Well, it really depends on your needs and how picky you are. The big problem with the Eclipse website is that it also contains a lot of the plugins and other stuff on the site, so it is somewhat cluttered. It would be nice to see a lot of the clutter go to a different site so one can focus on Eclipse, and the other can focus on the plugins and such.
The big thing with Eclipse is that it is a framework. You can make it as heavy or light as you want it, and people are encouraged to contribute "distributions" for others. Naturally, you can grab one of the items directly on the eclipse.org site and build your own IDE with all you want, or you can pick up a pre-configured copy with plugins already bundled. The nice thing is that no matter what distribution you use, the environment is consistent, so you don't need to worry about stuff changing around on you a whole lot.
As another poster said, EasyEclipse makes some nice bundles for focused areas that you can pick up. Heck, they even have a nice installer and everything. Once you get the base bundle, then you can always add on other tools as you need. If you don't like that, you can just look at the list of what each edition has and build it from scratch.
I wouldn't really fault Visual Studio for Source Safe's failings, it isn't a required component. Personally, I wouldn't touch Source Safe with a very long pole in any voluntary manner (only if I was required to). Considering it is the only system marked as a system to avoid over at the Better SCM Initiative and even Forrester won't consider it anymore in ranking SCM products, I'm surprised it is being considered for any kind of current solution.
There are some decent tools for Visual Studio to work with CVS and Subversion, among other version control systems, and they work out fairly well. At work, we are using Subversion for our VCS, with AnkhSVN to handle the management inside Visual Studio. Except for some issues with using AnkhSVN back when it was first getting started (and was rather buggy), we have been very happy and productive with the solution.
And don't forget that without published detailed figures, any Linux distro can be made to look bad by counting security flaws in all packages they ship with (office suite, development tools, etc).
Simply pointing to raw numbers doesn't make a good or accurate comparison because the scope of items covered by the bugs listed for Windows and, say, RHEL, are different.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it really depends on your needs and how picky you are. The big problem with the Eclipse website is that it also contains a lot of the plugins and other stuff on the site, so it is somewhat cluttered. It would be nice to see a lot of the clutter go to a different site so one can focus on Eclipse, and the other can focus on the plugins and such.
The big thing with Eclipse is that it is a framework. You can make it as heavy or light as you want it, and people are encouraged to contribute "distributions" for others. Naturally, you can grab one of the items directly on the eclipse.org site and build your own IDE with all you want, or you can pick up a pre-configured copy with plugins already bundled. The nice thing is that no matter what distribution you use, the environment is consistent, so you don't need to worry about stuff changing around on you a whole lot.
As another poster said, EasyEclipse makes some nice bundles for focused areas that you can pick up. Heck, they even have a nice installer and everything. Once you get the base bundle, then you can always add on other tools as you need. If you don't like that, you can just look at the list of what each edition has and build it from scratch.
I wouldn't really fault Visual Studio for Source Safe's failings, it isn't a required component. Personally, I wouldn't touch Source Safe with a very long pole in any voluntary manner (only if I was required to). Considering it is the only system marked as a system to avoid over at the Better SCM Initiative and even Forrester won't consider it anymore in ranking SCM products, I'm surprised it is being considered for any kind of current solution.
There are some decent tools for Visual Studio to work with CVS and Subversion, among other version control systems, and they work out fairly well. At work, we are using Subversion for our VCS, with AnkhSVN to handle the management inside Visual Studio. Except for some issues with using AnkhSVN back when it was first getting started (and was rather buggy), we have been very happy and productive with the solution.
And don't forget that without published detailed figures, any Linux distro can be made to look bad by counting security flaws in all packages they ship with (office suite, development tools, etc).
Simply pointing to raw numbers doesn't make a good or accurate comparison because the scope of items covered by the bugs listed for Windows and, say, RHEL, are different.