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."
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday November 13, @03:52AM (#30084562)
Microsoft themselves will now be developing and shipping products based on those heterogeneous platforms, including 5 versions of Unix.
It isn't the first time. Microsoft used to provide tools for accessing Visual SourceSafe repositories from UNIX. Needless to say, these tools were utterly terrible yet allowed them to claim that VSS "supported UNIX". I don't expect Microsoft to go out of their way to "support UNIX" this time around any more than they did previously.
I don't know if Source Safe was originally DOS based, UNIX based, or both but I do recall seeing the UNIX version of Visual Source Safe variant and it really sucked. The UNIX box GUI was CDE and Motif based but the Visual Source Save GUI was based on Windows 3.x. They made no effort to integrate it into the UNIX desktop as if they were saying, "We are Microsoft, Windows is our product, this is a Windows based product so be happy you have it at all." FYI, Microsoft produced Visual Source Safe after purchasin
Well to be fair the Windows version of VSS really sucks too. Oh, and 2005 STILL isn't really client server based; they tacked a Web server onto it that VSS can use over the internet, but its still handling the database format in the exact same way. And you don't have to use the web service feature at all.
I had no idea SourceGear had this project going at all, which suprises me a bit because I use their Fortress project in place of VSS.
Mono isn't a language per se. Mono is an import of the.Net framework. The trouble is that this framework is controlled by Microsoft. Firstly, the Windows version will always be ahead of other platforms relegating other platforms to inferior, buggy or feature incomplete versions. This could result in security vulnerabilities and lagging behind in version availability. More dangerous however, is that Microsoft can withdraw approval for Mono at any time, if they wish. If Mono became a popular basis for running software on Linux, then Microsoft could bring it all crashing down whenever they felt Linux had grown to be enough of a threat. Or they can start charging licence fees. Once a software base is installed, it can be very hard to move away from it *cough*Office*cough*.
Basically, rather than true cross-platform compatability, what you get is Microsoft controlling a framework that Linux apps would become dependent on. A bad, vulnerable situation, imo. That's why I dislike proprietary systems such as Moonlight that are built on it. If we overhauled software patent law then it would be less of a threat, but it remains a technical advantage to Windows.
Seriously? Just stop it. Mono is never going to make the mountain of C code obsolete. Linux will never be dependent on Mono. If Microsoft somehow stopped distribution of Mono on the internet (HAHAHHAHAHAHA) and everyone simply had to do without, you just port the application to Java, C++ or Go!. GNote proves this isn't that big of a deal. Your concerns have no merit.
Since Mono is a clean-room implementation of.NET and C# (both EMCA standards)
You don't *need* a clean-room implementation of an EMCA standard. Its a *standard*.
Its the 'clean-room implementations' of the non-ECMA-standard software at the top of the Mono software stack that have people concerned, e.g. Winforms & ASP.NET, etc, etc.
And the Community Promise
has so much vague language in it that its only real value is as comic relief.
Seriously, google what the FSF and others think about the language of that 'promise'.
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.
So is yours. While MS SQL 2003 and 2005 are some very nice products you should remember that they bought most of the SQL software from others (Ingres). The original MS SQL server sucked donkey balls and was retired some time back.
so windows server 2003, sql serevr 2005 are crappy software?
Compared to anything but Windows Server 2008 (which I hate with a burning hate every time I try and open Telnet on a new server and go "oh, right, WTF, Microsoft, WTF...") and Microsoft's original SQL Server?
and the whole package isn't as nicely integrated as TFS.
Look, I didn't say that you should never use TFS. If you're running a Windows-only shop, knock yourself out and use TFS; like all Microsoft solutions, it's "nicely integrated".
I'm saying that once you need something like Teamprise, you're probably better off just moving to a non-Windows team development server.
(Keep in mind that TFS is really a me-too product, after both open source and other vendors had demonstrated the value of such systems.)
I'm working with TFS on a daily basis and I am thoroughly impressed - with the possible exception for the code "merging" tools. I am curious, what "nice, high quality open source solution" would be an alternative? This is not a jab or anything, but using TFS was the first time I realized how much an integrated source control, team collaboration site, project management integrated solution makes sense.
So, is there an open source integrated solution or combo which will meet the following requirements?
Collabnet's Teamforge might do most of what you're after there - but its not open source or free. Its cheap for the solution though, costs the same for 25 users as TFS does for 1.
There isn't any open source equivalents though... unless you take a load of pieces that do parts of your requirements, eg subversion for version control, hudson for continuous integration, mantis for bug tracking, etc. All the pieces are out there, but you'll have to do the work integrating them yourself.
There isn't any open source equivalents though... unless you take a load of pieces that do parts of your requirements, eg subversion for version control, hudson for continuous integration, mantis for bug tracking, etc. All the pieces are out there, but you'll have to do the work integrating them yourself.
You don't have to do the work, you just install a Linux distribution that packages it all up. Or you get a turnkey "virtual appliance".
So, is there an open source integrated solution or combo which will meet the following requirements?
Shelving, configurable policies, and branching based on metadata are standard parts of most major distributed version control systems. They're all integrated into Eclipse and other IDEs.
Integrated work items, issue tracking, dashboard, unit testing, code coverage, continuous integration, are provided by several front-ends and additional tools. That's not a one-size-fits-all thing, since different languages,
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.
To date, Microsoft has only hampered open source, open data formats, Linux, Unix and FOSS at every step of the way. So I do not believe it, can not believe it, will not believe it (words ~ FUD) until I see a 7 year positive track record with respects to anything non-Microsoft.
When they have shown by their actions, over seven years, that they have changed, than and only than will I consider purchasing Microsoft products again.
For each violation, I reset my 7 year clock from that day. Just reset it this week.
Basing my purchase decisions on their actions ONLY and not their marketing FUD, is the only way I can be sure not to ever be vendor locked-in ever again. So much time and money has been wasted by me, my friends, my family and other IT professionals over the last 20+ years...wasteful and unnecessary.
I will believe it when I see it. To date it has always been FUD!
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
> 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.
this reminds me of when Netscape had 80% market share and it was shown that Microsofts IIS server would process MS Internet Explorer browser requests faster than Netscape Navigator requests. There was something about the IIS server running noop loops.
They don't get the "Evil Empire" label for no good reason. IMO.
IIRC, XENIX was in the 80s and UNIX and mainframe OS's were what businesses used. Small businesses used UNIX based PCs because DOS was not even in the same ball park as UNIX as far as an OS is concerned. It wasn't until the late 80s and early 90s that Microsoft gold plated their monopoly on the desktop OS market so Xenix was hedging their bet. I hadn't heard that they ported it to x86 only that it was x86 based.
Once Microsoft had their monopoly and knew it, they've used it to protect their position. They do
Microsoft drops the price on Windows every chance they get for OEMs and large purchasers, even sometimes down to free. I don't think they're worried about cross-platform applications reducing the Windows profits so much as a platform they don't control, and thus can make faster/better software than everyone else reducing their profits on other fronts.
I bet more people are running Office 2007 on Windows XP than are running Vista these days. Just sayin'.
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 mak
Microsoft has a policy to not use open source, because they can't guarantee it's pedigree. If a malicious person puts stolen code into an OSS project (or more realistically, if a programmer uses company resources to develop the code, without permission from the company; or somebody pastes GPL code into a BSD project) then people who rely on the code might be vulnerable to lawsuits. http://weblogs.asp.net/jgalloway/archive/2007/05/02/why-microsoft-can-t-ship-open-source-code.aspx [asp.net]
At least, that's their excuse.
If open source was such a dangerous thing to touch, then I think Google, IBM and Apple would have been hit already.
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 (Chr
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.
The only reason they're going cross-platform is that the tools are written in Java, which is already cross-platform.
Perhaps this is true, though I have never been a big fan of Java anyway. Seems silly to load Java libraries, files and stuff, just to install a non-Java dependent application. Silly really and a bit irritating.
As I started coding PHP Model - View - Controllers (MVCs) it seems that the model itself is less efficient than PHP code + HTTP, but I have to do some testing before I can be sure. Seems that the MVC unnecessarily recreates features built into HTTP and PHP. My guess is that tests will show a PHP
Honestly if you believe that you haven't spent enough time on non-linux *nixes.
I spent a bout a few years back on freebsd/openbsd. Without linux compatibility libraries there are a *TON* of open source applications that will not compile against *bsd without patching due to linuxisms used in their source. I don't have any specific citations to speak of, but it shouldn't take much work to google around and see just how many hassles there are. And that is BEFORE including 'obsolete' linux kernel versions, 2.4,
Fully integrated Mono on Linux with Eclipse? (Score:4, Interesting)
Reply to This
Re:Fully integrated Mono on Linux with Eclipse? (Score:4, Informative)
I haven't tried it, but it exists.Have fun [ibm.com]
Reply to This
Parent
No, no (Score:2)
The more things change... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Reply to This
Re: (Score:2)
The moment I saw that, my first thought was "Gee, I wonder which platforms will lag behind in new features and testing."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FYI, Microsoft produced Visual Source Safe after purchasin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well to be fair the Windows version of VSS really sucks too. Oh, and 2005 STILL isn't really client server based; they tacked a Web server onto it that VSS can use over the internet, but its still handling the database format in the exact same way. And you don't have to use the web service feature at all.
I had no idea SourceGear had this project going at all, which suprises me a bit because I use their Fortress project in place of VSS.
Well ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not if they use Mono.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well ... (Score:5, Informative)
Mono isn't a language per se. Mono is an import of the .Net framework. The trouble is that this framework is controlled by Microsoft. Firstly, the Windows version will always be ahead of other platforms relegating other platforms to inferior, buggy or feature incomplete versions. This could result in security vulnerabilities and lagging behind in version availability. More dangerous however, is that Microsoft can withdraw approval for Mono at any time, if they wish. If Mono became a popular basis for running software on Linux, then Microsoft could bring it all crashing down whenever they felt Linux had grown to be enough of a threat. Or they can start charging licence fees. Once a software base is installed, it can be very hard to move away from it *cough*Office*cough*.
Basically, rather than true cross-platform compatability, what you get is Microsoft controlling a framework that Linux apps would become dependent on. A bad, vulnerable situation, imo. That's why I dislike proprietary systems such as Moonlight that are built on it. If we overhauled software patent law then it would be less of a threat, but it remains a technical advantage to Windows.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously? Just stop it. Mono is never going to make the mountain of C code obsolete. Linux will never be dependent on Mono. If Microsoft somehow stopped distribution of Mono on the internet (HAHAHHAHAHAHA) and everyone simply had to do without, you just port the application to Java, C++ or Go!. GNote proves this isn't that big of a deal. Your concerns have no merit.
Re:Well ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Since Mono is a clean-room implementation of .NET and C# (both EMCA standards)
You don't *need* a clean-room implementation of an EMCA standard. Its a *standard*.
Its the 'clean-room implementations' of the non-ECMA-standard software at the top of the Mono software stack that have people concerned, e.g. Winforms & ASP.NET, etc, etc.
And the Community Promise
has so much vague language in it that its only real value is as comic relief.
Seriously, google what the FSF and others think about the language of that 'promise'.
Reply to This
Parent
from Linus' viewpoint... (Score:3, Insightful)
...it is irrelevant.
Stallman might not like it, though.
But we are talking about Linus now.
silly (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Reply to This
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:silly (Score:4, Insightful)
So is yours. While MS SQL 2003 and 2005 are some very nice products you should remember that they bought most of the SQL software from others (Ingres). The original MS SQL server sucked donkey balls and was retired some time back.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
so windows server 2003, sql serevr 2005 are crappy software?
Compared to anything but Windows Server 2008 (which I hate with a burning hate every time I try and open Telnet on a new server and go "oh, right, WTF, Microsoft, WTF...") and Microsoft's original SQL Server?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've actually not found a better enterprise solution to team development than the newest version of TFS. Especially in corporate environments.
Perforce still beats it as a pure source control manager, but that's FAR from free software, and the whole package isn't as nicely integrated as TFS.
Re: (Score:2)
and the whole package isn't as nicely integrated as TFS.
Look, I didn't say that you should never use TFS. If you're running a Windows-only shop, knock yourself out and use TFS; like all Microsoft solutions, it's "nicely integrated".
I'm saying that once you need something like Teamprise, you're probably better off just moving to a non-Windows team development server.
(Keep in mind that TFS is really a me-too product, after both open source and other vendors had demonstrated the value of such systems.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm working with TFS on a daily basis and I am thoroughly impressed - with the possible exception for the code "merging" tools. I am curious, what "nice, high quality open source solution" would be an alternative? This is not a jab or anything, but using TFS was the first time I realized how much an integrated source control, team collaboration site, project management integrated solution makes sense.
So, is there an open source integrated solution or combo which will meet the following requirements?
Re: (Score:2)
Collabnet's Teamforge might do most of what you're after there - but its not open source or free. Its cheap for the solution though, costs the same for 25 users as TFS does for 1.
There isn't any open source equivalents though... unless you take a load of pieces that do parts of your requirements, eg subversion for version control, hudson for continuous integration, mantis for bug tracking, etc. All the pieces are out there, but you'll have to do the work integrating them yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There isn't any open source equivalents though... unless you take a load of pieces that do parts of your requirements, eg subversion for version control, hudson for continuous integration, mantis for bug tracking, etc. All the pieces are out there, but you'll have to do the work integrating them yourself.
You don't have to do the work, you just install a Linux distribution that packages it all up. Or you get a turnkey "virtual appliance".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, is there an open source integrated solution or combo which will meet the following requirements?
Shelving, configurable policies, and branching based on metadata are standard parts of most major distributed version control systems. They're all integrated into Eclipse and other IDEs.
Integrated work items, issue tracking, dashboard, unit testing, code coverage, continuous integration, are provided by several front-ends and additional tools. That's not a one-size-fits-all thing, since different languages,
Integrated Systems - no suggestion, just comments (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Believe it when I see it...restart my 7 year clock (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Reply to This
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that even Google can pass that requirement.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Announced on ... Friday 13th (Score:3, Funny)
Reply to This
Microsoft have done this before... (Score:5, Interesting)
> 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.
Reply to This
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't get the "Evil Empire" label for no good reason. IMO.
LoB
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I hadn't heard that they ported it to x86 only that it was x86 based.
Once Microsoft had their monopoly and knew it, they've used it to protect their position. They do
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet more people are running Office 2007 on Windows XP than are running Vista these days. Just sayin'.
Would you buy? (Score:5, Funny)
Would you buy a used horse from a convicted horse-rapist?
Reply to This
Re:Would you buy? (Score:4, Funny)
The question to anyone considering buying a Unix from MS is
Would you buy a used horse from a convicted horse-rapist?
Well, better than buying an *unused horse* from a horse rapist. That would be a sign that something is seriously wrong with it.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Would you buy? (Score:4, Funny)
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Ouch... how do you even do that? The exhaust pipe?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on, "somewhere". If such picture exists, it was on /b/.
5 Microsoft versions of Linux (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
How is this a troll? (s/b +5 Funny) (Score:2)
Seriously, how is the idea of Microsoft editions of Linux a troll. I'd say this should be +5 Funny.
Re:Logic (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 mak
Re:Logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has a policy to not use open source, because they can't guarantee it's pedigree. If a malicious person puts stolen code into an OSS project (or more realistically, if a programmer uses company resources to develop the code, without permission from the company; or somebody pastes GPL code into a BSD project) then people who rely on the code might be vulnerable to lawsuits. http://weblogs.asp.net/jgalloway/archive/2007/05/02/why-microsoft-can-t-ship-open-source-code.aspx [asp.net]
At least, that's their excuse.
If open source was such a dangerous thing to touch, then I think Google, IBM and Apple would have been hit already.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Chr
Re:Logic (Score:4, Insightful)
Surely any code could have code copied in breach of copyright in it?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Logic (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason they're going cross-platform is that the tools are written in Java, which is already cross-platform.
Perhaps this is true, though I have never been a big fan of Java anyway. Seems silly to load Java libraries, files and stuff, just to install a non-Java dependent application. Silly really and a bit irritating.
As I started coding PHP Model - View - Controllers (MVCs) it seems that the model itself is less efficient than PHP code + HTTP, but I have to do some testing before I can be sure. Seems that the MVC unnecessarily recreates features built into HTTP and PHP. My guess is that tests will show a PHP
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Honestly if you believe that you haven't spent enough time on non-linux *nixes.
I spent a bout a few years back on freebsd/openbsd. Without linux compatibility libraries there are a *TON* of open source applications that will not compile against *bsd without patching due to linuxisms used in their source. I don't have any specific citations to speak of, but it shouldn't take much work to google around and see just how many hassles there are. And that is BEFORE including 'obsolete' linux kernel versions, 2.4,