31–40 of 140 posts
When Microsoft put Nadella in charge, they made a great decision. And I honestly don't say that very often about top level management.
Actually what Microsoft is doing could be breat. However I don't understand why they even use Jenkins for this project ( https://github.com/Azure/sonic-build-tools ) I mean I love jenkins, but wouldn't it be at least good if they would've used their own build tool? I mean something like tfs-linux-worker I know that doesn't exists, but if they would've done something they could've done something good somehow. Using je…
Because tfs is dying. Why port over tooling for a source management system that is on it's deathbed? Even Microsoft themselves are moving over to Git for many products/teams and have added native Git support to both Visual Studio and VS Online. PS - Although Microsoft still use Perforce internally also.
[citation needed]
Visual Studio Online (which is pretty much TFS in the cloud) is alive and well. And improvements made to VSO have been shipping regularly as updates to accompanying TFS on-prem.
Are you confusing TFS with Team Foundation Version Control (TFVC)? TFVC is also pretty popular as a Visual SourceSafe replacement and has been very stable for us, though the recent support of Git in Visual Studio and TFS has us considering it as an alternate workflow for some smaller projects. I think the support of Git is great, but knowing MS (and what they've said through their usual surrogates) I don't think TFVC is going anywhere anytime soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what ways is the BSD networking stack superior?
Throughput. The BSD networking stack has been very carefully engineered over time. Linux is OK, but nowhere near as robust. FreeBSD is legendary for load tolerance and network throughput, that on equal machines would choke a Linux server. Seen it, work(ed) with it. When we do something serious that requires heavy load and awesome throughput, we always lean on FreeBSD, never anything else. Everything else has always l…
The article says "Microsoft will release a custom Debian Linux," but the linked Github repository says: > Q. Is SONiC a Linux distribution? > A. No, SONiC is a collection of networking software components required to have a fully functional L3 device that can be agnostic of any particular Linux distribution. Today SONiC runs on Debian
This article has changed since the last time I read it, minutes ago. It didn't used to have that link, and it used to speculate that the supposed linux distro would be MIT licensed. ...There are several things I don't like about this article.
Not even Microsoft could pull that one off.
> ...There are several things I don't like about this article.
It reads like an April Fool's Joke circa 1996, you mean?
I always thought that Microsoft was blocked from getting into Linux by the terms of their sale of Xenix.
Linux is, legally, not Unix, and it is released under a license which does not discriminate based on who you are.
Satya Nadella is a breath of fresh air. It's amazing the difference in management styles from the Balmer days. When Microsoft put Nadella in charge, they made a great decision. And I honestly don't say that very often about top level management.
To put it another way, Nadella's appointment wasn't a coup d'etat. Microsoft under Ballmer ejected several hard chargers in line for the throne and they weren't the one's who saw open source as the way forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because tfs is dying. Why port over tooling for a source management system that is on it's deathbed? Even Microsoft themselves are moving over to Git for many products/teams and have added native Git support to both Visual Studio and VS Online. PS - Although Microsoft still use Perforce internally also.
> Because tfs is dying. Why port over tooling for a source management system that is on it's deathbed? [citation needed] Visual Studio Online (which is pretty much TFS in the cloud) is alive and well. And improvements made to VSO have been shipping regularly as updates to accompanying TFS on-prem. Are you confusing TFS with Team Foundation Version Control (TFVC)? TFVC is also pretty popular as a Visual SourceSafe rep…
Visual Studio Online supports Git. So, no, it is not "TFS in the cloud." TFS and Visual Studio Online are very loosely coupled.
> Are you confusing TFS with Team Foundation Version Control (TFVC)?
I'm not confusing anything, I just picked one of Microsoft's many acronyms they use for it. Even Microsoft's own consultants call it "TFS" when talking about Visual Studio Team Services in Visual Studio Online. So if Microsoft's own consultants are "wrong" then I am in good company.
> I don't think TFVC is going anywhere anytime soon.
I do.
It doesn't work very well: it sends way WAY too many files up and down constantly, it has no concept of a pull request, offline mode sucks, branching/merging is expensive as all heck (inc. disk space, bandwidth, time, any metric), and even Microsoft's internal teams are utilising Git and Github.
I've used both on VS Online, no comparison, and Microsoft's own staff seem to agree. It is only a matter of "when" not "if" TFS will die and Git will take its place (although I suspect Perforce will survive on the Windows team within Microsoft).
There's a reason Git has taken over the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because tfs is dying. Why port over tooling for a source management system that is on it's deathbed? [citation needed] Visual Studio Online (which is pretty much TFS in the cloud) is alive and well. And improvements made to VSO have been shipping regularly as updates to accompanying TFS on-prem. Are you confusing TFS with Team Foundation Version Control (TFVC)? TFVC is also pretty popular as a Visual SourceSafe rep…
> Visual Studio Online (which is pretty much TFS in the cloud) is alive and well. Visual Studio Online supports Git. So, no, it is not "TFS in the cloud." TFS and Visual Studio Online are very loosely coupled. > Are you confusing TFS with Team Foundation Version Control (TFVC)? I'm not confusing anything, I just picked one of Microsoft's many acronyms they use for it. Even Microsoft's own consultants call it "TFS" wh…
On TFVC:
> it sends way WAY too many files up and down constantly
It sends literally zero files anywhere until you interact with the server, as any sane server-based version control system would do. I don't know about your workflow but I don't know what you consider a reasonable amount of I/O to sync a workspace. You can elect "Local" workspaces since around TFS 2012 which can work completely disconnected if you choose.
> branching/merging is expensive as all heck
It's folder-based branching and can be done very quickly/cheaply if you don't store your entire company in source control. And how well does Git handle large files? Git is opinionated on branches and creates them cheaply/quickly; TFVC evolved from CVS-type systems where this was not the prevailing mindset, but again I don't know what you're considering "expensive." Maybe where you work?
> even Microsoft's internal teams are utilising Git and Github
Which isn't evidence of anything other than it's their current tool of choice. That has a lot less to do with future direction of their enterprise products than you're assuming here.
> Microsoft's own consultants
> Microsoft's internal teams
> the Windows team within Microsoft
Do you have insider info or are you just trying to sound like you do?
They should call it XENIX. :)