5 ms·

"Possibly the main argument against using Microsoft from the open source point of view has been the issue of expense. However the .NET Framework can be download

"Possibly the main argument against using Microsoft from the open source point of view has been the issue of expense. However the .NET Framework can be downloaded for free plus they also provide ‘Express’ versions of Visual Studio and their SQL Server database software which we used and are also free." This only addresses the development versions of their software. What about license costs for the production instances of Windows Server and SQL Server? That's where costs really start getting prohibitive on an MS stack. For a startup at least.

rbanffy 18y ago
Having about 3 meetings created per day on average since launch would not qualify this app as a success by any count. For this amount of usage, a shared account on a cheap web hosting service would probably do. Most probably any 32 bit item in my interesting computer collection (if I had any Windows boxes, that is) would be able to carry that load without breaking a sweat. However, one could not be able to base a startup on this structure, much less a successful one.
mrtron 18y ago
Let's go on the assumption .NET MVC/mssql is comparable to rails/mysql or django/postgres in quality, performance, time to build, etc. How could anyone consider using the option that is not free and open source?
- wanorris 18y ago
  If you're leaving an enterprise job where you developed years of expertise in .Net technologies and wanted to start building on a stack in which you are already an expert.
kogir 18y ago
Before you've launched you can use the development versions. Once you've moved into an office the licensing cost doesn't really matter relative to other expenses. We spend 13 times more money on cell phone contracts per month at Loopt than we do on MS software licensing (Office, Exchange, Windows Server, VS 2008, SQL Server, etc). Payroll is astronomically more. If the relatively minuscule amount of money you're saving from not licensing MS software makes a difference, I'd argue that you have bigger problems :) There definitely are valid reasons not to use the MS stack, but cost isn't one of them in most cases. We've saved enough time by using it to more than cover its cost. [Edit] For more on cost, look into the Service Provider License Agreement. You pay per month and only for what you used. http://www.microsoft.com/serviceproviders/licensing/default.mspx http://www.microsoft.com/serviceproviders/licensing/default....
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- ericb 18y ago
  That's fine and I even like using .net, but at any point MS can pull a VB6 "not supported" on any technology or part of your stack while it has known vulnerabilities and you can't do anything but chew on it. How can you even put a cost on that?
  - baha_man 18y ago
    I agree with your main point ("don't be a sharecropper" [1]), but as for the VB6 example, I don't think this is particularly convincing. It's not like VB6 users haven't had enough time to move over to VB.NET, and if they don't want to, they can still create applications using VB6. Existing VB6 applications are not suddenly going stop working because Microsoft isn't officially supporting VB6. What does 'support' mean anyway? [1] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePlace http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePla...
    - ericb 18y ago
      Actually, a previous company I worked at does have to move away. They have what they believe was one of the largest VB6 apps anywhere. It had its own embedded VBA as well. Now they have an enforced rewrite, and yes, it didn't mean it stops working that day, but they have licenses for VBA which they pass on to customers which DO expire (as in, they can't keep selling their product!). Now they have to move years of work and history to something new. So yes, real companies are real screwed by the decision. If Microsoft applies the same practice to ASP.NET some day, and a buffer overrun exploit is found, what are your alternatives?
      - baha_man 18y ago
        I guess Wasabi is a pretty good idea after all. May I ask if this company you used to work for has now embraced open source? [1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/09/01b.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/09/01b.html

rbanffy 18y ago

Having about 3 meetings created per day on average since launch would not qualify this app as a success by any count. For this amount of usage, a shared account on a cheap web hosting service would probably do. Most probably any 32 bit item in my interesting computer collection (if I had any Windows boxes, that is) would be able to carry that load without breaking a sweat. However, one could not be able to base a startup on this structure, much less a successful one.

mrtron 18y ago

Let's go on the assumption .NET MVC/mssql is comparable to rails/mysql or django/postgres in quality, performance, time to build, etc. How could anyone consider using the option that is not free and open source?

wanorris 18y ago
If you're leaving an enterprise job where you developed years of expertise in .Net technologies and wanted to start building on a stack in which you are already an expert.

kogir 18y ago

Before you've launched you can use the development versions. Once you've moved into an office the licensing cost doesn't really matter relative to other expenses. We spend 13 times more money on cell phone contracts per month at Loopt than we do on MS software licensing (Office, Exchange, Windows Server, VS 2008, SQL Server, etc). Payroll is astronomically more. If the relatively minuscule amount of money you're saving from not licensing MS software makes a difference, I'd argue that you have bigger problems :) There definitely are valid reasons not to use the MS stack, but cost isn't one of them in most cases. We've saved enough time by using it to more than cover its cost. [Edit] For more on cost, look into the Service Provider License Agreement. You pay per month and only for what you used. http://www.microsoft.com/serviceproviders/licensing/default.mspx http://www.microsoft.com/serviceproviders/licensing/default....

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
ericb 18y ago
That's fine and I even like using .net, but at any point MS can pull a VB6 "not supported" on any technology or part of your stack while it has known vulnerabilities and you can't do anything but chew on it. How can you even put a cost on that?
- baha_man 18y ago
  I agree with your main point ("don't be a sharecropper" [1]), but as for the VB6 example, I don't think this is particularly convincing. It's not like VB6 users haven't had enough time to move over to VB.NET, and if they don't want to, they can still create applications using VB6. Existing VB6 applications are not suddenly going stop working because Microsoft isn't officially supporting VB6. What does 'support' mean anyway? [1] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePlace http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePla...
  - ericb 18y ago
    Actually, a previous company I worked at does have to move away. They have what they believe was one of the largest VB6 apps anywhere. It had its own embedded VBA as well. Now they have an enforced rewrite, and yes, it didn't mean it stops working that day, but they have licenses for VBA which they pass on to customers which DO expire (as in, they can't keep selling their product!). Now they have to move years of work and history to something new. So yes, real companies are real screwed by the decision. If Microsoft applies the same practice to ASP.NET some day, and a buffer overrun exploit is found, what are your alternatives?
    - baha_man 18y ago
      I guess Wasabi is a pretty good idea after all. May I ask if this company you used to work for has now embraced open source? [1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/09/01b.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/09/01b.html