5 ms·

Software-wise: The open source advocates (Scott Hanselman, Scott Guthrie, Damien Edwards, and many others) won the internal struggle. Microsoft is more open bec

by judah 11y ago

Software-wise: The open source advocates (Scott Hanselman, Scott Guthrie, Damien Edwards, and many others) won the internal struggle. Microsoft is more open because they recognize this is a superior model over the proprietary closed systems they had built in the past. Business-wise: The answer is Azure. While Microsoft wants you to run Windows, they care even more that you're running in their cloud.

swalsh 11y ago
"The answer is Azure. While Microsoft wants you to run Windows, they care even more that you're running in their cloud." The lock in here is a very hard to resist value proposition. I started using Azure because they gave hundreds of dollars a month for free (for I think 3 years). I then started to use their services because it's just simpler. Core made that decision even easier for me. I originally started using Core because my thinking was "if i'm on linux, I can always move to AWS, linux is pretty competitive everywhere", then I needed a solution that had a market place offer (which is not free) or an azure service offer (which is free). I decided to choose the azure solution, but I designed my software with an interface so in theory i could replace the implementation if I ever needed to move to AWS. However, i'm now starting to realize that while I've always tried to choose solutions so I can easily move, it's becoming increasingly more difficult. In 3 years I may have the capability to move, but i'm now becoming aware that it might not be practical to move. They got me.
- tluyben2 11y ago
  We evaluate cloud services quite often to see if we are still betting on the right horse and I can't say (but that might be taste) that I find Azure any easier to use that AWS. What do you find simpler? AWS is almost no work; you write code and the rest is handled for you. I'm not sure how to get simpler 'beyond' that.
  - mfoy_ 11y ago
    Azure does that too, you can create a Web Application project in Visual Studio and publish it directly to your Azure subscription, it provisions everything it needs automagically and just works. I haven't played around with testing that out tooo much but it seemed pretty slick based on the demo project I set up. Tearing it down later was also incredibly easy.
    - tluyben2 11y ago
      Yes, but then it does the same thing and given I would not want to run Windows currently anyway. It seems at least it's just the same thing (Functions copies Lamdba etcetc). No reason to switch or find one 'better' than the other unless you are fully Windows. That's why I always thought they should just port VS to Linux/Mac OS X; then they are on to something.
  - staticelf 11y ago
    Azure is ten times more simple for an indie developer like me. First thing I have immediate trouble with is the phrasing of AWS which is confusing. Second is their offerings and ux which is also totally confusing. But when you get passed that, you still have to do more configures than in azure. If you do not use Visual Studio (VS) or .NET you can still download the whole deploy profile file you need directly from the app service within Azure. In Azure, I can create a new project and it will autogenerate the entire profile for me, run my migrations and I can deploy from within visual studio in minutes. Coming from a "classic open source background", Microsoft has totally won me over. I save so much time with Azure and VS it's crazy. I have experience of AWS and Azure and personally I just think Azure beats AWS in every aspect.
    - tluyben2 11y ago
      Still seems from what you say (as we are used to the naming and ux of aws already anyway) is highly dependent on VS which depends on Windows which our teams simply do not want to use. I guess I will have to re-evaluate Azure again soon but VS on Win is not an option so I think the same conclusion will come out of it. Again, if they port VS they will probably win the battle from AWS. Or AWS can make things smooth with VS (do not know if that is possible).
      - staticelf 11y ago
        Even if you're not using VS you can download an xml file that is everything your project need to deploy to Azure AFAIK.
justinclift 11y ago
Will they Open Source the windows spyware... er... "metrics collection" code?
- justinclift 11y ago
  Guess by the downvoting that there's a reason people feel the "metrics collection" shouldn't be Open Sourced? I'd like to hear what that is, as it seems (to me) to be a stellar example of what really should be.
  - recursive 11y ago
    I think the downvoting is more in response to your editorial tone.
  - jasonlotito 11y ago
    > Guess by the downvoting that there's a reason people feel the "metrics collection" shouldn't be Open Sourced? It was a childish and immature comment, not appropriate for HN. That's why it is getting downvoted. In addition, this comment talking about the downvotes will get downvoted as well. Not only for the fact that you are talking about downvotes in your comment, but by the fact that your comment is effectively "begging the question." Rather than make one-off snide comments, actually contribute something that is respectful to other people's time.
    - justinclift 11y ago
      What's a better way to point out MS should be Open Sourcing the parts of their codebase which people don't trust (eg their spyware)? They seem to be making large numbers of moves trying to get people to use their platform... and at the same time, shooting themselves in the foot-head-foot with trust-destroying moves... and ignoring everything in relation to that. :(
      - vulpino 11y ago
        How about: "Maybe Microsoft should consider open sourcing the components of their system which track users. It's possible that this would help rebuild the trust that was eroded with the release of Windows 10."
hydromet 11y ago
> The open source advocates (Scott Hanselman, Scott Guthrie, Damien Edwards, and many others) won the internal struggle. This is truly an amazing feat. Imagine the cultural headwinds these guys were up against. They also won over the Microsoft Board of Directors to eject Steve Ballmer (finally). Hats off to Scott, Scott, Damien et al for staying the course and pulling off a coup.

by judah 11y ago

swalsh 11y ago

"The answer is Azure. While Microsoft wants you to run Windows, they care even more that you're running in their cloud." The lock in here is a very hard to resist value proposition. I started using Azure because they gave hundreds of dollars a month for free (for I think 3 years). I then started to use their services because it's just simpler. Core made that decision even easier for me. I originally started using Core because my thinking was "if i'm on linux, I can always move to AWS, linux is pretty competitive everywhere", then I needed a solution that had a market place offer (which is not free) or an azure service offer (which is free). I decided to choose the azure solution, but I designed my software with an interface so in theory i could replace the implementation if I ever needed to move to AWS. However, i'm now starting to realize that while I've always tried to choose solutions so I can easily move, it's becoming increasingly more difficult. In 3 years I may have the capability to move, but i'm now becoming aware that it might not be practical to move. They got me.

tluyben2 11y ago
We evaluate cloud services quite often to see if we are still betting on the right horse and I can't say (but that might be taste) that I find Azure any easier to use that AWS. What do you find simpler? AWS is almost no work; you write code and the rest is handled for you. I'm not sure how to get simpler 'beyond' that.
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  Azure does that too, you can create a Web Application project in Visual Studio and publish it directly to your Azure subscription, it provisions everything it needs automagically and just works. I haven't played around with testing that out tooo much but it seemed pretty slick based on the demo project I set up. Tearing it down later was also incredibly easy.
  - tluyben2 11y ago
    Yes, but then it does the same thing and given I would not want to run Windows currently anyway. It seems at least it's just the same thing (Functions copies Lamdba etcetc). No reason to switch or find one 'better' than the other unless you are fully Windows. That's why I always thought they should just port VS to Linux/Mac OS X; then they are on to something.
- staticelf 11y ago
  Azure is ten times more simple for an indie developer like me. First thing I have immediate trouble with is the phrasing of AWS which is confusing. Second is their offerings and ux which is also totally confusing. But when you get passed that, you still have to do more configures than in azure. If you do not use Visual Studio (VS) or .NET you can still download the whole deploy profile file you need directly from the app service within Azure. In Azure, I can create a new project and it will autogenerate the entire profile for me, run my migrations and I can deploy from within visual studio in minutes. Coming from a "classic open source background", Microsoft has totally won me over. I save so much time with Azure and VS it's crazy. I have experience of AWS and Azure and personally I just think Azure beats AWS in every aspect.
  - tluyben2 11y ago
    Still seems from what you say (as we are used to the naming and ux of aws already anyway) is highly dependent on VS which depends on Windows which our teams simply do not want to use. I guess I will have to re-evaluate Azure again soon but VS on Win is not an option so I think the same conclusion will come out of it. Again, if they port VS they will probably win the battle from AWS. Or AWS can make things smooth with VS (do not know if that is possible).
    - staticelf 11y ago
      Even if you're not using VS you can download an xml file that is everything your project need to deploy to Azure AFAIK.

justinclift 11y ago

Will they Open Source the windows spyware... er... "metrics collection" code?

justinclift 11y ago
Guess by the downvoting that there's a reason people feel the "metrics collection" shouldn't be Open Sourced? I'd like to hear what that is, as it seems (to me) to be a stellar example of what really should be.
- recursive 11y ago
  I think the downvoting is more in response to your editorial tone.
- jasonlotito 11y ago
  > Guess by the downvoting that there's a reason people feel the "metrics collection" shouldn't be Open Sourced? It was a childish and immature comment, not appropriate for HN. That's why it is getting downvoted. In addition, this comment talking about the downvotes will get downvoted as well. Not only for the fact that you are talking about downvotes in your comment, but by the fact that your comment is effectively "begging the question." Rather than make one-off snide comments, actually contribute something that is respectful to other people's time.
  - justinclift 11y ago
    What's a better way to point out MS should be Open Sourcing the parts of their codebase which people don't trust (eg their spyware)? They seem to be making large numbers of moves trying to get people to use their platform... and at the same time, shooting themselves in the foot-head-foot with trust-destroying moves... and ignoring everything in relation to that. :(
    - vulpino 11y ago
      How about: "Maybe Microsoft should consider open sourcing the components of their system which track users. It's possible that this would help rebuild the trust that was eroded with the release of Windows 10."

hydromet 11y ago

> The open source advocates (Scott Hanselman, Scott Guthrie, Damien Edwards, and many others) won the internal struggle. This is truly an amazing feat. Imagine the cultural headwinds these guys were up against. They also won over the Microsoft Board of Directors to eject Steve Ballmer (finally). Hats off to Scott, Scott, Damien et al for staying the course and pulling off a coup.