Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
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This discussion has been archived.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 More

Microsoft Buys Teamprise, Will Ship Linux Tools

Comments Filter:

  • Fully integrated Mono on Linux with Eclipse? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by deanston ( 1252868 ) on Friday November 13, 2009 @12:49AM (#30083852)
    I rather have the equivalent of VS on Linux than just another Eclipse plug-in. Here comes the Embrace...
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • The more things change... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13, 2009 @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.

    • 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)

      by master5o1 ( 1068594 )
      To be nit picky, I also noticed that there are only 4 versions of Unix. Linux not being Unix and all.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Locutus ( 9039 )
      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

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by plague3106 ( 71849 )

        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.

      • 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.

        VSS is a terrible product indeed. My company still uses VSS 2005 and it has a 4GB repository size limit! Increasing beyond 4GB causes repository corruption. This is especially frustrating because business types have access to it and seem to like to use VSS like a USB hard drive to back up their important documents, home pictures, and music.

        • We used SourceOffSite as our sole means of interacting with VSS. It really helped to keep the corruption to a bare minimum. We still couldn't manage to migrate the repository to SVN directly due to corruption.

          (We switched to SVN back in '06. It's come a long way since then and the sparse working copy support was a major step forward for our preference of working with large single repositories instead of dozens of smaller repositories.)

      • "I don't know if Source Safe was originally DOS based.."

        The first version used a command line so it probably started in DOS. By the time Microsoft bought One Tree Software (the original developer) it was Windows-based (Version 2).

        Although SS's architecture didn't scale properly, it was a pretty nice tool for the era and environment it ran on (i.e. 1993, Windows 3.1).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Locutus ( 9039 )
          "The first version used a command line so it probably started in DOS."

          I thought I already said it was a command line tool but that does not mean it is DOS based. Even multi-user operating systems VMS, UNIX, etc were and have command line interfaces.

          I had to use a UNIX version with the GUI which really sucked compared to many of the command line versions I'd used where someone had put a bunch of customizing scripts as the frontend to the RCS system.

          and RCS was around in the 80s so maybe SourceSafe was an att

          • "I thought I already said it was a command line tool but that does not mean it is DOS based."

            Well, there aren't that many commercial UNIX or VMS applications that jumped to Windows in that era, so I assumed it was DOS based.

            "RCS was around in the 80s so maybe SourceSafe was an attempt to bring something like the UNIX RCS system to DOS"

            Well, SS was designed to be a version control system as was RCS, but it used projects as an organizing abstraction rather than individual files. Also SS was designed (for Wind

  • Well ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Norsefire ( 1494323 ) on Friday November 13, 2009 @03:55AM (#30084572) Journal
    "If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won." - Linus Torvalds [brainyquote.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by h4rm0ny ( 722443 )

      Not if they use Mono.
      • How does the language matter?

        • Re:Well ... (Score:5, Informative)

          by h4rm0ny ( 722443 ) on Friday November 13, 2009 @05:57AM (#30085054) Journal

          How does the language matter?

          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.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by DShard ( 159067 )

            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.

            • Linux will never be dependent on Mono.

              Well you're right about the Linux kernel, but then again Gnome now *is* dependent on Mono, and a few years ago I wouldn't have thought that would happen, so...

              you just port the application to Java, C++ or Go!.

              Wait, I've been listening for years to fanbois tell me about how much better, and different, C# is compared to Java, and now you're telling me its a breeze to port any non-trivial C#/.NET app to Java/JVM?

              LOL!

              Sorry, but you guys can't have it both ways...

              • Only a moron would talk about how different C# and .NET are from Java.

                C# and .NET are a set of Windows centric Java knock off technologies. Microsoft got cock blocked trying to corrupt Java and make it effectively only useful on Windows (kind of like "knife the baby").

                So instead they cloned it and made their version specifically Windows only.

                C# and .NET are a nice tools for developing Windows apps, but for cross platform, Java and it's associated analogues are a far more mature and proven bet.

                • Only a moron would talk about how different C# and .NET are from Java.

                  I agree with the rest of what you say (C# is MS's Java killer), but the C# and Java core languages *are* different from one another, e.g. pointers and unsigned ints for just 2 examples, and to be completely fair, some of the C# differences are (minor) improvements over Java (MS had the advantage of hindsight here).

                  Anyway, enough differences even in the core languages themselves (never mind the completely *different* supporting libraries that both have) to make the porting of a non-trivial app from one to th

                  • lol, what? Non trivial?

                    Most of the work would be finished with a small set of global find and replace commands.

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

  • silly (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jipn4 ( 1367823 ) on Friday November 13, 2009 @04:02AM (#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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by timmarhy ( 659436 )
      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 @04:18AM (#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: (Score:2, Informative)

          by carld ( 460344 )
          If I recall correctly that was Sybase, not Ingres.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Locutus ( 9039 )
            correct and it wasn't bought outright. It was a dumb move by Sybase to partner with Microsoft on a 5 year deal which resulted in Microsoft owning some version of Sybase SQL's source code. The rest is history.

            LoB

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Splab ( 574204 )

            Oh, always thought it was Ingres, live and learn.

            • PostgreSQL evolved from the Ingres project at Univ of CA (UC Berekely). As did Ingres, which is once again a separate company called Ingres Corp.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by argent ( 18001 )

        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:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          What the hell are you using telnet for? SSH, man!

          Oh, you're using Windows as a server platform, that explains it...

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by argent ( 18001 )

            I'm using telnet to connect to switches and routers and the like.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Ralish ( 775196 )

              The lack of the tiny telnet client binary in the default install is admittedly infuriating, not to mention that it takes forever to install through optional components, which I can't figure out.

              Suggested solution: Just use PuTTY. It's small, free, and supports Telnet and various other protocols fine, despite the fact I suspect nearly everyone uses it purely for SSH.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by argent ( 18001 )

                It's not the effort of installing it so much as the fact that I'm not the guy setting up the boxes, I'm usually called in for a one-off poke-around and after I'm done I'll never see it again... and there's no good reason for Microsoft to pull the telnet *client* out except sheer bloodyminded NIH.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by batkiwi ( 137781 )

      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)

        by jipn4 ( 1367823 )

        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.)

      • If TFS is honestly the best enterprise solution out there, then we're all doomed. I can't stand it and everyday I hear muttered (or yelled) around the office, "TFS sucks!"

      • At my old job we started using CruiseControl.NET + svn (using TortoiseSVN on Windows) 5 years ago - back when the first version of TFS couldn't even get basic checkins right - and it was fabulous. Way ahead of its time. Now my current job uses TFS and granted it's pretty good (but don't touch any version before 2008 Server!), however you can still do just mostly the same thing with CC+svn for something like $1500/dev less. The reduced setup work and learning curve and VS integration is why companies like

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by benjymouse ( 756774 )

      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?

      • Int

      • 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)

          by jipn4 ( 1367823 )

          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".

          • Integrating,. not installing

            Getting Mantis installed and configured is easy. No problems there. Getting it so your bug number gets linked to a revision number when you commit some source files to subversion is another matter. Its not that difficult, but the end-to-end configuration is still something someone has to do.

            This is why we have the 'packaged' systems that do all that work for you, unfortunately, no-ones put a load of them together in this way in a F/OSS project.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jipn4 ( 1367823 )

        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.

        The *nix

      • You forgot

        • Required Attendee 1
        • ...
        • Required Attendee 8

        Very useful. Especially in corporate environments.

    • This meaningless, baseless bit of drivel is "Insightful"? It literally has no objective content of any kind.

      I love the Dallas Cowboys!

      Oooh, that's insightful!

  • Believe it when I see it...restart my 7 year clock (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lamapper ( 1343009 ) on Friday November 13, 2009 @04:09AM (#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: (Score:2)

      by selven ( 1556643 )

      I'm not sure that even Google can pass that requirement.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by sFurbo ( 1361249 )
        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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Locutus ( 9039 )
      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 h

    • 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

    • 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.

  • Announced on ... Friday 13th (Score:3, Funny)

    by G3ckoG33k ( 647276 ) on Friday November 13, 2009 @04:29AM (#30084724)
    That is announced on ... Friday 13th. Halloween is over, so could it be they needed another telling day?

  • Microsoft have done this before... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CuteSteveJobs ( 1343851 ) on Friday November 13, 2009 @04:38AM (#30084764)

    > 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Locutus ( 9039 )
      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.

      LoB

    • 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%.

      Ironically, if you use VMware instead of Virtual PC, you don't have this problem. It's almost like Microsoft doesn't want you using their software.

    • Are you sure? You may find Microsoft do the same thing here and just strip the Linux functionality out.

      Teamprise has long been cooperating with Microsoft on this project, so this acquisition is just the continuation of that. It's not going to change much, except that it will now come as an "official Microsoft product", which is mostly to placate manager types making buying decisions.

      MS originally supported this project when it was started, because, in this day and age, "one true platform" is no longer enough. There are enough customers that absolutely need their repositories accessible from OS X or Linux des

  • Would you buy? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anne Thwacks ( 531696 ) on Friday November 13, 2009 @04:41AM (#30084780)
    The question to anyone considering buying a Unix from MS is

    Would you buy a used horse from a convicted horse-rapist?

  • 5 Microsoft versions of Linux (Score:5, Funny)

    by Huntr ( 951770 ) on Friday November 13, 2009 @05:45AM (#30085006)
    Lemme guess: Home, Ultimate, Pro, Pro-er, and Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

  • 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 ton

Slashdot Top Deals

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson

Close