Coffeehouse Thread

25 posts

Dev Div changes

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • Michael Butler

    The second biggest news story of the day.

    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsofts-plan-to-increase-its-focus-on-developers-the-full-internal-memo/9327

    Good luck to ScottGu. I liked how he did things and the stuff built under him has been a great boost to my job. Hopefully the good will continue under new leadership.

    Does any of this affect Channel 9?

     

  • contextfree`

    Note that not only Scott Guthrie is moving, but the entire Web Platform team (= ASP.NET + IIS) is coming with him and will now be organizationally part of the Azure team, along with the WCF and WF teams (which were apparently already part of Azure). The teams ScottGu is leaving behind are the Client Platform team (= Silverlight + WPF), which will now report directly to the head of DevDiv, and the Core Platform team (= CLR + .NET BCL), which will now be part of the same group as the C#/VB teams and Visual Studio (which makes more sense in my opinion).

    The relevance of this news is therefore not so much about who's in charge, but more about the indication that Microsoft now apparently regards the primary business purpose of its web stack to be drawing developers to Azure (much like Internet Explorer being part of Windows organizationally shows that the business purpose of IE is to support Windows). That means that the future direction of ASP.NET will be Azure-centric, which could be bad for .NET web developers who prefer to avoid Azure.

  • Charles

    , Michael Butler wrote

    The second biggest news story of the day.

    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsofts-plan-to-increase-its-focus-on-developers-the-full-internal-memo/9327

    Good luck to ScottGu. I liked how he did things and the stuff built under him has been a great boost to my job. Hopefully the good will continue under new leadership.

    Does any of this affect Channel 9?

     

    Nope. Just that our VP has a new boss. It makes good sense that C9 be a part of the Developer Division...
    C

  • magicalclick

    @contextfree`:

    I am avoiding Azure because of the pricing, but, if 3rd party can do Azure and have cheaper offering, or MS offering much cheaper offering, I would be fine with it.

    Cheaper Offering means 80 bucks a year for everything (or 100 bucks a year including 4 GB of DB), except domain registerations. I don't care much about traffic right now because usually it is low before I make it big, this happens to most people too.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • W3bbo

    , contextfree` wrote

    The relevance of this news is therefore not so much about who's in charge, but more about the indication that Microsoft now apparently regards the primary business purpose of its web stack to be drawing developers to Azure (much like Internet Explorer being part of Windows organizationally shows that the business purpose of IE is to support Windows). That means that the future direction of ASP.NET will be Azure-centric, which could be bad for .NET web developers who prefer to avoid Azure.

    About two months ago I received a phone call purported to be from Microsoft. It was a guy with a cockney accent who was doing interviews with registered Microsoft partners (which I am) about why they aren't using Azure.

    I spent about half an hour running through my reasons: largely related to cost, but also of control and the perceived benefits. I discussed how it's still cheaper to go co-lo or even managed/dedicated and those options give you far more control over the final solution. Other reasons included how applications had to be ported to the platform specifically, and how I personally didn't see Azure being around for more than 10 years and so it would be a waste of time to build for a platform that no-one (at least to me) was asking for to begin with.

    He said that all those reasons were valid and were, in fact, the same reasons he heard from nearly everyone else he had spoken to so far.

    The moving of the ASP.NET people to Azure is concerning, as if Microsoft is betting the farm on the success of their cloud offering.

  • blowdart

    , contextfree` wrote

    The relevance of this news is therefore not so much about who's in charge, but more about the indication that Microsoft now apparently regards the primary business purpose of its web stack to be drawing developers to Azure (much like Internet Explorer being part of Windows organizationally shows that the business purpose of IE is to support Windows). That means that the future direction of ASP.NET will be Azure-centric, which could be bad for .NET web developers who prefer to avoid Azure.

    Not sure I see it that way. The Gu is moving to Server and Platforms. ASP.NET is now being treated as a platform, rather than something from the VS folks.

  • fanbaby

    Here's a copy of a post I made in a zdent MaryJo article:

    AppEngine seems to me years ahead
    I admit my knowledge of Azure is from videos on Microsoft sites, but from what I see, Google's offering is years ahead. Google's solution IS PaaS. When you watch Azure videos, they claim it's PaaS, but it's a weird PaaS/IaaS mix. You hear talk about _routing_, instances, and whatnot. Not even funny.
    Google's approach and advice is simple: 1) don't use SQL, as it is not easily scalable. Use a NoSQL server from the start. 2) Write a web-page and Google will scale it. Simple. Smart. And did I mention CHEAP! You can run a medium traffic site for FREEEEEE.

    So if you aleardy have an SQL site up and running, you might want to give Azure a look, otherwise by going Azure you'll just create something that you'll have to rewrite tomorrow (as a microsoft developer i bet you're used to that).

    My prediction: Microsoft will copy AppEngine to the letter, replacing Java with dotnet. Microsoft developers, why wait? use AppEngine today wink
  • W3bbo

    , fanbabywrote

    Google's approach and advice is simple: 1) don't use SQL, as it is not easily scalable. Use a NoSQL server from the start

    What if you need a relational storage provider?
  • fanbaby

    W3bbo, at last Google I/O they announced AppEngine for business, which also has support for SQL server. It's not done yet, but I have a guess that somthing will be announced this I/O (in a about a week).

  • cbae

    , fanbaby wrote

    AppEngine seems to me years ahead

    I admit my knowledge of Azure is from videos on Microsoft sites...

    No need to read after that.

  • cbae

    @W3bbo:

    I think you have an extra closing div tag in your last post that's screwing up the rendering below it.

  • kettch

    @blowdart:And this could be really good if some of the Azure features trickled down to what we can deploy in our private infrastructure.

    Where I work we've been discussing lately how complicated it can get to deploy an application internally. We have to find a web server, find a sql server, make sure they are configured correctly, and deploy everything.

    It's not too terribly complicated, but if we could manage out internal apps in an Azure-like environment, it would make my life a whole lot easier.

  • Geoffreyk

    , cbae wrote

    @W3bbo:

    I think you have an extra closing div tag in your last post that's screwing up the rendering below it.

    I cleaned it up

  • fanbaby

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    No need to read after that.

    So there aren't many developers who can have an opinion about Azure Wink

  • cbae

    , fanbaby wrote

    *snip*

    So there aren't many developers who can have an opinion about Azure Wink

    You're free to have an opinion about anything you want. Everybody else is free to ignore it.

  • ScanIAm

    , fanbaby wrote

    Here's a copy of a post I made in a zdent MaryJo article:

    AppEngine seems to me years ahead
    I admit my knowledge of Azure is from videos on Microsoft sites, but from what I see, Google's offering is years ahead. Google's solution IS PaaS. When you watch Azure videos, they claim it's PaaS, but it's a weird PaaS/IaaS mix. You hear talk about _routing_, instances, and whatnot. Not even funny.
    Google's approach and advice is simple: 1) don't use SQL, as it is not easily scalable. Use a NoSQL server from the start. 2) Write a web-page and Google will scale it. Simple. Smart. And did I mention CHEAP! You can run a medium traffic site for FREEEEEE.

    So if you aleardy have an SQL site up and running, you might want to give Azure a look, otherwise by going Azure you'll just create something that you'll have to rewrite tomorrow (as a microsoft developer i bet you're used to that).

    My prediction: Microsoft will copy AppEngine to the letter, replacing Java with dotnet. Microsoft developers, why wait? use AppEngine today wink

    So, you are effectively saying that Google's solution is super-duper-dee-awesome and it's FREE, but you'll need to rewrite your application so that it doesn't work with a relational database and you'll need to 'Write a web-page' whatever that means.

    You are, at best, oversimplifying this comparison.

  • vesuvius

    @ScanIAm: don't be expecting any complex reasoning, thus far I have seen nothing to indicate anything apart from a passionate and respectable proclivity for FREE.

    Honorable chap though.

  • cbae

    , vesuvius wrote

    @ScanIAm: don't be expecting any complex reasoning, thus far I have seen nothing to indicate anything apart from a passionate and respectable proclivity for FREE.

    Honorable chap though.

    It's interesting that the freetards will lap up anything produced by Google despite the fact that their core products are all proprietary.

    Want to talk about vendor lock-in? Have fun migrating your system to any other platform after locking yourself into GAE and BigTable. Not only are you locked into the software, you're locked into the infrastructure.

    With Azure, you can at least migrate the bulk of your work to your own hardware if you get tired of renting the infrastructure from Microsoft.

    So, it's clear to me that fanbaby is more interested in "free as in gratis" than he is in "free as in freedom".

    Either that or he's clueless about the implications of using GAE when it comes to vendor lock-in.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.