Robert McLaws: FunWithCoding.NET

Public Shared Function BrainDump(ByVal dotNet As String) As [Value]

News

<script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-4330602465258980"; google_hints = "ASP.NET, VB.NET, C#, C#.NET, WindowsForms, .NET Framework, VS2005, Visual Studio, XAML, WinFX, Windows Workflow, WPF, WCF, Atlas, NetFX3, Visual Studio Orcas"; google_ad_width = 120; google_ad_height = 240; google_ad_format = "120x240_as"; google_ad_type = "text_image"; google_ad_channel ="4997399242"; google_color_border = "B6C9E7"; google_color_bg = "EFEFEF"; google_color_link = "0000FF"; google_color_text = "000000"; google_color_url = "002C99"; //--></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script>
<!--
-->

You should feel free to challenge me, disagree with me, or tell me I'm completely nuts in the comments section of each blog entry, but I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason whatsoever. That said, I will most likely only delete abusive, profane, rude, or annonymous comments, so keep it polite, please.

Blogroll

Cool .NET Articles

My .NET Tools

My Builder.com Articles

My MSKB Articles

The REAL reason for Whidbey/Yukon delays

It's funny to me how something can get twisted and turned around without the proper facts in place. I've seen quotes from Tom Rizzo up the yang about the Whidbey/Yukon delay, but I never really heard a decent explanation until I cracked open this week's edition of CRN magazine. Page 8 says:

Tom Rizzo, director of product management for SQL Server, said Microsoft opted to add a third beta not solely due to security issues. "This decision was made to get more quality and customer feedback. Security is not 'the' one thing, but it's an important thing," he said.

Now, I may have speed-read my way through all the previous articles, but I did not see a single one, not Mary Jo Foley, not News.com, no one, say that the delay was due to the addition of a 3rd beta phase. Personally, I'm all for it, and you should be too. It's not like it's going to be a small beta. Practically all of you will have a copy, for free I might add. MS wants feedback to make sure they get it right. Betas 2 and 3 will have a "Go-Live" license, which means you'll be able to build real solutions with it. So what's the big deal? Why all the whining and complaining? I don't get it.

Posted: Mar 19 2004, 07:49 PM by interscape | with 14 comment(s)

Comments

denny said:

perhaps it's partly the lack of anyone at ms confirming what you just said....
I hope that will happen...
I expect that to happen...
but till MS issues a formal notice ?

now can I have that Beta ++ a golive please?

Thanks :-)
# March 19, 2004 5:58 PM

Martin Spedding said:

Hi Robert,

maybe you speed read some of the blog entries about the delay. Most people, myself included, were less worried about the delay itself than the number of dependencies that were being built into the development cycle. We all know from bitter experience that the larger the number of "variables" the great the risk of failure or delay. I think for a lot people they still unclear why Whidbey..sorry Visual Studio 2005..is tied to Whidbey. That is problem with the marketing message.

Have a good weekend
# March 19, 2004 6:01 PM

Robert McLaws said:

..."why Whidbey... is tied to Whidbey?"

<Visual Studio>You cannot add a circular reference. Please try again.

Denny: The quote is from Tom Rizzo. Who else do you need to confirm it?

Martin: Why is dependency such a bad thing? That's what happens when you move everything to managed code. Everything depends on the runtime. If they want to make the runtime better, that delays everything. Oh well. I think Microsoft is perfectly capable of handling the development cycle when there are large dependencies involved. It's not like Microsoft is going to scrap it, or that .NET or SQL Server will fail because the runtime is late... it's frickin Visual Studio for petes sake. It's not like people aren't going to buy it. I still don't understand. How is Whidbey's delay increase MICROSOFT's chances of failing? This isn't a rinky-dink development project for a 5-employee client. It's a product central to Microsoft's platform strategy. I'm pretty sure they're going to spend as much time/money/talent as necessary to get it right.

I still don't get it.
# March 19, 2004 6:15 PM

Paul Wilson said:

I've seen the 3rd beta quote several times, but its still about Yukon. That's the issue that a lot of us have -- Whidbey being delayed for Yukon.
# March 19, 2004 7:42 PM

Jesse Ezell said:

The reason people are pissed is that the Whidbey is being delayed because of Yukon (at least according to Rizzo, though some say VS won't be ready in time either). Having to wait another 6 months to get access to things such as ASP.NET 2.0 and ObjectSpaces because a version of SQL server isn't ready (one that very few people will be adopting any time soon) is pretty lame. It wouldn't be so bad if .NET 1.0 or 1.1 had included basic stuff that should have made it like Generics or the IDE included basic refactoring tools (like JetBrain's IDE has had for quite some time). We were supposed to be getting Longhorn and Orcas next year, not Yukon and Whidbey, which means we are now a full product cycle behind. It's plain and simple, regardless of the real reason behind any delays, that does suck donkey balls.
# March 19, 2004 10:41 PM

Martin Spedding said:

Ok, I should not have typed my reply just before I went to sleep. Of course I meant Whidbey should not be tied to Yukon. If we are taking about enterprise development, the majority of companies have Oracle or DB2 as their corporate standard. In a lot of companies I see individuals developing using MS Access, departments using SQL Server and the enterprise applications use Oracle backends. Enterprise applications are often written in Java. Some forward looking companies are starting to look at .Net. I think the whole...it is just the IDE is false so why worry is wrong. People are just saying that for a lot of enterprise customers Yukon is a side show.
# March 20, 2004 3:43 AM

Robert McLaws said:

That still doesn't stop the fact that Microsoft has to have a coherent release strategy. Basically IMO it boils down to a lack of patience. MS knows that this is the release that is going to be widely adopted. They'd better get this one right, and I, for one, am willing to wait for it. Sure, it does suck, but bitching about it isn't going to help any.
# March 20, 2004 3:47 AM

Frans Bouma said:

"That still doesn't stop the fact that Microsoft has to have a coherent release strategy. Basically IMO it boils down to a lack of patience. MS knows that this is the release that is going to be widely adopted. They'd better get this one right, and I, for one, am willing to wait for it. Sure, it does suck, but bitching about it isn't going to help any."
You still don't address the binding issue: yukon and whidbey have to be released together. NO-ONE has given a sane reason for that.

I don;t think a lot of people want Yukon get rushed out the door. But it's completely irrelevant (or should be) to what happens with Whidbey.

And related to whidbey, it's not impatience. It's the lack of upgrades to fix serious issues like with the ASP.NET editor (which you must use a lot) which can't be fixed in vs.net 2003 (also not with a servicepack) and various other stuff in .NET.
# March 20, 2004 6:01 AM

Jesse Ezell said:

"Sure, it does suck, but bitching about it isn't going to help any."

Keeping your mouth shut ain't going to help any either. At least if you tell MS you think it sucks there is a possibility of them adjusting their schedule due to customer concerns. Even if it is, for some reason, to late to change the time table for this release, they will have customer feedback to play into future decisions.
# March 20, 2004 3:07 PM

Robert McLaws said:

But it hasn't been all that constructive. It's been extremely whiny. I haven't heard a single person say:

Hey Microsoft. You guys have been pushing extra hard for security lately, and I think that's awesome. XP Service Pack 2 is phenominal, and you guys are doing a great job. I'm kinda beefed though that Whidbey is being delayed by Yukon. Some of the features you are adding make it difficult for me to pitch the existing technology to my customers. Any chance that you guys could make break a few things out and throw us a bone until then?

A happy customer,
Blogger X.

No, all you hear is moaning and whining... geez get some cheese for that whine and be quiet. At least follow it up with something constructive. I may whine about stuff, but I come back shortly thereafter and offer some positive feedback. I'm not perfect, but PLEASE give us something else to read besides whiny complaints.
# March 20, 2004 3:50 PM

Jesse Ezell said:

You are free to your own interpretation of the matter. However, I should note that just about everyone who has "whined" about these delays has mentioned that the reason they are ticked is that we can't wait to be able to use the stuff they are releasing in .NET 2.0 (ie. they are doing a good job coming up with features that get us excited).

Regardless, the devs and PMs at MS aren't preschoolers and there is no need to sugar coat our words to make sure no one's feelings get hurt. My customers don't sugar coat their words when I have to tell them we can't begin project X yet because Microsoft has pushed back their VS.NET release date another year. They don't sugar coat their words when they tell us that the dev cost of X feature is just too high. So, I'm not going to sugar coat my words when I express my frustration to MS, because then I would not be truely expressing the frustration of my customers and myself, I would be expressing a level of frustration far below the one we are experiencing.
# March 20, 2004 5:57 PM

Robert McLaws said:

That doesn't make it any less important to be polite and constructive when expressing that frustration.
# March 20, 2004 8:28 PM

Martin Spedding said:

I am sorry Robert, but I think most of the commentary was constructive and not whiny at all. We all work in the real world where missing project milestones is cricised by our customers. You have to judge Micrsoft as you would any other business. All the people who have commented on the schedule changes are people who have actively promoted products from MS. What companies do not want to hear is constructive criticism, which is why it was great that Robert Scoble wrote his blog entry. This kind of feedback would not have been possible in the past. I am sorry Robert, but if you read your example "blog entry" from BloggerX you would assume that person was being paid by MS. Don't get my wrong I think it excellent that MS is attacking the security problems

I am happy when I see critical commentary, that is why I read blogs from the Java and linux world. I also check out slashdot. It is the healthy way of having an objective view of technology.
# March 21, 2004 5:10 AM

AT said:

I may propose another explanation for Microsoft delays.

Just for a record - do you know any good new features to add into Whidbey ??

Microsoft has recived too many good requests for new features and design changes, and trying to implement them.
All future requests currently postponed to next version _AFTER_ Whidbey.

They are simply not been able to handle that big amount of new features.

.NET 2.0 is new major release. If I was Microsoft - I've released two more 1.2 and 1.3 versions to get your money ;o) But instead of this they ask you to wait without direct matherial loss.
Microsoft release two or three versions for free, only then they charge you for almost-production quality.

Take a look on Java History - from version 1.1 to version 2 they took two years.
http://java.sun.com/features/2000/06/time-line.html

What's wrong from Microsoft delays ? Nothing.

P.S> Can you solve current tasks using current tools ? If you decide to wait - competitors will win time. Time = Money ;o))
# April 4, 2004 9:42 PM