but for everyone else, its not that simple.
All I can say is that MS releasing a 'free' *nix clone of their own will not in any way entice me away from a real FOSS OS, because, of course, free or not, this is still MS we're talking about.
Unless you're idea is that they're going to release this clone under a *real* FOSS license, which ain't going to happen. MS releasing a GPL'd *nix clone? Not in this universe.
I was worried, to say the least, when Microsoft bought Gecad, the makers of RAV antivirus in 2007. My worries were confirmed: they killed one of the best security products in the world, one that ran on both desktops and servers, on various operating systems, backed by enterprise support and by a healthy community. Their demise was so sudden, I was still buying copies of their software bundled with new computers on retail stores after they were officially dead. We were, and still are, a long time customer of Gecad, to this day I didn't receive any plausible explanation on what happened.
I wish the best of luck to all existing Teamprise customers, but there is little hope for them if they are not Windows-centric.
In my opinion there's only one version of linux. There are many companies that package it with various options but there's only one version. Package management differences don't equate to variations on Linux, nor does slight variation in folder structure or the level of "customization" of any given distribution. It's all Linux.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
The major projects that might be threatened by what you speak of have version control systems and know where the code comes from. People don't just dump their code into a huge bit bin and it's soaked up and used. These people know where the code comes from. Yes, it could be hard to pin it on an individual because they may upload and run, but most of the code is vetted against such things as this and attempts to insert malicious code.
And at the level of open source the solutions are easier than closed source. If infringing code is found it can much more easily be removed or made to comply, whereas with closed source programs that have been distributed it is much harder. The system for distribution of changes in the open source world through the distros is much more refined than with closed source.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Microsoft does nothing to prove a thing. They do nothing but release to make money and to monopolize markets.
All your examples indicate they have something to prove, to which I say, they don't think they have a thing to prove. And to that I say that some of the Linux community would love for them to prove exactly what you state in your examples.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Seeing as though there is no evidence for this Danger information just a load of Slashdot bullshit being regurgitated by every member thinking they are the smartest in the world. The Danger servers were not even handled by Microsoft, they were outsourced to another company. All Microsoft did wrong was trust them, in fact, Microsoft probably spent a huge amount of money to restore the data.
I wasn't talking about the Danger Down issue. I was talking about Project Pink and the blog posting describing how Microsoft moved many of the Danger engineers to Project Pink and left the Danger division in support mode.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
I'd be wary of any software company that takes this long to realize that.
All Microsoft did wrong was trust them, in fact, Microsoft probably spent a huge amount of money to restore the data.
I was with a bunch of programmers when the "Danger" debacle news broke...even the most die hard Microsoft fan there, and there were a few, could not stop laughing about it. Danger...yea right...Danger, lmao, ROFLMAO.
I agree with one of my friends who said, "that was a self fulfilling prophecy wasn't it."
Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
Microsoft already ship open source apps and code. I don't have a Windows box handy to find a specific example, but much of SUA is open source.
Follow me
It shows that FLOSS is doing well, and won a small victory here.
As it pertains to Microsoft, there are NO victories small or large with respects to open source, FOSS and standardized data formats. To believe that, that is even possible is the most powerful FUD of all... Good luck with that. I will hold them accountable for their past and current transgressions, which you admit are many, and wait until they prove themselves again, over a 7 year time period of course.
.."resetting your clock" for everything you consider a "violation" ..
Which is the point exactly, I decide what I consider to be a violation, everyone else considers what they decide is or is not a violation. Since we all wait for a 7 year track record based on their "actions" over that period, none of us can ever be led astray again. Their FUD becomes meaningless, worthless and a laughable waste of their resources... It also means that any effort on their part that is not honorable will be caught by someone, probably many of us. This is a very good thing. They should hold themselves to a higher standard as the market leader, and since they do not, will not, it is up to individual consumers to hold them accountable.
Make them earn your business, your hard earned money. Innovate or die! It is not enough to slap a new name on something and force you to upgrade/update for a fee or they turn you off. Pathetic and they deserve to fail.
It needs to become a business decision with a potential financial impact in lost revenue to their bottom line before anything will change. When it costs too much to ignore standards, we will all have data formats that are 100% sharable between apps and operating systems. Perhaps when their market share falls below 40% we will have that...that is something many of us will live to see. Many just do not realize that yet... Does anything decent come out of MFST any more? I sure have not seen it in the last few years.
And never think a small group of people can not influence and impact change. History shows us this is indeed how every major change for the last thousand years has happened, many a small group of people or even an individual never live to see the fruits of their efforts, but their efforts most certainly have an impact. Another FUD argument is that one of us or a few of us can not make a difference. We do, we can, we will, we must.
Microsoft should be sending out emails to all their business units and development teams to clean up their acts and fly right. Instead they send out emails stating how devastating it would be to their business to conform to WWW standards and that they must create their own incompatible standard, in order to maintain market dominance. And after this huge mistake, that anyone is surprised that they are slowly losing market share is more surprising to me. They make business choices and we should too. It is as simple as that.
Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
Aww, the early 1990s, the days of the General Protection Faults, or GPFs. While I agree that you could call Microsoft and ask for help; the response that you received was anything but helpful.
Fact 1: They denied the problem existed, but when pushed would provide a 20 - 40 page GPF Troubleshooting Guide...it did not work.
Fact 2: When it did not work, after multiple attempts, Microsoft could not provide support. Their only solution was to turn off/on the computer.
My guess is the GPFs were related to ineffective use of allocating and deallocating memory and/or memory creep, but I honestly do not know, just instincts based on what I was seeing and experiencing using their products. If anyone has a definitive link to a source that states exactly what the problem was I would be interested in re-creating the problem on some old hardware that I have and verifying that it is indeed the problem.
I can not imagine wasting money on Microsoft support, they will NOT admit that their own code causes the problem; they will not admit that an incompatible problem exists by their own design (for vendor lock-in reasons); they will blame everyone but themselves; they do not provide solutions. Been there, done that, learned from my mistake.
How can any entity help you if they can not admit their own mistakes, learn from them and improve the general knowledge base by working from a place of facts.
I will give them another chance after a 7 year successful track record...still waiting...
Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
Mac OS/X is also Unix. Apple received a certification from The Open Group that OS/X conforms to the Unix standards and is legally entitled to use the Unix trademark.
Essentially, Microsoft is the only vendor who isn't selling Unix. But it looks like it's only a matter of time...
the shit named ACTA, the draconian 'end internet freedom' 'treaty' that GOP senate has prepared is being already forced onto countries america has business relations with. basically its american law being forced unto signatory countries, even without the consent of their respective parliaments, or national law.
what can possibly be better than setting up your own shop and poisoning the only serious open source software competitor to your business with proprietary code, right at a time like this ...
Read radical news here
>> * 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?
see git-stash(1). Does exactly that. shelve current work without committing it. I use it every day when somebody wants a bugfix in the branch I am working on, but can't commit yet.
Even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat
Fat chance. They'll probably somehow break compatibility with non-Windows systems with a next upgrade somehow. Hey, open-source only defines the source must stay available, not that it HAS to run on several different systems, right?
After which interested parties can then try to fix the thing again to work under Linux too. If a fork is possible with the license, I see a fork coming.
I am not devoid of humor.
Hmm, Linux has succeeded on both my and my mom's computers... And she's not exactly tech-savvy.
I am not devoid of humor.
Thanks! I'll check it out.
Nope. Just the load balancer.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
They do need to prove that they are capable, because there was a huge problem with Vista's reputation, remember?
Also: "Nah... I am going for Apple because they make better products." Reputation is marketing. People that go from Windows to Mac OS X do not care about legacy support. All they care about is a better product, which is something that Microsoft can easily make possible. Free software or closed source; it doesn't matter. It's all about crushing competitors. If making sure that they do not earn profit is a means to reach that goal, then so be it.
Here be signatures
But most importantly: No need for Red Hat? It's either don't use Windows and pay a competitor, or not pay a competitor. It's that simple.
Unless you're idea is that they're going to release this clone under a *real* FOSS license, which ain't going to happen. MS releasing a GPL'd *nix clone? Not in this universe.
Far fetched? Yeah, but you are all forgetting one thing. The REAL cash-cow for MS is Office. Yes, they do make money out of windows, but their money comes from office, exchange and related software. Even the Win7 development team admitted that they adopted the ribbon interface because it's office, not windows that leads the way in UI design. Why? 'Cuz it brings in the bacon.
So if they can cook up Xenix 2012 GPL edition and make 100% compatible Office versions for it, they would make money. Also remember, just because it's free as in freedom doesn't mean they can't charge for it. Like Red Hat?
+Raider of the lost BBS
The Microsoft deal did not include DiffMerge. It will continue to be free and available from SourceGear.
Eric Sink
Software Craftsman