Proposed MSDN Subscription Changes - VERY BAD!!!

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by news.microsoft.com, Mar 22, 2005.

  1. I urge every developer who has an MSDN subscription (Universal) to petition
    MS to change their proposed ideas on Visual Studio Team Suite (VSTS).
    Depending on what you read, they are proposing to not include it or raise
    the price to between $5,000 and $10,000. Every developer who has helped MS
    make loads of cash of these past many years needs to write to them. Let
    them know they are about to alienate the one group that always and
    consistently helps them be successful. It is the most ridiculous thing
    they've ever proposed. Unbelievable!!!

    http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackId=2b58b8db-5bba-4dfc-be10-78ad43686b3b


    MICROSOFT PLEASE RECONSIDER. YOU WILL LOSE SALES. YOU WILL ALIENATE ALL
    CLASSES OF DEVELOPERS!

    We are the ones that stick up for you when everyone bashes MS.

    Help us help you!

    GClark
     
    news.microsoft.com, Mar 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. news.microsoft.com

    Teemu Keiski Guest

    Maybe you should read this
    http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/mar05/03-21VS2005PR.asp

    Here's a snippet:

    No-Cost Upgrades for Active MSDN Universal Subscribers

    Existing MSDN Universal subscribers can enjoy a seamless transition to
    Visual Studio 2005 Team System and automatically receive a no-cost upgrade
    to one of the role-based subscription products for each active subscription
    license they own at the time of product availability. Special upgrade
    pricing to the Team Suite also will be available. Active subscribers may
    elect to renew their subscription and preserve their existing pricing for
    future renewals, if they choose; customers without subscriptions, or
    customers whose subscriptions have lapsed at the time of product
    availability, will not receive these special pricing offers.

    --
    Teemu Keiski
    ASP.NET MVP, Finland

    "news.microsoft.com" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I urge every developer who has an MSDN subscription (Universal) to petition
    >MS to change their proposed ideas on Visual Studio Team Suite (VSTS).
    >Depending on what you read, they are proposing to not include it or raise
    >the price to between $5,000 and $10,000. Every developer who has helped MS
    >make loads of cash of these past many years needs to write to them. Let
    >them know they are about to alienate the one group that always and
    >consistently helps them be successful. It is the most ridiculous thing
    >they've ever proposed. Unbelievable!!!
    >
    > http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackId=2b58b8db-5bba-4dfc-be10-78ad43686b3b
    >
    >
    > MICROSOFT PLEASE RECONSIDER. YOU WILL LOSE SALES. YOU WILL ALIENATE ALL
    > CLASSES OF DEVELOPERS!
    >
    > We are the ones that stick up for you when everyone bashes MS.
    >
    > Help us help you!
    >
    > GClark
    >
     
    Teemu Keiski, Mar 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. news.microsoft.com wrote:
    > I urge every developer who has an MSDN subscription (Universal) to petition
    > MS to change their proposed ideas on Visual Studio Team Suite (VSTS).
    > Depending on what you read, they are proposing to not include it or raise
    > the price to between $5,000 and $10,000. Every developer who has helped MS
    > make loads of cash of these past many years needs to write to them. Let
    > them know they are about to alienate the one group that always and
    > consistently helps them be successful. It is the most ridiculous thing
    > they've ever proposed. Unbelievable!!!
    >
    > http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackId=2b58b8db-5bba-4dfc-be10-78ad43686b3b
    >
    >
    > MICROSOFT PLEASE RECONSIDER. YOU WILL LOSE SALES. YOU WILL ALIENATE ALL
    > CLASSES OF DEVELOPERS!
    >
    > We are the ones that stick up for you when everyone bashes MS.


    I don't see the problem. MSDN universal is an individual license. This
    means that it's not a 'team' who licenses MSDN Universal. Though 'team
    system' is only really effective if you use it in a team. As an
    individual, there is not that much value in a large team system
    installation, as it requires a lot of resources an individual probably
    doesn't have (i.e.: installing it all on your laptop isn't recommended).

    FB
     
    Frans Bouma [C# MVP], Mar 22, 2005
    #3
  4. news.microsoft.com

    Dick Grier Guest

    Microsoft has urged users to purchase a MSDN Universal (I think)
    subscription RSN. Current users will be grandfathered in. That is, they
    will not have to pay the increased license cost and will be able to enjoy
    VSTS using the current licensing structure. Only new licensees, those who
    purchase AFTER the change will be affected.

    Dick

    --
    Richard Grier (Microsoft Visual Basic MVP)

    See www.hardandsoftware.net for contact information.

    Author of Visual Basic Programmer's Guide to Serial Communications, 4th
    Edition ISBN 1-890422-28-2 (391 pages) published July 2004. See
    www.mabry.com/vbpgser4 to order.
     
    Dick Grier, Mar 22, 2005
    #4
  5. news.microsoft.com

    gaidar Guest

    Hey! It's not a reason to worry! Just think about your own subscription -
    you'll get new Team System for free!

    Don't even try to make developers against MS or will stay against you! :))

    Gaidar

    "news.microsoft.com" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I urge every developer who has an MSDN subscription (Universal) to petition
    >MS to change their proposed ideas on Visual Studio Team Suite (VSTS).
    >Depending on what you read, they are proposing to not include it or raise
    >the price to between $5,000 and $10,000. Every developer who has helped MS
    >make loads of cash of these past many years needs to write to them. Let
    >them know they are about to alienate the one group that always and
    >consistently helps them be successful. It is the most ridiculous thing
    >they've ever proposed. Unbelievable!!!
    >
    > http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackId=2b58b8db-5bba-4dfc-be10-78ad43686b3b
    >
    >
    > MICROSOFT PLEASE RECONSIDER. YOU WILL LOSE SALES. YOU WILL ALIENATE ALL
    > CLASSES OF DEVELOPERS!
    >
    > We are the ones that stick up for you when everyone bashes MS.
    >
    > Help us help you!
    >
    > GClark
    >
     
    gaidar, Mar 22, 2005
    #5
  6. I'm glad to see they've addressed this somewhat. I'm still a little worried
    about the trend though.

    http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/mar05/03-21VS2005PR.asp

    http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2005/mar05/03-21DevToolsPricing.asp

    One of my points is also that we developers are also the ones who often
    recommend the tools to use for development to various companies we do work
    for. If we cannot evaluate the product, we cannot recommend it. I need to
    be able so see what the tools offer before I can recommend them. Not only
    the tools, but Office products, the various servers, etc. We are directly
    and indirectly responsible for many sales for MS.

    As far as cost goes, I've usually been able to make the company I'm working
    for at the time purchase MSDN. It is far easier to get $2500 approved than
    it would be to get $5000, or even $10000. Those times when I have to
    purchase MSDN myself would make it prohibitively expensive for me to
    purchase. As a developer, I want all the tools I can get my hands on to
    make my life as easy as possible. Often times, I work standalone, so I need
    to use all the tools to get the job done. I suspect there are many one-man
    shops out there. And, for those times when I have to work with others, I at
    least want to know how to use the tools that we'll all be using. It is
    critical that I get to at the very least familiarize myself with those
    tools.

    I have always supported MS and will continue to do so. I just want to make
    sure they take care of me (and us) as a loyal developer, user, and
    salesperson. I would hate to have to switch to a different platform because
    the cost is prohibitive. I would hate to have to downgrade my subscription
    and not be able to use the advanced tools because of cost. I've been able
    to be a better developer and salesperson for MS because I've always had
    access to the full line of products via Universal. It just feels like that
    may change when they start tweaking with prices and levels. Universal means
    Universal.


    "news.microsoft.com" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I urge every developer who has an MSDN subscription (Universal) to petition
    >MS to change their proposed ideas on Visual Studio Team Suite (VSTS).
    >Depending on what you read, they are proposing to not include it or raise
    >the price to between $5,000 and $10,000. Every developer who has helped MS
    >make loads of cash of these past many years needs to write to them. Let
    >them know they are about to alienate the one group that always and
    >consistently helps them be successful. It is the most ridiculous thing
    >they've ever proposed. Unbelievable!!!
    >
    > http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackId=2b58b8db-5bba-4dfc-be10-78ad43686b3b
    >
    >
    > MICROSOFT PLEASE RECONSIDER. YOU WILL LOSE SALES. YOU WILL ALIENATE ALL
    > CLASSES OF DEVELOPERS!
    >
    > We are the ones that stick up for you when everyone bashes MS.
    >
    > Help us help you!
    >
    > GClark
    >
     
    news.microsoft.com, Mar 22, 2005
    #6
  7. news.microsoft.com

    Scott M. Guest

    I think you (and MS) have forgotten about the individual developer
    consultant like myself who needs all the roles and doesn't want to buy 4
    licenses to get them.

    "Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > news.microsoft.com wrote:
    >> I urge every developer who has an MSDN subscription (Universal) to
    >> petition MS to change their proposed ideas on Visual Studio Team Suite
    >> (VSTS). Depending on what you read, they are proposing to not include it
    >> or raise the price to between $5,000 and $10,000. Every developer who
    >> has helped MS make loads of cash of these past many years needs to write
    >> to them. Let them know they are about to alienate the one group that
    >> always and consistently helps them be successful. It is the most
    >> ridiculous thing they've ever proposed. Unbelievable!!!
    >>
    >> http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackId=2b58b8db-5bba-4dfc-be10-78ad43686b3b
    >>
    >>
    >> MICROSOFT PLEASE RECONSIDER. YOU WILL LOSE SALES. YOU WILL ALIENATE ALL
    >> CLASSES OF DEVELOPERS!
    >>
    >> We are the ones that stick up for you when everyone bashes MS.

    >
    > I don't see the problem. MSDN universal is an individual license. This
    > means that it's not a 'team' who licenses MSDN Universal. Though 'team
    > system' is only really effective if you use it in a team. As an
    > individual, there is not that much value in a large team system
    > installation, as it requires a lot of resources an individual probably
    > doesn't have (i.e.: installing it all on your laptop isn't recommended).
    >
    > FB
     
    Scott M., Mar 22, 2005
    #7
  8. There is a good deal of stuff in Team System that even lone developers could
    benefit from. Profiling, Bug Tracking, Architechting Tools, Testing Tools,
    etc.
    I agree that Microsoft should be looking out for the little guy here. An
    MSDN subscription costs a lot of money for individual consultants, but at
    least it used to mean that they'd get everything they need. It no longer
    seems to mean that, so what good is it to pay all that money?

    --
    I hope this helps,
    Steve C. Orr, MCSD, MVP
    http://SteveOrr.net



    "Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > news.microsoft.com wrote:
    >> I urge every developer who has an MSDN subscription (Universal) to
    >> petition MS to change their proposed ideas on Visual Studio Team Suite
    >> (VSTS). Depending on what you read, they are proposing to not include it
    >> or raise the price to between $5,000 and $10,000. Every developer who
    >> has helped MS make loads of cash of these past many years needs to write
    >> to them. Let them know they are about to alienate the one group that
    >> always and consistently helps them be successful. It is the most
    >> ridiculous thing they've ever proposed. Unbelievable!!!
    >>
    >> http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackId=2b58b8db-5bba-4dfc-be10-78ad43686b3b
    >>
    >>
    >> MICROSOFT PLEASE RECONSIDER. YOU WILL LOSE SALES. YOU WILL ALIENATE ALL
    >> CLASSES OF DEVELOPERS!
    >>
    >> We are the ones that stick up for you when everyone bashes MS.

    >
    > I don't see the problem. MSDN universal is an individual license. This
    > means that it's not a 'team' who licenses MSDN Universal. Though 'team
    > system' is only really effective if you use it in a team. As an
    > individual, there is not that much value in a large team system
    > installation, as it requires a lot of resources an individual probably
    > doesn't have (i.e.: installing it all on your laptop isn't recommended).
    >
    > FB
     
    Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD], Mar 22, 2005
    #8
  9. Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD] wrote:

    > There is a good deal of stuff in Team System that even lone developers
    > could benefit from. Profiling, Bug Tracking, Architechting Tools,
    > Testing Tools, etc.


    Two questions:

    1. Does that mean that there will be a $2,500 edition of Visual Studio
    2005 which does *not* include a profiler?

    2. Can anybody come up with a link to a comprehensive overview of which
    edition is going to comprise what?


    --
    Gerhard Menzl

    #dogma int main ()

    Humans may reply by replacing the thermal post part of my e-mail address
    with "kapsch" and the top level domain part with "net".
     
    Gerhard Menzl, Mar 23, 2005
    #9
  10. news.microsoft.com

    Teemu Keiski Guest

    http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/vs2005/productinfo/productline/default.aspx

    According to this one, code profiling is only in VSTS versions.

    --
    Teemu Keiski
    ASP.NET MVP, Finland

    "Gerhard Menzl" <> wrote in message
    news:42414477$...
    > Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD] wrote:
    >
    > > There is a good deal of stuff in Team System that even lone developers
    > > could benefit from. Profiling, Bug Tracking, Architechting Tools,
    > > Testing Tools, etc.

    >
    > Two questions:
    >
    > 1. Does that mean that there will be a $2,500 edition of Visual Studio
    > 2005 which does *not* include a profiler?
    >
    > 2. Can anybody come up with a link to a comprehensive overview of which
    > edition is going to comprise what?
    >
    >
    > --
    > Gerhard Menzl
    >
    > #dogma int main ()
    >
    > Humans may reply by replacing the thermal post part of my e-mail address
    > with "kapsch" and the top level domain part with "net".
     
    Teemu Keiski, Mar 24, 2005
    #10
  11. news.microsoft.com

    Eric Guest

    news.microsoft.com wrote:
    > One of my points is also that we developers are also the ones who often
    > recommend the tools to use for development to various companies we do work
    > for. If we cannot evaluate the product, we cannot recommend it.


    Great point!

    But:
    1) MS doesn't really care if you recommend it or not, based on the
    proposed pricing. They are targetting a high-end niche, and most of us
    aren't teally able to steer that segment of the market.
    2) The very high "per seat" price puts this out of consideration for
    small or medium sized companies, anyway. It only makes sense for large
    companies. Large companies would likely have their own architects to
    evaluate the system, and they have enough discretionary money to buy
    licenses for evaluation purposes. I'd expect MS to give them free
    evaluation licenses also, depending on how much business they do with MS.

    It's fine with me if Microsoft targets a new high-end market segment
    that has not been well-served by VSS and Visio. I am happy that they're
    finally trying to compete in the full life-cycle arena, and they deserve
    to make a reasonable return on their investment.

    I'm sad that I won't be able to go down that road with them, but I
    understand the market segment they are targetting, and it not a segment
    I work in at this time.

    Eric
     
    Eric, Mar 26, 2005
    #11
  12. "Eric" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > news.microsoft.com wrote:
    >> One of my points is also that we developers are also the ones who often
    >> recommend the tools to use for development to various companies we do
    >> work for. If we cannot evaluate the product, we cannot recommend it.

    >
    > Great point!
    >
    > But:
    > 1) MS doesn't really care if you recommend it or not, based on the
    > proposed pricing. They are targetting a high-end niche, and most of us
    > aren't teally able to steer that segment of the market.


    I think what he means is that independent consultants and ISV's often
    recommend software to customers. I know that in the last 6 months my
    personal recommendations have netted MS about $75,000. It's difficult to
    advise people about software you don't have access to however. Due to the
    new licensing options and costs, I'll be getting Professional for myself
    when my current contractee's subscription expires. Whilst they have made
    Professional more attractive, it means I won't have access to the
    enterprise-level server tools. Therefore, when looking at enterprise level
    software I'll have to consider looking at non-MS alternatives. When
    providing advice for SDLC tools I won't be able to recommend VSTS. I've
    heard talk about the 120-day trial, but frankly I feel that to put an SDLC
    tool through it's paces one has to run it through a full dev cycle. I
    certainly don't often get so lucky as to run through a project in under 120
    days.

    Now, I DO understand that VSTS is a developers product so it doesn't make
    sense to provide it at cut rate to developers. However, most of the stuff I
    was looking for was incidental to VSTS. I was under the impression that
    Whidbey would be coming with a decent source control system, and built-in
    defect tracking integration, along with testing and profiling tools.
    Frankly, everything else is nice, but not neccesary. What I want to know is
    why they couldn't just spent some time integrating tools like NCover, NUnit,
    NProf and so forth into a coherent whole in Whidbey for the lower end of the
    market. We've only been asking for something like that since VB4.

    Another option would have been to provide the standard 5 CAL, 1 Server
    license for Universal subscriptions. Then MS could charge a fortune for
    extra CAL's. They wouldn't lose any revenue since the people/companies who
    wouldn't need to purchase more CAL's wouldn't be buying VSTS anyway.
    Instead, they've seriously irritated the small ISV's and consultants.
    Another irritant has been the high-handed attitude coming out from MS that
    us non-Enterprise developers don't actually need or use SDLC tools. Earth to
    MS: we do, albeit we don't need massive systems like VSTS. I think the main
    problem has been the whole way this was marketed. We were informed about all
    the wonders of Team System for ages and ages, and not once did I hear it
    mentioned that this was not going to be part of the standard MSDN package.
    So make us drool, and then pull the rug from under our feet. I believe
    that's the reason there's so much anger.

    > 2) The very high "per seat" price puts this out of consideration for small
    > or medium sized companies, anyway. It only makes sense for large
    > companies. Large companies would likely have their own architects to
    > evaluate the system, and they have enough discretionary money to buy
    > licenses for evaluation purposes. I'd expect MS to give them free
    > evaluation licenses also, depending on how much business they do with MS.
    >
    > It's fine with me if Microsoft targets a new high-end market segment that
    > has not been well-served by VSS and Visio. I am happy that they're finally
    > trying to compete in the full life-cycle arena, and they deserve to make a
    > reasonable return on their investment.
    >
    > I'm sad that I won't be able to go down that road with them, but I
    > understand the market segment they are targetting, and it not a segment I
    > work in at this time.
    >
    > Eric
     
    Sean Hederman, Mar 26, 2005
    #12
  13. re:
    > What I want to know is why they couldn't just spent some time integrating
    > tools like NCover, NUnit, NProf and so forth into a coherent whole in
    > Whidbey for the lower end of the market.


    Because if they did that, they'd be accused of undermining
    those products, and establishing a monopoly ?

    You'd do well to take a look at :
    http://dotnetjunkies.com/WebLog/christopherbowen/archive/2004/06/07/15677.aspx
    and see how many products are touched by VSTS.

    I have a feeling those are many more products than you've given
    consideration to, and that the developers who are working on them
    might not feel the same way you do when you demand that similar
    tools be included in a Microsoft product which is not VSTS,
    and which -furthermore- is available at a very low price.

    I know it's easy to demand lots of tools at a very cheap price,
    but the plain fact is that you can have most of those tools for
    *no price at all*, or for a lot less than what VSTS will cost.

    If you need to have Enterprise features, you will need to pay for them,
    since providing Enterprise tools to developers who are not a part of
    Enterprise teams, and who want to have Enterprise tools for cheap,
    doesn't make much sense, business-wise.

    If a developer has need for less features than VSTS,
    that developer can always buy VS.NET "Standard"
    for about $300. That's not a bad deal.

    Home enthusiasts and small developers will even be able
    to purchase Visual Web Developer or any of the Express
    line of products for just $49, which is a great deal!

    As far as VS, if "Standard" is not enough, then "Professional" might do.
    They will, both, be considerably cheaper that VSTS.

    What you can't expect is that Enterprise-level
    Team Tools be available on the cheap plan.



    Juan T. Llibre
    ASP.NET MVP
    http://asp.net.do/foros/
    Foros de ASP.NET en Español
    Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
    ======================

    "Sean Hederman" <> wrote in message
    news:d24kdo$bki$...
    > "Eric" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> news.microsoft.com wrote:
    >>> One of my points is also that we developers are also the ones who often
    >>> recommend the tools to use for development to various companies we do
    >>> work for. If we cannot evaluate the product, we cannot recommend it.

    >>
    >> Great point!
    >>
    >> But:
    >> 1) MS doesn't really care if you recommend it or not, based on the
    >> proposed pricing. They are targetting a high-end niche, and most of us
    >> aren't teally able to steer that segment of the market.

    >
    > I think what he means is that independent consultants and ISV's often
    > recommend software to customers. I know that in the last 6 months my
    > personal recommendations have netted MS about $75,000. It's difficult to
    > advise people about software you don't have access to however. Due to the
    > new licensing options and costs, I'll be getting Professional for myself
    > when my current contractee's subscription expires. Whilst they have made
    > Professional more attractive, it means I won't have access to the
    > enterprise-level server tools. Therefore, when looking at enterprise level
    > software I'll have to consider looking at non-MS alternatives. When
    > providing advice for SDLC tools I won't be able to recommend VSTS. I've
    > heard talk about the 120-day trial, but frankly I feel that to put an SDLC
    > tool through it's paces one has to run it through a full dev cycle. I
    > certainly don't often get so lucky as to run through a project in under
    > 120 days.
    >
    > Now, I DO understand that VSTS is a developers product so it doesn't make
    > sense to provide it at cut rate to developers. However, most of the stuff
    > I was looking for was incidental to VSTS. I was under the impression that
    > Whidbey would be coming with a decent source control system, and built-in
    > defect tracking integration, along with testing and profiling tools.
    > Frankly, everything else is nice, but not neccesary. What I want to know
    > is why they couldn't just spent some time integrating tools like NCover,
    > NUnit, NProf and so forth into a coherent whole in Whidbey for the lower
    > end of the market. We've only been asking for something like that since
    > VB4.
    >
    > Another option would have been to provide the standard 5 CAL, 1 Server
    > license for Universal subscriptions. Then MS could charge a fortune for
    > extra CAL's. They wouldn't lose any revenue since the people/companies who
    > wouldn't need to purchase more CAL's wouldn't be buying VSTS anyway.
    > Instead, they've seriously irritated the small ISV's and consultants.
    > Another irritant has been the high-handed attitude coming out from MS that
    > us non-Enterprise developers don't actually need or use SDLC tools. Earth
    > to MS: we do, albeit we don't need massive systems like VSTS. I think the
    > main problem has been the whole way this was marketed. We were informed
    > about all the wonders of Team System for ages and ages, and not once did I
    > hear it mentioned that this was not going to be part of the standard MSDN
    > package. So make us drool, and then pull the rug from under our feet. I
    > believe that's the reason there's so much anger.
    >
    >> 2) The very high "per seat" price puts this out of consideration for
    >> small or medium sized companies, anyway. It only makes sense for large
    >> companies. Large companies would likely have their own architects to
    >> evaluate the system, and they have enough discretionary money to buy
    >> licenses for evaluation purposes. I'd expect MS to give them free
    >> evaluation licenses also, depending on how much business they do with MS.
    >>
    >> It's fine with me if Microsoft targets a new high-end market segment that
    >> has not been well-served by VSS and Visio. I am happy that they're
    >> finally trying to compete in the full life-cycle arena, and they deserve
    >> to make a reasonable return on their investment.
    >>
    >> I'm sad that I won't be able to go down that road with them, but I
    >> understand the market segment they are targetting, and it not a segment I
    >> work in at this time.
    >>
    >> Eric
     
    Juan T. Llibre, Mar 27, 2005
    #13
  14. "Juan T. Llibre" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > re:
    >> What I want to know is why they couldn't just spent some time integrating
    >> tools like NCover, NUnit, NProf and so forth into a coherent whole in
    >> Whidbey for the lower end of the market.

    >
    > Because if they did that, they'd be accused of undermining
    > those products, and establishing a monopoly ?


    They're free, it'd be a bit difficult to accuse MS of taking over a market
    when one doesn't exist. They don't seem to give a damn about, say,
    integrating Office 2003 style toolbars, and there are plenty of those out in
    the marketplace, free and otherwise. Anyway I was thinking more about MS
    working with those projects to help them interoperate better, and then
    shipping those projects with VS. I don't think you can be accused of
    undermining a product when you ship it with your flagship tool.

    > You'd do well to take a look at :
    > http://dotnetjunkies.com/WebLog/christopherbowen/archive/2004/06/07/15677.aspx
    > and see how many products are touched by VSTS.


    Ummm, yeah, but, the Build Tools market is already hit by MSBuild, the
    Source Control by SourceSafe, leaving only Testing, Profiling and
    RAD/Modelling/Management. All I was asking for was to include Testing and
    Profiling tools. Oh yeah, and to give us a decent SourceControl tool to
    replace that dog that is VSS.

    > I have a feeling those are many more products than you've given
    > consideration to, and that the developers who are working on them
    > might not feel the same way you do when you demand that similar
    > tools be included in a Microsoft product which is not VSTS,
    > and which -furthermore- is available at a very low price.


    But this is entirely my point! I don't WANT all that extra stuff. All I
    wanted is what's been on the top of every developers wish list since the
    days of VB4, a decent source control with a bit of integration to a decent
    issue tracker and maybe some assistance on the testing and profiling front.
    The fact that there are so many free products out there that do these things
    indicates that the market for these tools has become commoditised. The
    reason? They're what *every* developer *needs*, not wants. Since they are
    commodities.

    As for VSTS, it is indeed available at a lower price than its competitors.
    Such a situation does not make it cheap. The Enterprise SDLC market has been
    overheating for years now, with insane pricing for little comparative
    benefit. MS is just adding another (slightly cheaper) product to that pile.
    Considering their reputation for not getting products polished until v3, I
    think that they'll have a tough sell.

    > I know it's easy to demand lots of tools at a very cheap price,
    > but the plain fact is that you can have most of those tools for
    > *no price at all*, or for a lot less than what VSTS will cost.


    Yes, but they don't work together nicely.

    > If you need to have Enterprise features, you will need to pay for them,
    > since providing Enterprise tools to developers who are not a part of
    > Enterprise teams, and who want to have Enterprise tools for cheap,
    > doesn't make much sense, business-wise.


    Actually it does. The vast majority of developers out there do not work for
    large enterprises, but they do write hundreds of applications and tools that
    are part of what makes Windows appealing to the public at large. However,
    said public is getting fed up with perceived Microsoft application
    unreliability and lack of security. A fair portion of this perception comes
    from buggy, badly designed, and poorly tested applications supplied by the
    hordes of developers out there. Microsoft has always recognised the
    developer market as a strategic one for the rest of the company, and
    accepted therefore that it's developer tools areas can be loss leaders.
    Until now. You can read my post
    http://codingsanity.blogspot.com/2005/03/is-microsoft-losing-plot.html on
    this very topic.

    > If a developer has need for less features than VSTS,
    > that developer can always buy VS.NET "Standard"
    > for about $300. That's not a bad deal.
    >
    > Home enthusiasts and small developers will even be able
    > to purchase Visual Web Developer or any of the Express
    > line of products for just $49, which is a great deal!
    >
    > As far as VS, if "Standard" is not enough, then "Professional" might do.
    > They will, both, be considerably cheaper that VSTS.


    And this is exactly the high-handed attitude I was talking about. "If a
    developer has need for less features than VSTS". What makes a developer
    require less features? Well, the fact that they're not an Enterprise
    developer. Nothing to do with their skill, or their role in development, or
    with the difficulty of projects they're working on, merely with the size of
    the customer.

    > What you can't expect is that Enterprise-level
    > Team Tools be available on the cheap plan.


    Why not? Biztalk is, and it costs WAY more than VSTS. Admittedly, it is only
    available for development and VSTS is a development tool, but as I've
    pointed out in this and previous posts, providing *some* portions of VSTS to
    everyone will assist developers in creating higher-quality products for
    strategic Microsoft products like Biztalk, Windows, SQL Server, and Office.
    Alternatively, providing a cheap (possibly scaled down) VSTS server and 5
    CALs for small development teams *that would never have been able to buy
    VSTS anyway*, and simply making the additional CALs expensive would not only
    assist the smaller teams and allow them to compete head-on with Enterprises,
    but would also keep VSTS as a major revenue stream. Imagine that in 2 years
    I'm hired to head up a large Enterprise team. Well, I certainly wouldn't
    recommend VSTS for such a scenario, since I've never used it, instead I'd
    put in place the OSS SDLC tools that I've been using up till that point. If
    said team had a large amount of time to evaluate products like VSTS, well
    then I might push it, but how often does that happen in practise?

    Now consider that if you're not using VSTS, Universal subscription adds no
    new development tools. Add to that the fact that if you have Professional
    you no longer have access to the server systems other than SQL Developer.
    Once again, if I don't use Biztalk or Sharepoint I'm going to have
    difficulty in pushing them as solutions. Basically, VSTS has hijacked MS's
    entire long-term strategic vision for a dubious short-term commercial gain.
    Not the kind of forward thinking I expect from MS.

    So, what they've done is ensure that the people who actually adore MS
    products enough to buy their own subscriptions to MSDN do not have access to
    a product that such people would invariable push at their customers. As I
    said in my previous post, the poor way this whole saga has been communicated
    has led to a poisoning of attitudes towards MS from consultants and small
    ISVs, and for what? To ensure that MS don't lose out on a VSTS revenue
    stream they would never have anyway.

    For me, I don't really care about VSTS. I work (fairly) happily with the
    tools that already exist, and I haven't seen anything so compelling in VSTS
    that I'm completely distraught at not having access to it. I am concerned
    about a couple of things though:
    - Microsoft have finally listened to what their dev community has been
    screaming for for almost a decade now, and provided it only to their larger
    customers.
    - Microsoft have decided to put the server development licenses out of
    normal developers and small ISV's reach.
    - They've decided to completely skew the playing field in favour of the
    Enterprise customers.
    - They've decided to put short-term profits before long-term strategy.
    - They've communicated this is an arrogant and dismissive way.

    Those are what I'm worried about, not this whole VSTS brouhaha, that's small
    fry. I'm worried that the above might become a trend.

    > Juan T. Llibre
    > ASP.NET MVP
    > http://asp.net.do/foros/
    > Foros de ASP.NET en Español
    > Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
    > ======================
    >
    > "Sean Hederman" <> wrote in message
    > news:d24kdo$bki$...
    >> "Eric" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%...
    >>> news.microsoft.com wrote:
    >>>> One of my points is also that we developers are also the ones who often
    >>>> recommend the tools to use for development to various companies we do
    >>>> work for. If we cannot evaluate the product, we cannot recommend it.
    >>>
    >>> Great point!
    >>>
    >>> But:
    >>> 1) MS doesn't really care if you recommend it or not, based on the
    >>> proposed pricing. They are targetting a high-end niche, and most of us
    >>> aren't teally able to steer that segment of the market.

    >>
    >> I think what he means is that independent consultants and ISV's often
    >> recommend software to customers. I know that in the last 6 months my
    >> personal recommendations have netted MS about $75,000. It's difficult to
    >> advise people about software you don't have access to however. Due to the
    >> new licensing options and costs, I'll be getting Professional for myself
    >> when my current contractee's subscription expires. Whilst they have made
    >> Professional more attractive, it means I won't have access to the
    >> enterprise-level server tools. Therefore, when looking at enterprise
    >> level software I'll have to consider looking at non-MS alternatives. When
    >> providing advice for SDLC tools I won't be able to recommend VSTS. I've
    >> heard talk about the 120-day trial, but frankly I feel that to put an
    >> SDLC tool through it's paces one has to run it through a full dev cycle.
    >> I certainly don't often get so lucky as to run through a project in under
    >> 120 days.
    >>
    >> Now, I DO understand that VSTS is a developers product so it doesn't make
    >> sense to provide it at cut rate to developers. However, most of the stuff
    >> I was looking for was incidental to VSTS. I was under the impression that
    >> Whidbey would be coming with a decent source control system, and built-in
    >> defect tracking integration, along with testing and profiling tools.
    >> Frankly, everything else is nice, but not neccesary. What I want to know
    >> is why they couldn't just spent some time integrating tools like NCover,
    >> NUnit, NProf and so forth into a coherent whole in Whidbey for the lower
    >> end of the market. We've only been asking for something like that since
    >> VB4.
    >>
    >> Another option would have been to provide the standard 5 CAL, 1 Server
    >> license for Universal subscriptions. Then MS could charge a fortune for
    >> extra CAL's. They wouldn't lose any revenue since the people/companies
    >> who wouldn't need to purchase more CAL's wouldn't be buying VSTS anyway.
    >> Instead, they've seriously irritated the small ISV's and consultants.
    >> Another irritant has been the high-handed attitude coming out from MS
    >> that us non-Enterprise developers don't actually need or use SDLC tools.
    >> Earth to MS: we do, albeit we don't need massive systems like VSTS. I
    >> think the main problem has been the whole way this was marketed. We were
    >> informed about all the wonders of Team System for ages and ages, and not
    >> once did I hear it mentioned that this was not going to be part of the
    >> standard MSDN package. So make us drool, and then pull the rug from under
    >> our feet. I believe that's the reason there's so much anger.
    >>
    >>> 2) The very high "per seat" price puts this out of consideration for
    >>> small or medium sized companies, anyway. It only makes sense for large
    >>> companies. Large companies would likely have their own architects to
    >>> evaluate the system, and they have enough discretionary money to buy
    >>> licenses for evaluation purposes. I'd expect MS to give them free
    >>> evaluation licenses also, depending on how much business they do with
    >>> MS.
    >>>
    >>> It's fine with me if Microsoft targets a new high-end market segment
    >>> that has not been well-served by VSS and Visio. I am happy that they're
    >>> finally trying to compete in the full life-cycle arena, and they deserve
    >>> to make a reasonable return on their investment.
    >>>
    >>> I'm sad that I won't be able to go down that road with them, but I
    >>> understand the market segment they are targetting, and it not a segment
    >>> I work in at this time.
    >>>
    >>> Eric

    >
    >
     
    Sean Hederman, Mar 27, 2005
    #14
  15. This is not one of those topics where
    someone *must* be right and someone *wrong*.

    If you feel that strongly, post your viewpoints about
    where you think Visual Studio should head to at:

    http://forums.microsoft.com/forums/

    Those Forums are manned by VS Program Managers,
    and are the best communications media to get the right
    people to listen to, and possibly act on, your VS suggestions.

    Filling a bunch of developer newsgroups with what amounts
    to spam, even though it's an interesting topic, isn't the best
    course of action.

    Back to coding, and leaving marketing to marketers.



    Juan T. Llibre
    ASP.NET MVP
    http://asp.net.do/foros/
    Foros de ASP.NET en Español
    Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
    ======================

    "Sean Hederman" <> wrote in message
    news:d25oss$gh7$...
    > "Juan T. Llibre" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> re:
    >>> What I want to know is why they couldn't just spent some time
    >>> integrating tools like NCover, NUnit, NProf and so forth into a coherent
    >>> whole in Whidbey for the lower end of the market.

    >>
    >> Because if they did that, they'd be accused of undermining
    >> those products, and establishing a monopoly ?

    >
    > They're free, it'd be a bit difficult to accuse MS of taking over a market
    > when one doesn't exist. They don't seem to give a damn about, say,
    > integrating Office 2003 style toolbars, and there are plenty of those out
    > in the marketplace, free and otherwise. Anyway I was thinking more about
    > MS working with those projects to help them interoperate better, and then
    > shipping those projects with VS. I don't think you can be accused of
    > undermining a product when you ship it with your flagship tool.
    >
    >> You'd do well to take a look at :
    >> http://dotnetjunkies.com/WebLog/christopherbowen/archive/2004/06/07/15677.aspx
    >> and see how many products are touched by VSTS.

    >
    > Ummm, yeah, but, the Build Tools market is already hit by MSBuild, the
    > Source Control by SourceSafe, leaving only Testing, Profiling and
    > RAD/Modelling/Management. All I was asking for was to include Testing and
    > Profiling tools. Oh yeah, and to give us a decent SourceControl tool to
    > replace that dog that is VSS.
    >
    >> I have a feeling those are many more products than you've given
    >> consideration to, and that the developers who are working on them
    >> might not feel the same way you do when you demand that similar
    >> tools be included in a Microsoft product which is not VSTS,
    >> and which -furthermore- is available at a very low price.

    >
    > But this is entirely my point! I don't WANT all that extra stuff. All I
    > wanted is what's been on the top of every developers wish list since the
    > days of VB4, a decent source control with a bit of integration to a decent
    > issue tracker and maybe some assistance on the testing and profiling
    > front. The fact that there are so many free products out there that do
    > these things indicates that the market for these tools has become
    > commoditised. The reason? They're what *every* developer *needs*, not
    > wants. Since they are commodities.
    >
    > As for VSTS, it is indeed available at a lower price than its competitors.
    > Such a situation does not make it cheap. The Enterprise SDLC market has
    > been overheating for years now, with insane pricing for little comparative
    > benefit. MS is just adding another (slightly cheaper) product to that
    > pile. Considering their reputation for not getting products polished until
    > v3, I think that they'll have a tough sell.
    >
    >> I know it's easy to demand lots of tools at a very cheap price,
    >> but the plain fact is that you can have most of those tools for
    >> *no price at all*, or for a lot less than what VSTS will cost.

    >
    > Yes, but they don't work together nicely.
    >
    >> If you need to have Enterprise features, you will need to pay for them,
    >> since providing Enterprise tools to developers who are not a part of
    >> Enterprise teams, and who want to have Enterprise tools for cheap,
    >> doesn't make much sense, business-wise.

    >
    > Actually it does. The vast majority of developers out there do not work
    > for large enterprises, but they do write hundreds of applications and
    > tools that are part of what makes Windows appealing to the public at
    > large. However, said public is getting fed up with perceived Microsoft
    > application unreliability and lack of security. A fair portion of this
    > perception comes from buggy, badly designed, and poorly tested
    > applications supplied by the hordes of developers out there. Microsoft has
    > always recognised the developer market as a strategic one for the rest of
    > the company, and accepted therefore that it's developer tools areas can be
    > loss leaders. Until now. You can read my post
    > http://codingsanity.blogspot.com/2005/03/is-microsoft-losing-plot.html on
    > this very topic.
    >
    >> If a developer has need for less features than VSTS,
    >> that developer can always buy VS.NET "Standard"
    >> for about $300. That's not a bad deal.
    >>
    >> Home enthusiasts and small developers will even be able
    >> to purchase Visual Web Developer or any of the Express
    >> line of products for just $49, which is a great deal!
    >>
    >> As far as VS, if "Standard" is not enough, then "Professional" might do.
    >> They will, both, be considerably cheaper that VSTS.

    >
    > And this is exactly the high-handed attitude I was talking about. "If a
    > developer has need for less features than VSTS". What makes a developer
    > require less features? Well, the fact that they're not an Enterprise
    > developer. Nothing to do with their skill, or their role in development,
    > or with the difficulty of projects they're working on, merely with the
    > size of the customer.
    >
    >> What you can't expect is that Enterprise-level
    >> Team Tools be available on the cheap plan.

    >
    > Why not? Biztalk is, and it costs WAY more than VSTS. Admittedly, it is
    > only available for development and VSTS is a development tool, but as I've
    > pointed out in this and previous posts, providing *some* portions of VSTS
    > to everyone will assist developers in creating higher-quality products for
    > strategic Microsoft products like Biztalk, Windows, SQL Server, and
    > Office. Alternatively, providing a cheap (possibly scaled down) VSTS
    > server and 5 CALs for small development teams *that would never have been
    > able to buy VSTS anyway*, and simply making the additional CALs expensive
    > would not only assist the smaller teams and allow them to compete head-on
    > with Enterprises, but would also keep VSTS as a major revenue stream.
    > Imagine that in 2 years I'm hired to head up a large Enterprise team.
    > Well, I certainly wouldn't recommend VSTS for such a scenario, since I've
    > never used it, instead I'd put in place the OSS SDLC tools that I've been
    > using up till that point. If said team had a large amount of time to
    > evaluate products like VSTS, well then I might push it, but how often does
    > that happen in practise?
    >
    > Now consider that if you're not using VSTS, Universal subscription adds no
    > new development tools. Add to that the fact that if you have Professional
    > you no longer have access to the server systems other than SQL Developer.
    > Once again, if I don't use Biztalk or Sharepoint I'm going to have
    > difficulty in pushing them as solutions. Basically, VSTS has hijacked MS's
    > entire long-term strategic vision for a dubious short-term commercial
    > gain. Not the kind of forward thinking I expect from MS.
    >
    > So, what they've done is ensure that the people who actually adore MS
    > products enough to buy their own subscriptions to MSDN do not have access
    > to a product that such people would invariable push at their customers. As
    > I said in my previous post, the poor way this whole saga has been
    > communicated has led to a poisoning of attitudes towards MS from
    > consultants and small ISVs, and for what? To ensure that MS don't lose out
    > on a VSTS revenue stream they would never have anyway.
    >
    > For me, I don't really care about VSTS. I work (fairly) happily with the
    > tools that already exist, and I haven't seen anything so compelling in
    > VSTS that I'm completely distraught at not having access to it. I am
    > concerned about a couple of things though:
    > - Microsoft have finally listened to what their dev community has been
    > screaming for for almost a decade now, and provided it only to their
    > larger customers.
    > - Microsoft have decided to put the server development licenses out of
    > normal developers and small ISV's reach.
    > - They've decided to completely skew the playing field in favour of the
    > Enterprise customers.
    > - They've decided to put short-term profits before long-term strategy.
    > - They've communicated this is an arrogant and dismissive way.
    >
    > Those are what I'm worried about, not this whole VSTS brouhaha, that's
    > small fry. I'm worried that the above might become a trend.
    >
    >> Juan T. Llibre
    >> ASP.NET MVP
    >> http://asp.net.do/foros/
    >> Foros de ASP.NET en Español
    >> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
    >> ======================
    >>
    >> "Sean Hederman" <> wrote in message
    >> news:d24kdo$bki$...
    >>> "Eric" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:%...
    >>>> news.microsoft.com wrote:
    >>>>> One of my points is also that we developers are also the ones who
    >>>>> often recommend the tools to use for development to various companies
    >>>>> we do work for. If we cannot evaluate the product, we cannot
    >>>>> recommend it.
    >>>>
    >>>> Great point!
    >>>>
    >>>> But:
    >>>> 1) MS doesn't really care if you recommend it or not, based on the
    >>>> proposed pricing. They are targetting a high-end niche, and most of us
    >>>> aren't teally able to steer that segment of the market.
    >>>
    >>> I think what he means is that independent consultants and ISV's often
    >>> recommend software to customers. I know that in the last 6 months my
    >>> personal recommendations have netted MS about $75,000. It's difficult to
    >>> advise people about software you don't have access to however. Due to
    >>> the new licensing options and costs, I'll be getting Professional for
    >>> myself when my current contractee's subscription expires. Whilst they
    >>> have made Professional more attractive, it means I won't have access to
    >>> the enterprise-level server tools. Therefore, when looking at enterprise
    >>> level software I'll have to consider looking at non-MS alternatives.
    >>> When providing advice for SDLC tools I won't be able to recommend VSTS.
    >>> I've heard talk about the 120-day trial, but frankly I feel that to put
    >>> an SDLC tool through it's paces one has to run it through a full dev
    >>> cycle. I certainly don't often get so lucky as to run through a project
    >>> in under 120 days.
    >>>
    >>> Now, I DO understand that VSTS is a developers product so it doesn't
    >>> make sense to provide it at cut rate to developers. However, most of the
    >>> stuff I was looking for was incidental to VSTS. I was under the
    >>> impression that Whidbey would be coming with a decent source control
    >>> system, and built-in defect tracking integration, along with testing and
    >>> profiling tools. Frankly, everything else is nice, but not neccesary.
    >>> What I want to know is why they couldn't just spent some time
    >>> integrating tools like NCover, NUnit, NProf and so forth into a coherent
    >>> whole in Whidbey for the lower end of the market. We've only been asking
    >>> for something like that since VB4.
    >>>
    >>> Another option would have been to provide the standard 5 CAL, 1 Server
    >>> license for Universal subscriptions. Then MS could charge a fortune for
    >>> extra CAL's. They wouldn't lose any revenue since the people/companies
    >>> who wouldn't need to purchase more CAL's wouldn't be buying VSTS anyway.
    >>> Instead, they've seriously irritated the small ISV's and consultants.
    >>> Another irritant has been the high-handed attitude coming out from MS
    >>> that us non-Enterprise developers don't actually need or use SDLC tools.
    >>> Earth to MS: we do, albeit we don't need massive systems like VSTS. I
    >>> think the main problem has been the whole way this was marketed. We were
    >>> informed about all the wonders of Team System for ages and ages, and not
    >>> once did I hear it mentioned that this was not going to be part of the
    >>> standard MSDN package. So make us drool, and then pull the rug from
    >>> under our feet. I believe that's the reason there's so much anger.
    >>>
    >>>> 2) The very high "per seat" price puts this out of consideration for
    >>>> small or medium sized companies, anyway. It only makes sense for large
    >>>> companies. Large companies would likely have their own architects to
    >>>> evaluate the system, and they have enough discretionary money to buy
    >>>> licenses for evaluation purposes. I'd expect MS to give them free
    >>>> evaluation licenses also, depending on how much business they do with
    >>>> MS.
    >>>>
    >>>> It's fine with me if Microsoft targets a new high-end market segment
    >>>> that has not been well-served by VSS and Visio. I am happy that they're
    >>>> finally trying to compete in the full life-cycle arena, and they
    >>>> deserve to make a reasonable return on their investment.
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm sad that I won't be able to go down that road with them, but I
    >>>> understand the market segment they are targetting, and it not a segment
    >>>> I work in at this time.
    >>>>
    >>>> Eric

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Juan T. Llibre, Mar 27, 2005
    #15
  16. news.microsoft.com

    Tim Ellison Guest

    FB,

    Your argument, although convincing, is weak. The same argument could be applied to Sharepoint. What's really the purpose of Sharepoint Server in MSDN Univ. since it doesn't truly do any good unless there is someone with whom to collaborate. The same could apply any number of servers included in the subscription.

    The purpose of the majority of users who subscribe is to have at their access, any of the included Microsoft products with which to conduct research and eventually propose a solution to their clients (meaning product and licensing sales for Microsoft). If Microsoft is concerned about releasing Team System due to licensing issues, fine. Include Team System with a 1 user license. The tool is touted as being the replacement for VSS after all and it's important (as a consultant who proposes Microsoft solutions) that we know more than the client.

    --
    TIM ELLISON
    "Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <> wrote in message news:#...
    news.microsoft.com wrote:
    > I urge every developer who has an MSDN subscription (Universal) to petition
    > MS to change their proposed ideas on Visual Studio Team Suite (VSTS).
    > Depending on what you read, they are proposing to not include it or raise
    > the price to between $5,000 and $10,000. Every developer who has helped MS
    > make loads of cash of these past many years needs to write to them. Let
    > them know they are about to alienate the one group that always and
    > consistently helps them be successful. It is the most ridiculous thing
    > they've ever proposed. Unbelievable!!!
    >
    > http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackId=2b58b8db-5bba-4dfc-be10-78ad43686b3b
    >
    >
    > MICROSOFT PLEASE RECONSIDER. YOU WILL LOSE SALES. YOU WILL ALIENATE ALL
    > CLASSES OF DEVELOPERS!
    >
    > We are the ones that stick up for you when everyone bashes MS.


    I don't see the problem. MSDN universal is an individual license. This
    means that it's not a 'team' who licenses MSDN Universal. Though 'team
    system' is only really effective if you use it in a team. As an
    individual, there is not that much value in a large team system
    installation, as it requires a lot of resources an individual probably
    doesn't have (i.e.: installing it all on your laptop isn't recommended).

    FB
     
    Tim Ellison, Mar 31, 2005
    #16
  17. Tim Ellison wrote:
    > FB,
    >
    > Your argument, although convincing, is weak. The same argument could
    > be applied to Sharepoint. What's really the purpose of Sharepoint
    > Server in MSDN Univ. since it doesn't truly do any good unless there
    > is someone with whom to collaborate. The same could apply any number
    > of servers included in the subscription.
    >
    > The purpose of the majority of users who subscribe is to have at
    > their access, any of the included Microsoft products with which to
    > conduct research and eventually propose a solution to their clients
    > (meaning product and licensing sales for Microsoft). If Microsoft is
    > concerned about releasing Team System due to licensing issues, fine.
    > Include Team System with a 1 user license. The tool is touted as
    > being the replacement for VSS after all and it's important (as a
    > consultant who proposes Microsoft solutions) that we know more than
    > the client.


    It turned out I hadn't read all of the stuff and misinterpreted it. I
    since have a different opinion, and I wrote a lengthy piece of text
    about that on my blog so I'm not going to repeat it here. Short story:
    my opinion expressed here earlier is not the one I have now about the
    same subject :)

    FB

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Get LLBLGen Pro, productive O/R mapping for .NET: http://www.llblgen.com
    My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
    Microsoft MVP (C#)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Frans Bouma [C# MVP], Apr 1, 2005
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Karl Hungus

    MSDN Subscription

    Karl Hungus, Apr 23, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    493
    Teemu Keiski
    Apr 23, 2004
  2. news.microsoft.com
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    1,388
    Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)
    Apr 16, 2005
  3. sloan
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    624
    sloan
    Feb 1, 2008
  4. rantingrick
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    1,304
    Peter Pearson
    Jul 13, 2010
  5. Vinay Sajip

    Proposed changes to logging defaults

    Vinay Sajip, Dec 10, 2010, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    384
    Gregory Ewing
    Dec 15, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page