Microsoft Buys Teamprise, Will Ship Linux Tools 200
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."
Fully integrated Mono on Linux with Eclipse? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:silly (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.
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.
Re:Logic (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 (Chrome). Possible exception: Picasa, I have to check :)
Re:Believe it when I see it...restart my 7 year cl (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 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.
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.
Re:The only reason they're going cross-platform (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, 2.2, 2.0, some of which are the best version for the hardware you're running (90 percent of consumer electronics running linux seem to be stuck on patched 2.4 kernels and uclibc, trying compiling most linux apps against either of those!)
My point being: For all the gripes about Windows incompatibility, the average linux developer is just as oblivious to x-platform compatibility, and often more likely to be compatible with Windows than other *nixes.
Just my 2 cents.
Re:Microsoft have done this before... (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't get the "Evil Empire" label for no good reason. IMO.
LoB
Re:Well ... (Score:1, Interesting)
That Microsoft ships software on Linux is not news, Microsoft have been doing that for a while now.
Ever since Microsoft bought Fast Search & Transfer some time back, it has been shipping the Fast ESP platform on Linux and some other Unix platforms.