Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it.

From: GreyCloud (mist_at_Cumulus.com)
Date: 03/29/04 

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:36:31 GMT

Ed Kaim [MSFT] 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.
>
>> At my company, I'm an MS proponent, but I have LOST the battle in
>> terms of justifiying the cost of using Visual Studio when there are
>> free Linux alternatives. My company won't use Visual Studio.NET
>> stuff for internal use because of its cost. Why should management
>> spend thousands of dollars per year for MSDN and VS.NET per
>> developer when it can just use Open Source software and
>> documentation for free?
>
> Microsoft provides the SDKs for free. Microsoft provides Web
> development tools for free. Microsoft provides millions of lines of
> sample source code (and complete projects) and all documentation for
> free. You don't have to pay a dime to build apps for Microsoft's
> platform. If you feel you need Visual Studio, as millions of
> developers do, then there is cost because Microsoft has to invest in
> making it better. Much of that cost goes towards product servicing.
> If you can live without the drastic boost in productivity, support
> from hundreds of tools partners, and official technical support with
> a well-defined roadmap, then it's harder to make the case. The only
> really effective arguments you could make for not using Visual Studio
> would be if you need to build cross-platform client applications or
> if you're trying to take the company down from the inside.
>
>> Especially considering the fact that g++ is really standards
>> compliant,
>
> Is it more standards-compliant than Visual C++? Look it up--you may be
> surprised. Also see how many 100% ANSI-compliant C++ compilers you
> can find, if any.
>
>> and that there is ACE+TAO for CORBA development.
>
> Yes, but most new development is using standards-compliant Web
> services for integration & remoting. Visual Studio excels in Web
> services development.
>
>> There is
>> troll tech for GUI app development which is completely
>> cross-platform, and you can choose the license you want, GPL or
>> commercial.
>
> You can choose to license software you build with Visual Studio under
> whatever license you want.
>
>> There is
>> even mono and eclipse for .NET development.
>
> Yes--but this doesn't support the claim you make about why the cost of
> Visual Studio if making you move to Linux.
>
>> Why does anyone need Microsoft Visual Studio.NET and MSDN then?
>> Especially when it costs thousands per yer for one developer? I
>> can't make the cost argument, and there aren't any Visual Studio.NET
>> installations at my company, only VS 6.0, and any upgrades that
>> happen will be to Linux.
>
> Let's say the typical developer costs around $120,000 per year (which
> includes salary, benefits, equipment, training, and all other employee
> costs).

Guffaw!! Lets say that your employer just dumps the over priced developer
and takes his requirements to India. Then he'd be able to lower that down
to $2 per day. And it IS happening inside corporate America.

Relevant Pages