Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it.
From: Frans Bouma (perseus.usenetNOSPAM_at_xs4all.nl)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:35:08 -0800
"Mike Cox" <email@example.com> wrote in
> In article <#R#npSQFEHA.firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Ed Kaim [MSFT]"
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> I'm going to address the inaccurate anti-Microsoft issues in this post.
>> I'm not going to bite on any of the Linux-based flamebait.
>>> I'm a big fan of .NET and Visual Studio.NET. But at my company, we
>>> are going to switch to Linux because, quite frankly, VS.NET costs way
>>> too much in light of the huge competition from Linux. After all, in
>>> order for MS to be successful it needs a large group of developers.
>> If your company is considering a switch to Linux because you feel the
>> cost of developer tools is too high then you may want to consider doing
>> some more research before making a final decision.
> It is not just the developer tools. Developers should be a loss-leader
> if Microsoft wants people to use Windows and .NET. We have some linux
> guys here at work who are showing managment that linux can do the same
> thing as Windows in terms of COM, .NET, and win32 via WINE.
Is this: they demonstrated it by using WINE or did you mean: they
used Java, Corba and glibc to demonstrate teh same functionality? The
former is bogus, the latter is very plausible.
Your story doesn't hold a lot of truth IMHO: Linux is an OS. VS.NET
is an IDE. If you were saying: "we're switching to Java and IntelliJ", I
can understand why you would. However switching from VS.NET to Linux is
like switching from milk to a car.
> Management only cares about the bottom line. The linux guys here are
> showing reports of how much we would save by switching to Linux. Now it
> does pretty much everything Windows does.
yes and probably more, but what does that have to do with VS.NET?
If your programmers are trained in .NET, it is very counter-productive to
move to Java and Linux: it will take a lot of time to get them up to speed
with Java (as it will also take a lot of time to move from Java to .NET to
know the complete lib).
.NET is free, as is Java. Most Java IDE's cost money, as VS.NET.
Most professional databases cost money too (oracle, db2). The OS is
perhaps the time saver. But 2 or 3 servers which will run your .NET code
are not that huge in costs.
> Microsoft needs to get its prices in line so that the cost of switching
> would be a bit more than what Microsoft products cost. The cost of
> switching is basically employee retraining and some recoding.
Ballmer once said in an interview here in The Netherlands that
they've spend more manhours on .NET and vs.net than on windows. ["It
shows!"-jokes aside ;)]. Why would they sell VS.NET for a bargain? No
competitor is doing that...
> I have Linux on my desktop as part of my re-training, and kde is looking
> really nice, and with my com knowledge, CORBA is a piece of cake(CORBA
> is a bit nicer than COM). I'm compliling .NET apps with C# with Mono.
> Even I'm compelled to see the linux guys case. Why would I spend 2
> grand on something when I could just switch in a few days and get the
> same functionality for free? the 2 grand per workstation justifies the
> cost. 199 dollars would not.
Visual C# is below 200$ per seat if I'm not mistaken.
And you can always use SharpDevelop, which is open source and free.
it compiles code for mono and .NET.
-- Get LLBLGen Pro, the new O/R mapper for .NET: http://www.llblgen.com My .NET Blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma