4 ms·
Ha, that's another thing that grinds my gears. Teams, Teams (Personal) Teams (new)... WTF people you're supposed to know what you're doing here.
by Neil44 2y ago
Ha, that's another thing that grinds my gears. Teams, Teams (Personal) Teams (new)... WTF people you're supposed to know what you're doing here.
- xnorswap 2y agoIt's as if they saw how badly they messed up the Lync -> "Skype for business" transition and thought, "Yeah let's try that again".
- RankingMember 2y agoIn my cynical frame of mind I imagine those execs then golden-parachuted off to Google and were responsible for the Google Pay, GPay, and Google Wallet debacle.
- SSLy 2y agoLinq is a C# DSL for SQL. You must have been thinking about Lync.
- Semaphor 2y agoIt’s not just a DSL, it’s also the fluent API. Because one thing Microsoft loves more than money, is confusing people with their naming.
- anyonecancode 2y agoThey say that "naming things is hard," but tbh I think some people and orgs are just really bad at naming.
- Semaphor 2y agoI can recommend "Totally made up conversations about choosing Entity Framework version numbers": https://blog.oneunicorn.com/2020/03/26/numbersarehard/ https://blog.oneunicorn.com/2020/03/26/numbersarehard/ ;)
- xnorswap 2y agoQuite right, too much muscle memory got me typing the wrong word.
- 13of40 2y agoIMO, the thing that went wrong with Lync->SFB transition was they bought Skype based on the idea that they could do something to merge the code with Lync, but over a year or two found out that that the only value was in the Skype branding, and the code and architecture of it was a dumpster fire. While the whole org was distracted by that, Teams came along and showed them what a rewrite from the ground up could do.
- ethbr1 2y agoTeams (Web) showed them. Teams (Windows, Old) showed them a rewrite from the ground up could still be a dumpster fire.
- yamazakiwi 2y agoI had a friend who worked high up at Lync before they were sold. Microsoft flew him out and threatened lawsuits to coerce them to sign and play ball. I was working at Microsoft during the switch to Skype for Business and the employees were dogfooding the beta. Terrible time to be alive.
- marcosdumay 2y agoCommunicator -> Lync (after the computer system of a dystopian videogame?) -> Skype for Business (because everybody knew Skype, so let's make this completely unrelated thing) -> Teams. Every step was about as fucked-up as every other.
- freehorse 2y agoThe same goes for other office products too. For example, there is a business version of Outlook and a personal (?) version of it. They have the same name, the interface is similar enough to not be sure what you have, and the only reliable way to know is to check where you downloaded the installer from. Some business accounts apparently do not work with the personal version. Colleagues were just standing clueless as to why their company office accounts could not sync when they had to reinstall stuff on a computer. I don't understand why they keep doing this. I guess because the names are recognisable enough that they want them advertised as such for both use-cases, but it is confusing.
- skywhopper 2y agoThis trend in MS software is utterly embarrassing. Every time I see these icons I cannot believe someone approved this approach.
- RankingMember 2y agoThe "Teams (new)" is absurd. Have we not learned not to name things this way by now? I say this as someone as guilty as anyone of having created an iterative series of files with "Final_1.txt", "Final_2.txt", "Final_1-new.txt" suffixes in times of mental sketch-padding. I would never release a product into the wild with any of those in the title, though.
- sdwr 2y ago"Teams v2 final final (real) skdhajah.exe"
- bzzzt 2y agoI’m waiting for Super Teams 2 turbo :)
- Sakos 2y agoTbh, I prefer the Teams (new) and Teams (classic) naming. It's infinitely better than the naming they were doing before, which is they were named the exact same in the menu, but were entirely different versions.
- j5155 2y agoWhy can’t it just be Teams v2 and Teams v1?