MS: Beta Software Good Enough for Production Use 411
RMX writes "CNet is reporting that
Microsoft is starting to license test software for real-world use
.
In particular, Visual Studio 2005 and the April "community technology preview" of SQL Server 2005 are both supposed to be released sometime in the second half of the year. But Microsoft is claiming the pre-release versions are stable already, so they're licensing the pre-released versions on the grounds that they 'are already suitable for running production business applications.'"
Accountability (Score:5, Insightful)
The main thing is, if something breaks, the company just puts its hands up and says "opps, sorry it's a Beta", and I bet there will still be plenty of users (businesses) who are willing try them.
In addition to the accountability shift, companies can roll out patches in a more timely fashion. With beta-security-patch, MS is free to distribute patches to plug holes even on a daily basis.
Heh. Not a good idea... (Score:1, Insightful)
What they really mean (Score:2, Insightful)
spyware beta (Score:5, Insightful)
Google too (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, it's good enough for Google too.
Safe = We want our money early (Score:2, Insightful)
One born every minute (Score:1, Insightful)
I agree... (Score:5, Insightful)
This should read... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ted
Re:Google too (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, before we get a little crazy here... (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that Microsoft hasn't usually allowed beta software to be used in production usage at all. They only licensed it for test usage, which, frankly, I'm sure most people were just fine with.
So, Microsoft is saying, well, heck, if you really want to, sign this piece paper (see disclamier list, etc, etc.) and enjoy.
I'd be surprised if this really had any impact, but it's interesting marketing.
Re:Accountability (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't even say that about Microsoft's production software let alone beta software.
How much do it cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
I also reckon you might want your database a tad bit more stable than you want your nifty little search engine doo-dad.
Re:Accountability (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't Microsoft (and indeed most software comapnies) do that with *all* their products?
Re:Heh. Not a good idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps. I'm willing to give you that... but a SQL server? Yikes. I think I'll hold off for the final release... and then a round or two of patches, just to be safe
So...? Whats changed? (Score:2, Insightful)
Read your EULA: (Score:5, Insightful)
And never will. Imagine the liability if they accepted responsibility for the work lost to a crash, or time spent finding a work-around for their bugs?
It's make 5 million euros a day look postively mild!
Actually... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Heh. Not a good idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Accountability (Score:4, Insightful)
My first reaction was "I think what Bill G is really saying is 'our realeses suck ass anyway, just buck up and pay to be a beta tester'." But after readting the article:
Oh, I get it... five years ago every body signed annual licence contracts, paid out the whazoo to get the next version 'free', but the next versions never came out. So now we have a new license where you get to spend a lot of money, and this time you really really will get some updates!
Re:How much do it cost? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think the price is the issue - people do have a choice not to buy/sign-up for a beta product.
It's up to the consumer if they want to risk using a beta product (and thousands of people choose to 'risk' their e-mail with the GMail beta).
Re:One born every minute (Score:2, Insightful)
Its just fine (Score:4, Insightful)
So why is it so terrible when Microsoft mimics Linux? They realize that some people are willing to take the risks, so why not let them? It increases the testing base, people are happy, if something blew up they knew the consequences. Really there's not too much of a downside to this, as any linux developer will attest.
I won't be part of any MS bashing on this move.
At least Google's beta stuff actually *works* (Score:2, Insightful)
And you don't have to pay for Google's beta stuff - unlike production stuff from MSFT.
No (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft Business Plan (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't mod me as funny, because this joke microsoft's pulling on its customers is not funny at all.
Its all about the upgrades (Score:2, Insightful)
If software assurance costs 15% per annum (it can cost less depending on your pricing aggreements), its very well possible that buying sql 2005 today with software assurance is cheaper than waiting for the "final" product at a higher license point.
It strikes me that this is really about MS buying beta testers, and pushing forward the quarterly numbers.
Re:One born every minute (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:How much do it cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I can't understand why anyone would actually WANT to do this, but all they did was give people the option.
google is ad-supported... (Score:1, Insightful)
Not that I can tell...
Re:Heh. Not a good idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How much do it cost? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's advertisers are. And I'm quite certain that they did pay for the benefit of showing you advertisements.
gmail (Score:5, Insightful)
In all fairness, the only thing still "beta" about gmail is its business model.
Re:Google too (Score:3, Insightful)
Although, that would be cool. I would run it.
Re:Safe = We want our money early (Score:3, Insightful)
Previous quarter saw 12% increase of revenue [microsoft.com], bringing in 9.2 billion.
Hell, even during the tech bust they had 14% increase in revenue [microsoft.com]. How do you do that?!
You have to remember they recently paid out dividends on their stocks, explaining the 'flatness' as of late. Anyway, irrespective of how the stock is doing, love em or hate em, the company is doing quite well.
Re:Accountability (Score:5, Insightful)
Where, exactly, is Microsoft selling licenses?
This sort of story should have been declined by the editors because it is exactly what makes Slashdot bad- It's a bunch of inflammatory pseudo-facts taken out of context and incorrectly presented to get the anti-M$ minions riles up so they can spread the FUD far and wide.
In reality Microsoft heavily discourages use of the beta software for production, but they realize that that...
Due to this, they make you agree to a Go Live License [microsoft.com] that makes very sure that you realize that you're working with a beta, and presumably that you've tested your product thoroughly to ensure it meets the stability and security requirements for your product - it's your responsibility.
One other note - I realize I'm not going to convince anyone in this crowd, however Microsoft's beta 2 products have been of remarkably high quality over the past several years. I'm sure I'll get the standard don't-threaten-my-illusion troll mods, however VS.Net 2005 beta 2 has a stability and quality level equalling or surpassing most or all of its competitors, on any platform.
As buggy as production MS products are (Score:3, Insightful)
Many have likened the policy to Google's Beta products, but I take exception. Google's Betas are more like Developer builds. Consider maps.google.com. In the few weeks it has been out, it has already improved search results, improved print output, added flyover imaging, and improved the resolution of those same images (in the DFW metroplex anyway).
Now that is Beta software I can handle. When I try to do something and it isn't as successful as I would like it to be, I remind myself it is Beta, but the features improve so fast, I can almost watch them grow.
MS on the other hand is not known in it's culture for this type of development. I am afraid this Beta release business will just be another crutch for MS to issue poor quality code.
In a worst case scenario, it will be a way to 'lock in' users with free Beta software, then expire the Beta with a required upgrade to high/over priced software. They have to either switch applications, or pay the high fee. Fair you say? Only if MS is going to publish the retail price of the release software when you sign up for the Beta.
Image the surprise of the developer who codes up something in VS 2005 but gets slapped with a $1500 license fee when he goes to compile it for production use!
STFU (Score:3, Insightful)
Search for gmail down and find 1.87 million results (courtessy of Google, if it works):
http://www.google.com/search?q=gmail+dow
BTW, somewhere I have a screenshot of Google.com down.
Re:Accountability (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Heh. Not a good idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thing is, when you have to provide you full source code for everyone to see, you tend to produce quite clean and bugfree code, and if you don't succeed in the bugfree part, you always come out better if you tell people where the problems are. If you're lucky, someone will fix it for you. If you're even more lucky, you will be able to fix your bugs.
WHat I wanted to say is, even though very many FOSS apps get out into the world named as 0.0.0.1alpha whatever, this naming often hides quite a bit of honesty towards the community, and sometimes people tend to give lower version numbers, or even label their works as beta even though they think it's better than that, for the simple reason that they know: more eyes can notice more bugs, even ones you couldn't find at first.
In one sentence: I - usually, not every time and not above all - trust more FOSS apps labeled as beta than closed source apps labeled the same.
[fun] I think even MS would've come out better if labeling the whole win9x line as pre-alphas
Re:Accountability (Score:3, Insightful)
There are some very nice improvements in the new version though. One of my favorites is the visibility of data in the debugger. When you hover over a variable in the debugger, the popup tooltip is now interactive so that you can drill into structures or popup memory windows directly from the tooltip without have to add a watch variable.
Re:Heh. Not a good idea... (Score:2, Insightful)
What's in a name? One man's "feature complete" is another guys unscratched itch.
In many cases, open source software is someone's hobby or pet project in much the same way as some guys play with their '57 Mustang.
It makes little sense to tell the guy with the Mustang to quit polishing the chrome and trying to make the number 2 on the gearshift stand out "just so". Why not allow the developer with his pet database the same freedom?
If the software does what you need it to do, then fire it up and let 'er rip. But don't tell the guy who's behind it that he's being too picky or taking too damn long. It's his pet. Let him play with it.
Re:Are you on drugs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is software ever really "finished"? (Score:3, Insightful)