4 ms·

I'm skeptical. Over the past 5 years or so, Microsoft has lost developers as a core group. There are certainly interesting things happening out of their dev gr

I'm skeptical. Over the past 5 years or so, Microsoft has lost developers as a core group. There are certainly interesting things happening out of their dev group, but with the rise of Cloud infrastructure, cheap (free) alternatives to WINS stacks rose tremendously in popularity. I was a Seattle Techstars 2013 Founder, and the only two teams using MSFT tech were those whose founders were ex-Microsoft employees. This just feels like a ploy to get developers back on to Microsoft's platforms, then slowly bleed them dry with fees. * My experience with the new Microsoft: One of our major products runs on Microsoft SQL Server. Sadly, many developers/ops folks did not realize the difference between SQL Server Enterprise, and SQL Server Standard, and opted to install SQL Server Enterprise on servers, despite not using any of the Enterprise features. Not only does SQL Server Standard pricing differ compared to Enterprise, but how it's price differs. Enterprise is charged based on a per-core license, requiring both a core license for every core, as well as a minimum of 4-core's per physical processor. During a routine Software Audit, MSFT determined we had quite a few more SQL Server Enterprise installs than we licensed, so sent us a nice fat bill. We asked for leniency. It was a mistake (ours of course), but we didn't use any of SQL Server Enterprise features. MSFT wanted no part of that. So we ponied up our bill, and decided to never use MSFT tech again. Contrast that with AWS. Due to developer error, we had one of our AWS keys compromised and an attacker used it to mine bitcoins. Amazon sent us the bill. We contacted them, and they gave us a one-time forgiveness. * The morale of this story: Use microsoft technology at your own peril. Also, having developers handle infrastructure is cool, but don't discount the value of a dedicated infra team.

abrookewood 11y ago
In both cases the fault was in your own company and you are trying to use that to distinguish between two suppliers. There's no guarantee that Amazon will continue to be so lenient in the future (though you aren't the first person to mention them acting like this). For what it's worth, I think the new direction for MS is a good thing. They're far from my favourite company, but I dislike them less the more they release software as open source.
- balls187 11y ago
  You're right, our company made the mistake. MSFTs tactics: allowing you to install SQL Server Enterprise without actually having a paid-for license, is similar to charging someone a fee for a service, and having them opt-out of any reoccuring subscription fees. This is just anecdotal evidence that "new Microsoft" is the same as "old Microsoft." I'm willing to believe that the folks working on this actually do care about contributing to open source and believe "rising tides raise all ships," but not for a second do I think that the decision makers at MSFT also believe that way.
dragandj 11y ago
One thing that always baffled me was "routine software audits" by Microsoft, Oracle, and the likes. So, you license a technology, and now your supplier can police you at their own wish. OK, there are situations when you have no choice - they are the only game in town. But in the last decade much of the infrastructure has been available in an open-source form. I am surprised anyone would touch anything from such companies if there is a free alternative not connected to such companies (and in this case there are many).
- frandroid 11y ago
  You agree to this even if you're just using Windows and/or IE, or any other Microsoft software for that matter. So either you have absolutely no Microsoft software, or you're open to an audit.
  - blibble 11y ago
    how does that work as a consumer/very small business? they have no proof that I'm running their software, they would be never be able to get a warrant to search my premises, and if they ever stepped foot on my property I'd have them done for trespass. I can believe there's a contractual term in the volume license agreement that allows them the right, but for that they be giving you a significant discount, which seems fair.
- benaadams 11y ago
  I assume its related to the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, financial reporting and off-balance sheet liabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act#Sarbanes.E2.80.93Oxley_Section_404:_Assessment_of_internal_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act#Sar...
jgord 11y ago
I'm more than skeptical towards M$, I have a deep deep aversion to anything they are associated with - based on decades of using their products and wrangling their apis as a developer. Every time I use firefox or libre-office or linux or vim or postgres or http or node.js or any of the great open alternatives to the ugly walled garden that is Microsoft, I feel free as an individual and empowered as a developer - I at least have the tools I can use to make peoples daily work better. I particularly want them to leave node.js alone, as I use this on a daily basis for real work - I don't want to see them screw that up aswell.
- ossreality 11y ago
  Please, please explain to me how anyone forking any project you use poses a direct threat to you. How do y'all even think it's a reasonable statement to say "I hope X never forks Y". Who cares? Grow up and realize that MSFT is full of individuals who just want to build shit. We don't get to bed at night plotting ways of screwing you.

abrookewood 11y ago

In both cases the fault was in your own company and you are trying to use that to distinguish between two suppliers. There's no guarantee that Amazon will continue to be so lenient in the future (though you aren't the first person to mention them acting like this). For what it's worth, I think the new direction for MS is a good thing. They're far from my favourite company, but I dislike them less the more they release software as open source.

balls187 11y ago
You're right, our company made the mistake. MSFTs tactics: allowing you to install SQL Server Enterprise without actually having a paid-for license, is similar to charging someone a fee for a service, and having them opt-out of any reoccuring subscription fees. This is just anecdotal evidence that "new Microsoft" is the same as "old Microsoft." I'm willing to believe that the folks working on this actually do care about contributing to open source and believe "rising tides raise all ships," but not for a second do I think that the decision makers at MSFT also believe that way.

dragandj 11y ago

One thing that always baffled me was "routine software audits" by Microsoft, Oracle, and the likes. So, you license a technology, and now your supplier can police you at their own wish. OK, there are situations when you have no choice - they are the only game in town. But in the last decade much of the infrastructure has been available in an open-source form. I am surprised anyone would touch anything from such companies if there is a free alternative not connected to such companies (and in this case there are many).

frandroid 11y ago
You agree to this even if you're just using Windows and/or IE, or any other Microsoft software for that matter. So either you have absolutely no Microsoft software, or you're open to an audit.
- blibble 11y ago
  how does that work as a consumer/very small business? they have no proof that I'm running their software, they would be never be able to get a warrant to search my premises, and if they ever stepped foot on my property I'd have them done for trespass. I can believe there's a contractual term in the volume license agreement that allows them the right, but for that they be giving you a significant discount, which seems fair.
benaadams 11y ago
I assume its related to the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, financial reporting and off-balance sheet liabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act#Sarbanes.E2.80.93Oxley_Section_404:_Assessment_of_internal_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act#Sar...

jgord 11y ago

I'm more than skeptical towards M$, I have a deep deep aversion to anything they are associated with - based on decades of using their products and wrangling their apis as a developer. Every time I use firefox or libre-office or linux or vim or postgres or http or node.js or any of the great open alternatives to the ugly walled garden that is Microsoft, I feel free as an individual and empowered as a developer - I at least have the tools I can use to make peoples daily work better. I particularly want them to leave node.js alone, as I use this on a daily basis for real work - I don't want to see them screw that up aswell.

ossreality 11y ago
Please, please explain to me how anyone forking any project you use poses a direct threat to you. How do y'all even think it's a reasonable statement to say "I hope X never forks Y". Who cares? Grow up and realize that MSFT is full of individuals who just want to build shit. We don't get to bed at night plotting ways of screwing you.