chriscub

Source is I worked there for eight years. Left two years ago. There was a push around the time I left to standardize more on TFS, but historically, VS was regarded internally as a bit non-hardcore.

Funny thing is that internal to Microsoft, most devs don't use Visual Studio as an IDE. Maybe as an editor or a debugger, but there are a lot of build systems out within Microsoft and most of them don't plug into Visual Studio.

IMO, open sourcing Visual Studio itself is not all that interesting vs. open sourcing the .NET platform.

I frankly think that Microsoft more nefarious tactics have hurt them more than helped them over the long run.

Take the browser wars as an example. Bundling IE got massive share which then bred arrogance, stagnation, and lack of standards compatibility. That set that stage for IE becoming reviled for all of those things and the rise of Chrome/FireFox.

There was certainly a bad ride for consumers along the way, but the situation worked itself out. It probably would have had the same outcome even if the DOJ and the EU didn't get involved.

Full disclosure: I worked at Microsoft for eight years and left a couple of years ago. I'm typing this on Chrome on my Mac now.

The important part to me is why WB says it owes Gerritsen nothing. If the case is "We admit the movie had a relationship to her work, but that doesn't matter because it was New Line's contract not WB's", there is a very big problem here.

On the other hand, if they convince a judge/jury that there was no connection between her book and the movie then fine. Case closed, go home, no worries.

The key problem here is that if a studio can do a neat little legal dance to avoid contract obligations then that is a big deal. If this is simply a matter of evidence not supporting the claims in this instance then not a big deal.