Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Programming Microsoft Software Unix Linux

Microsoft Buys Teamprise, Will Ship Linux Tools 200

Posted by timothy
from the things-get-complicated dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Buys Teamprise, Will Ship Linux Tools

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13, 2009 @04:52AM (#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.

  • Well ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Norsefire (1494323) on Friday November 13, 2009 @04:55AM (#30084572) Journal
    "If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won." - Linus Torvalds [brainyquote.com]
  • silly (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jipn4 (1367823) on Friday November 13, 2009 @05:02AM (#30084594)

    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.

  • Re:Logic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WarJolt (990309) on Friday November 13, 2009 @05:06AM (#30084608)

    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.

  • by lamapper (1343009) on Friday November 13, 2009 @05:09AM (#30084632) Homepage Journal
    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!

  • Re:Well ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by h4rm0ny (722443) on Friday November 13, 2009 @05:10AM (#30084636) Journal

    Not if they use Mono.
  • Re:silly (Score:2, Insightful)

    by timmarhy (659436) on Friday November 13, 2009 @05:11AM (#30084652)
    so windows server 2003, sql serevr 2005 are crappy software? your education is lacking.
  • Re:silly (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Splab (574204) on Friday November 13, 2009 @05:18AM (#30084690)

    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.

  • Re:Logic (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13, 2009 @05:25AM (#30084712)

    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...

  • Re:silly (Score:3, Insightful)

    by benjymouse (756774) on Friday November 13, 2009 @05:28AM (#30084720)

    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?

    • Integrated work items with specialized and extensible work item types for tasks, bugs, issues etc.
    • Configurable policies which e.g. demands (or not) a work item reference when checking out and/or checking in.
    • Work items, tasks, issues etc. editable through a web interface, but also right from inside the IDE.
    • 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).
    • 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)
    • 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 checkins.
    • Configurable policy which can be set to reject commits/checkins 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 rollups and graphs with speed, test coverage, test completions, tasks, status etc.
    • Branching based on metadata - not on actual directory copying and separate repositories/directories on the server (goes to performance).
  • Re:Logic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wisty (1335733) on Friday November 13, 2009 @05:40AM (#30084772)

    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.

  • by master5o1 (1068594) on Friday November 13, 2009 @06:01AM (#30084850) Homepage
    To be nit picky, I also noticed that there are only 4 versions of Unix. Linux not being Unix and all.
  • Trust (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13, 2009 @06:28AM (#30084950)

    The thing is, you have to have trust [wikipedia.org] in version control to be prepared to use it. You are putting your business in its hands, so it had better not break [groklaw.net] or introduce errors on purpose [theregister.co.uk]. Trust depends [wikipedia.org] upon [theregister.co.uk] your reputation [burst.com]. Reputation matters [technologyevangelist.com].

    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?

  • Re:Logic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by the_womble (580291) on Friday November 13, 2009 @06:37AM (#30084980) Homepage Journal

    Surely any code could have code copied in breach of copyright in it?

  • Re:silly (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jipn4 (1367823) on Friday November 13, 2009 @06:47AM (#30085014)

    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:silly (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jipn4 (1367823) on Friday November 13, 2009 @07:09AM (#30085104)

    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, tools, team compositions, and team sizes are best served by different tools (the fact that TFS is a one-size-fits-all solution is a net minus). Many provide good web interfaces and IDE integration.

    I won't name specific ones, because there are so many, but since you mention Subversion--it is obsolete.

    Linux distributions let you mix and match those tools very easily: you just pick whatever components you need (version control, bug tracking, etc.). For common configurations, you can get virtual images or commercial hosting as well.

    TFS may be the best choice if you run a Windows-only, VisualStudio-only shop because it "knows" a lot about that environment. Once other platforms are involved, you're better off using a non-Microsoft team development server.

  • by someone1234 (830754) on Friday November 13, 2009 @07:14AM (#30085118)

    ...it is irrelevant.
    Stallman might not like it, though.
    But we are talking about Linus now.

  • by QuestorTapes (663783) on Friday November 13, 2009 @07:31AM (#30085188)

    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

  • by bsDaemon (87307) on Friday November 13, 2009 @08:27AM (#30085444)
    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'.
  • by plague3106 (71849) on Friday November 13, 2009 @09:57AM (#30086058)

    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.

  • Re:Well ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by True Grit (739797) * <<edwcogburn> <at> <gmail.com>> on Friday November 13, 2009 @11:22AM (#30087082)

    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'.

Save energy: Drive a smaller shell.

Working...