161–170 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft's development tools are (therefore) expensive, so unless you're getting paid to use them, it's harder to invest yourself in them.
There's been a free version of each Visual Studio release for about ten years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under-30 dev here. Been programming in C# for the past 3.5 years now, and loving every minute of it. I find VS and the associated tools be a far more productive and enjoyable experience than the Linux/Unix toolchains I was forced to use in undergrad, and C# to be a completely amazing language. The two warts, for me, are MSBuild (powerful, but obtuse at times, but still better than make) and PowerShell (again, powerfu…
>It really makes doing some very technically difficult/interesting things easy on Azure. Doesn't that just mean Azure has horrible APIs that are impossible to work with without the 'magic tooling'?
Part of my own reasons for moving away from C# and much more into the node ecosystem has been in terms of licensing and avoiding lock in. Now that MS is going a much more open route, I'm willing to actually consider some pieces in that direction again.
VS can be very nice to work with, my single largest issue has been how systems have been designed with it, far above and beyond issues with the underlying platforms or the language. The tooling is very nice. However my experiences with "Enterprise" projects leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
More often than not, I've seen "Enterprise" (quotes intentional) projects that seem to add complexity for its' own sake. Writing code that is unit tested in Java or C# are just plain painful compared to say JS/node. I find that comes down to differences between a static platform and a dynamic one though.
I think MS is rightly pushing for greater Azure deployment of server-side applications. The desktop is dying for most people, and mobile is not going away. By opening the tools, and providing better integration, they allow for a transparent deployment to Azure which is a rented platform which will receive more consistent revenue. It's simply good business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been listening my way through the archive of Scott Hanselman's hanselminutes podcasts. Microsoft has been striving to be on the right side of history in regard to open source for five or six years. It's all out in the open. Moving to Github is simply developer friendly. Don't misunderstand me. Microsoft's products compete with open source software in the marketplace for developer mindshare and I am not suggestin…
Even though Microsoft have embraced open source, they are not happy about the GPL license, and have actively replaced GPL code in their previous takeovers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What does MS gain? Image. Microsoft's message has been it's a one-stop-shop for your IT needs, as opposed to the general open-source ecosystem where everything has a different vendor (if at all). This, and the difficulty of moving to other platforms/vendors/tools was the core of its vendor lock-in power. In the 80's and most of the 90's, I went full Microsoft, from runtime to database to developer tools, because ev…
You can't just buy image. If anything it would just dilute the image of github. It's like the rich kid trying to make friends by buying the basketball court.
Microsoft embracing open source and open culture without having a clear path forward ensuring business. This reminds me of Sun a lot. That didn't end up well.
sun's business model was..eerr, sparc workstations? microsoft's business model is windows and enterprise sales, with a hint of consumer sales and electronics. Microsoft has so much cash it could buy a small country.
And I'm sure when things started going wrong SUN had plenty of money too. Money buys you time. It doesn't buy you survival.
This is getting terrifyingly close to my prediction that Microsoft should/would/will buy GitHub. When I first started predicting this two or so years ago, it was mainly for its comedic value (it always got laughs, followed by "yeah, they should!" followed by nervous laughter followed by "wait, do you think they would actually do that?!"), but after the open sourcing of .NET I honestly think anything is possible. Espe…
I've been listening my way through the archive of Scott Hanselman's hanselminutes podcasts. Microsoft has been striving to be on the right side of history in regard to open source for five or six years. It's all out in the open. Moving to Github is simply developer friendly. Don't misunderstand me. Microsoft's products compete with open source software in the marketplace for developer mindshare and I am not suggestin…
Really? So they release the source to a few of their developer frameworks and tools, and they're now "all open"?
Don't get me wrong, as a long time C# developer I do appreciate the gesture and I'm especially happy that they're working their "not invented here" mentality, but with simply providing us with the source code that we already have anyway (via ilspy), all of this just seems over-inflated to me.
Let me compile Visual Studio, and I'll be their biggest cheerleader; or IIS, IE... and I'll promise to stop dressing as one.
On buying Github, though? That could be the final 'E' of their strategy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like Bitbucket and have been using them for some time but their interface is slow and not as intuitive as Github's.
Also like Bitbucket, and agree with the interface. They made things responsive a while ago, and there were lots of complaints about the 'create a README' decision as a space-waster, they haven't done anything about it since. I like their revenue model, but because of the existence of JIRA and Stash, Atlassian are refusing/reluctant to improve the issue tracker in Bitbucket. For example, I can't manage releases, creat…
JIRA itself is highly configurable out of the box and most aspects of the tool can be configured however you like. If you want a record ("issue type") called "Epic" it is easy to configure JIRA to have it. It is also easy - for some definition of easy! - to customise the data you collect for these records ("fields"), when that data is displayed ("screens"), and the lifecycle through which it will progress ("workflow").
However!
Most people want to use Epics as part of an Agile methodology, and Atlassian provides a batteries-included solution called "JIRA Agile". If you saw an 'activate to enable Epics' button it was almost certainly for JIRA Agile (previously GreenHopper) though I don't recall seeing this button myself. JIRA Agile is nice for many reasons, even for people who don't follow an Agile methodology, IMO primarily because it provides a simpler user experience for many people - most installations I've seen have it.
Stash itself is a fairly well targeted piece of software. It manages git repositories, and provides tools to help with that and integrate with external systems. Provisioning projects->repositories->branches and the permissions around them, pull requests, forks, hooks, automations, and integrations. It's also fairly easy to extend with add-ons from the marketplace or that you have written yourself.
The integration between Stash and JIRA is good, but is not much more than showing branches, pull requests, and commits that a JIRA issue has been referenced in.
Hope that helps
Are there any major public repository hosting services that provide good organizational tools for multiple repositories? GitHub, as far as I have been able to determine, only supports a flat list sorted by last update. This is annoying when a developer has a lot of repositories. I'll come across something useful in one of my areas of interest from a given developer, and then want to look at their other repositories t…
It's more of an enterprise solution though, so BitBucket is probably more comparable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
git != Github. Github just hosts git repositories. You can use git and not host on Github. They were using git, but hosting the repository on CodePlex.
They were not using git. It clearly says in the text that they are switching to git internally, as well.