Skip to content

Codeplex wastes six months reinventing wheels

I saw an announcement today that CodePlex, Microsoft’s version of Sourceforge, has released a source control client. From the release:

A common theme we’ve heard from our users is the desire to be able to work offline (in the “edit-merge-commit” style) when working on their CodePlex projects. Six months ago, we started working to write such a client that would integrate with our existing TFS server infrastructure, and today we’ve released our first beta of the client.

The CodePlex Client is a command line client for Windows, and requires .NET 2.0.

This infuriates me. This cool thing they spent six months (six!) writing is called Subversion, and it had a 1.0.0 release three years ago. Subversion had its first beta in late 2003, so the Codeplex folks are waaay behind the state of the art on this one.

As a whole, I think the state of software is abysmal. The only way to make it better is to stop writing new code. New code is always full of bugs, and its an expensive path to get from blank screen to stable program. We need to treat programming more like math, we need to build on our results. Development tools is a special market, as our needs are all very similar, and when we need a tool, we have the skills to make it.

The Codeplex staff stated they needed to write their own client in order to integrate with the TFS server infrastructure. According to an msdn article (Get All Your Devs In A Row With Visual Studio 2005 Team System), TFS seems to be a complicated tool to help manage your developers. Reading the description, TFS seems to be an issue tracker, unit tester, continuous integration, source control system, and visual studio plugin. So, basically a combination of Trac, NUnit, CruiseControl.NET, Subversion, and a visual studio plugin. Why not just write the visual studio plugin, and hook into the tools people are already using? All those tools have rich plugin-architectures that would probably support any sensible addition you’d want to make.

This problem is ingrained at Microsoft, which feels the need to brand everything, but it is in no way limited to them. A search on Sourceforge for “issue tracker” gives 585 results. Sifting through those to pick a winner is difficult.

It’s more fun to write new code than read old code, but this fun wears off. After a certain initial momentum creating your new tool, you will inevitably come to a realization “this is going to take me for-fucking-ever”. Unless your itch is particularly strong, you’ll probably quit, and the world will be cursed with a 586th buggy issue tracker. By writing a plugin, you can ride the new-code high usually from start to finish, since its a much smaller task.

Reading code seems more difficult, but I think that’s largely perception. Its just another puzzle to solve. Once you get over the idea that reading code is more difficult, it’s really not that bad. For most mature projects, it’s probably easier for you to read through someone else’s mound of debugged code than it is to write and debug your own mud-ball.

I think we need find and evolve extensible tools, and stop trying to write them over again. We can get the custom behavior we all need by writing and debugging plugins, which are going to be orders of magnitude faster and cheaper than writing the whole system from scratch. I see this happening already, with communities forming around different tools to share plugins.

Next time you need a development tool, don’t open a new code file. Do us all a favor, open up a browser, and just re-use previous results.


  1. Bart Simpsons wrote:

    I will as google before starting a new software project.
    I will as google before starting a new software project.
    I will as google before starting a new software project.
    I will as google before starting a new software project.
    I will as google before starting a new software project.

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 1:23 pm | Permalink
  2. sean wrote:

    As opposed to the SVN guys, who spent how many years reinventing CVS? ;)

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 1:34 pm | Permalink
  3. ryan wrote:

    Good point sean, but I’d say that SVN and CVS are very different. SVN does not do exactly what CVS does. If the new codeplex client were solving some problem with SVN, then I wouldn’t have said a word.

    If there’s a unmet need, certainly new code should be written. The SVN guys had an need that CVS didn’t meet, so wrote their own. I think as more systems allow plugins, we’ll see longer lifespans on these projects, as more needs can be met via plugins instead of rewrites.

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 1:44 pm | Permalink
  4. Prasun wrote:

    The SVN guys had an need that CVS didn’t meet, so wrote their own.
    What was wrong with CVS? Just curious.

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 1:51 pm | Permalink
  5. Joe wrote:

    “Why not just write the visual studio plugin, and hook into the tools people are already using?”

    Because it’s hard to charge people $5,000 per user for a visual studio plugin.

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 2:09 pm | Permalink
  6. Eric B wrote:

    What was wrong with CVS? Nothing, unless it didn’t fit your method of development. (For example, if you branch for every change for purposes of peer review, a medium sized project over 4 years gets EXTREMELY slow.)

    Just personal experience. :)

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 2:15 pm | Permalink
  7. Steve wrote:

    First off, I agree with your main point 9 times out of 10 precisely for the reasons you mentioned. However, and I hate to be blunt, but your opinion on this matter is obtuse.

    Here are some really obvious points you overlooked.

    1. Microsoft does not support or endorse open source projects like SVN.
    2. Sometimes to achieve progress you need to chuck old code like SVN did when replacing CVS. (Sean pointed this out more poignantly than I)
    3. Microsoft wants to lock people into proprietary technology and services it owns. Why do you think it the point of CodePlex anyway? The point is to create a proprietary Source Forge clone for .NET developers so they’ll stop going to Source Forge and using open tools like SVN. If Microsoft starts supporting tools like SVN, theyhow are they going to sell their own source control tools?

    All in all, it sounds like you’re criticizing Microsoft for behaving like Microsoft and acting in their best interest.

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 2:16 pm | Permalink
  8. James wrote:

    Perforce rules the school.

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 2:23 pm | Permalink
  9. I understand where your frustration is coming from. We have users that want to use TFS but also want some of the Subversion features with it, so that’s why we created a client to provide that.

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 2:36 pm | Permalink
  10. The Subversion guys pretty much WERE the CVS guys. CVS had got to the point where a pretty fundamental rewrite was needed just to support basic functionality (like being able to rename directories without losing the associated changes). The solution would have to be backwards incompatible, so the developers span out a new project.

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 2:45 pm | Permalink
  11. Peter wrote:

    Sean, Prasun: SVN had several things that they wanted to fix from CVS. Please read the front page of their site:

    Specifically, atomic commits and sensible binary handling are two that I can think of off the top of my head. On top of that, SVN has a much more flexible architecture. SVN really is a better CVS.

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 2:46 pm | Permalink
  12. anon wrote:

    Would you say the same about operating systems? In that case, why are all the Linux guys writing different operating systems when we have Windows? Or why did the FireFox guys go and build that when we already had IE? Obviously they aren’t satisfied with what’s out there and think they can do better.

    I agree with you that TFS is a big, bloated piece of crap that is way overkill and I would much rather use the tools you mention. But MS doesn’t own those tools and they want to promote their platform. If they want to spend time and money building their own version, well, it’s their money.

    Lastly, there is something to be said for an integrated platform. Tools that are integrated seamlessly are important for users who don’t want to figure out how to make things work together. I’m happy to go use best of breed tools and figure out how to make them work together – but a lot of people don’t want that. This is Microsoft’s big play – control the world, seamless integration, etc.

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 2:52 pm | Permalink
  13. omega wrote:

    I would agree with Steve in his 3th point, and indeed, this is kinda criticizing Microsoft for being Microsoft.
    However, it also proves Microsoft stupid (again).

    Maybe people who just start in the business will at first go into their thing,
    but surely once they look around a bit they’ll notice SourceForge and the likes?
    And people who already use SourceForge and SVN won’t exactly be excited
    switching from free to $5.000 to do what they’ve always done without problem.

    Correct me if i’m wrong, but people (or at least people in software development) aren’t usually that stupid… are they?

    So i don’t think this turns out in M$’s best interest, as they have now paid their development team for 6 months
    (and will be paying them for some more time) writing something that other people already wrote, for free…

    Of course, i might be considered still a bit naive and idealistic, so maybe they will indeed get loads of profit, but still…

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
  14. Honest Guy wrote:

    At this point, if there really is as much feature overlap as you say, you should start discounting Subversion because of it’s questionable code history. The Microsoft product is clearly branded, and it’s code has a clear source that is fully accountable for it’s intellectual property. The Subversion code is a mishmash of code pasted in from all kinds of anonymous sources on the web.

    I’d even go so far as to point out that Microsoft recognizes that Apple “borrowed” many things from the development and beta versions of Vista, and quickly put them into an Apple OS product, while Microsoft concentrated on testing and bug fixes. I wouldn’t be surprised if the case was the same for Subversion.

    There is literally no reason to not use the Microsoft CodePlex product, and many reasons not to use the buggy and possiblly illegal Subversion/Sourceforge mashup.

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 4:43 pm | Permalink
  15. Addy Santo wrote:

    Author seems to think that all software development is done in basements and dorms. The reality is that software is an industry like any other – and follows the same simple rules of economics. How many brands of sports shoes are there? How many different MP3 players? Flavors of toothpaste ? If you can walk down the soft drink isle and not be “infuriated” by Vanilla Cherry Diet Doctor Pepper then you might just be a hypocrite.

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 4:47 pm | Permalink
  16. TheClarifier wrote:

    Hello Ignorant Fools who talk about products [TFS] they haven’t used:

    TFS is not just a re-invention of SVN. It’s does things differently than SVN and provides different features. SVN is a version control system. TFS is a version control system + work item tracking [bugs, issues, risks, tasks, etc], project portal, process integration/support, build management, project management, metrics/reporting. If you are single dev or a very small team that just needs version control, use SVN. If need more and on the MS platform take a look at TFS. TFS is an INTEGRATED set of functionality, not a set of separate products thrown together and left for the customer to integrate as an exercise. It reuses existing MS products like SQL Server and WSS where it makes sense.

    So, for God’s sake, stop talking about stuff you have no idea about. Yes, MS bashing is your pastime but get a fucking clue first.


    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 4:47 pm | Permalink
  17. Clarifier of TheClarifier wrote:


    I’m sorry to inform you that you are a dumb ass. Trac adds the functionality you mentioned on top of SVN. So yes, MS did re-invent the wheel, and you’ve got some learning to do before posting uninformed comments to blogs.

    — Clarifier of TheClarifier

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 5:57 pm | Permalink
  18. GladThatsClearedUp wrote:


    Hmm, I think the author DID mention most of those features.

    Sounds like TheClarifier might be someone who’s pissed that they spent months reimplementing something that already exists. ;)

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 6:00 pm | Permalink
  19. TheClarifier wrote:

    GladThatsClearedUp, Clarifier of TheClarifier: I’m not involved with TFS development. But I do read MSDN and I’ve actually used TFS and svn, so I’m a bit more informed than you two clowns.

    I’ve looked at Trac. It’s nice. But if you look at TFS [which you never will but just spend a few mins on MSDN], you’ll see that while they sound alike, Trac and TFS are radically different. TFS has much greater functionality.

    Does Trac have tooling support for processes [CMMI, Scrum, RUP]? Can Trac work items be added/modified via Excel and Project [tools in use at 99% of all corps by PMs and business analyst types]? Does Trac have data analysis capabilities? Does it store project metrics in a data warehouse or some other data store that allows you to slice and dice data, in Excel and other tools? Does Trac have extensive reporting capabilities (not just some? You’ll knee-jerk and say yes. But if you do a even somewhat superficial comparison, you’ll realize you are comparing apples or oranges. TFS and Trac are different animals. There’s some overlap but there are many differences. Hence most your re-inventing the wheels comments don’t apply. Now if you had said that the Rational tools and TFS are similar, I might have to agree.

    Do your homework dammit!!!!

    Ryan: You fault MS for duplication. Yet you didn’t mention that Google has a SourceForge clone. Why? And it’s targeted at the same freakkkin audience, FOSS software devs. A little redundant?

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 7:35 pm | Permalink
  20. andrew wrote:

    I agree with you on most points, but keep in mind Subversion is nice but not perfect. It’s good to have competition in the marketplace, even if it’s open source, it still raises the bar. Also, MS is somewhat allergic to open source — it’s just not how they roll. Take a look at the open source .net projects and maybe aside from mono, they don’t fare was well as on the Java side.

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 9:19 pm | Permalink
  21. Aaron wrote:

    TheClarifier: You might want to check out one of Ted Husted’s recent blog entries [1] about the tools used by many open source developers. One major difference between the open source approach and the one you argue for is reuse. Google reuses subversion for example. There’s nothing stopping Microsoft from building their extra (extraneous) functionality on top of tools like Trac, SVN, etc.


    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 10:06 pm | Permalink
  22. subvert wrote:

    Prasun: At the very least CVS doesn’t have directory versioning. This is a required VCS feature nowadays. While I don’t use CVS day to day I am forced to use another VCS w/o directory versioning and it is a constant source of difficulties. That and properties are the most compelling improvements to CVS. Even Subversion is starting to look a bit inadequate on account of its centralised nature. I suspect decentralised systems like darcs or Mercurial will become the norm over the next couple years (maybe SVK).

    Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 2:42 am | Permalink
  23. nico wrote:

    Last time I checked you couldn’t commit to svn when you were offline. Do I understand something wrong?

    Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 3:58 am | Permalink
  24. TheClarifier wrote:

    @Aaron: I agree with you mostly. It would have been nice if MS used svn as the version control component in TFS. But I’m guessing legal & support issues encumbered them. That and a little bit of “Not invented here”. Aside from legal and NIH, there are also technology issues. TFS is built entirely on the MS stack. That makes it easier for MS to develop and support. Trac and friends: Python, C++, PHP, etc. I’m sure Trac and friend will run on Windows but you know that these technologies are built on *nix and probably optimized for that platform. Not a good story for MS. That being said, TFS is exactly what is described in Husted’s article but with a strong emphasis on metrics, project management and reporting.

    You said “Google reuses subversion for example.” Ok. But why did they have to reinvent SourceForge?

    Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 7:53 am | Permalink
  25. Greg wrote:

    Wow, looks like we gots us some Microsoft fanboys here…

    I was recently thinking about how Microsoft has done the development community a huge disservice in their business model.

    In the projects I have worked on (VB, C++, .NET) we have never done anything cutting edge, however we have found that it has been necessary to “go beyond” what Microsoft provides. In the distant past this often meant building up your own tools and frameworks. Eventually, Microsoft might release something that filled that niche, so if you moved to a different company you could conceivably use that as any of the frameworks you had developed were proprietary.

    The Open Source model changed that dramatically– now people are developing these frameworks out in the open _and in time for you to use them_. Microsoft does it’s usual thing of looking at these, saying “hey that’s a good idea” and incorporating it into it’s product. Not, on the surface, a bad thing– they’re adding value to their product, right?

    However, it has left a swath of dead and dying Open Source projects and disgruntled develoepers– why use log4net or nunit when Microsoft ships those with .NET 2.0? Of course, why couldn’t Microsoft have embraced the hard work of the developers who went out on a limb and extended the language and ability of Microsoft’s very product? Instead, they just absorb the idea but with less experience and more bugs.

    Anyways, I think this sort of activity is starting to really hurt them. I’m moving away from Microsoft based solutions simply because of this disregard for my hard work– we’re helping them create the next version of the product, and yet we get no benefit from that. In the days of secret frameworks and libraries, Microsoft was a great equalizer, but when this information is being exchanged freely, they become the great limiter.

    C# is ten times the language Java is, but the Java community is vibrant and active. And that is way more useful to me than anonymous delegates and box-free generics.

    Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 8:00 am | Permalink
  26. TheClarifier wrote:

    @Greg: “why use log4net or nunit when Microsoft ships those with .NET 2.0? ” You are wrong here. Neither of these ship with .NET 2.0. MS equivalent of log4net is Enterprise Library (EL) which includes logging + other stuff. EL is not part of the .NET SDK and is a separate download. So it’s your choice whether you use EL or log4net. There’s no unit testing included in .NET. That’s only included in VS Team System or as part of VS Pro [in the next release scheduled sometime late this year]. So again you can choose to use NUnit or the MS unit testing stuff.

    But your broader question is valid. I wish MS found some way to reuse NUnit, NDoc [instead of reinventing as SandCastle], NCover, etc. I think there are legal issues here. But probably nothing that couldn’t have been overcome. Pity.

    Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 8:25 am | Permalink
  27. Tet wrote:

    The cool thing they spent six months writing is called Subversion, eh? Subversion was obsolete even when it was released three years ago. True, it fixes some of the problems with CVS, but it still shares it’s poor architecture. There’s just no valid rationale for not using a distributed version control system in this day and age. There are many available (mercurial, darcs, git, monotone, svk, bzr, etc., and of course, bitkeeper), so take your pick. But Subversion is a tool from the dark ages.

    Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 8:31 am | Permalink
  28. Jeff Atwood wrote:

    > If you can walk down the soft drink isle and not be “infuriated” by Vanilla Cherry Diet Doctor Pepper then you might just be a hypocrite


    But in all seriousness, Team Foundation Server source control made some early architectural decisions that you may nor may not agree with. One of those decisions was the *always-connected* source control paradigm.

    Like in-IDE source control, some people love it, some people hate it. I think it’s a matter of preference, and there is room for multiple models — even, as others have pointed out, distributed source control which is radically different; it makes Subversion and TFS source control look like twins.

    But the lack of an offline model is something that CodePlex had to tackle on their own, because offline development is sort of a critical feature in the open-source environment.

    Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 2:01 pm | Permalink
  29. Norman wrote:

    Welcome to the enterprise model. Microsoft as any other enterprise likes to provide a complete solution themselves. They don’t want to be dependent on an open source project. You’ll find the same model in any other enterprise.

    BTW, talking about log4net and Microsoft EL, ironically Sun has a logging framework now built into Java which does seem to duplicate Log4J.

    But that is not the point, people still uses Log4J because it offers more features and it is possible to quickly add/remove something that you dont like. Like minded people in the .NET world still uses NUnit and NAnt and Log4Net.

    The problem that I see in OpenSource .NET world is to leave the development of the project once Microsoft comes out with its product. This is different from Java where Open Source developers like to compete with Big Boys.

    Friday, March 30, 2007 at 10:13 am | Permalink
  30. Brad Wilson wrote:


    We didn’t re-invent Subversion. We allowed Team Foundation Server to work offline for our customers without killing the other half of the experience (Team Explorer). I think the level of hostility and FUD in this thread and its comments — on both sides — is really unnecessary. We spent six months doing what was thought was the right thing for our customer, and I would do it again in a heartbeat.

    Friday, March 30, 2007 at 12:11 pm | Permalink
  31. Eddie Garcia wrote:

    TFS should have used SVN??? Are you kidding? This is taken straight out of the SVN documentation(latest)

    “Tracking Merges Manually
    Merging changes sounds simple enough, but in practice it can become a headache. ”
    … Snip …
    “Ideally, your version control system should prevent the double-application of changes to a
    branch. It should automatically remember which changes a branch has already received, and
    be able to list them for you. It should use this information to help automate merges as much as
    Unfortunately, Subversion is not such a system; it does not yet record any information about
    merge operations. 2 When you commit local modifications, the repository has no idea whether
    those changes came from running svn merge, or from just hand-editing the files.
    What does this mean to you, the user? It means that until the day Subversion grows this feature,
    you’ll have to track merge information yourself. The best place to do this is in the commit
    log-message. As demonstrated in the earlier example, it’s recommended that your logmessage
    mention a specific revision number (or range of revisions) that are being merged into
    your branch. Later on, you can run svn log to review which changes your branch already contains.
    This will allow you to carefully construct a subsequent svn merge command that won’t
    be redundant with previously ported changes.”

    I don’t know about you but managing 5+ products with 10+ branches each and merging happening all of the time, I don’t want to use a toy like SVN to do this. If I had the $$ I would use Perforce or Rational. TFS, though 1.0 product handles ALL of these scenarios and does so cheaply. I can give you a 78 pinto for FREE… “Ideally a car would provide enough structural integrity to not explode when hit from behind… Unfortunately the pinto is not one of these cars….”

    give me a break. You open source guys take it too far sometimes. SVN is great for puting together small to medium projects with disperate developers. Try managing a projeect with 100s of thousands of files, millions of lines of code that has to ship so people can EAT. In other words you can’t miss your schedule because there will be very REAL consequences.

    Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 11:56 am | Permalink
  32. Spyros wrote:


    Friday, May 4, 2007 at 10:50 am | Permalink
  33. Dred wrote:

    It is good to see that Microsoft is joining the OPENSOURCE community … this is the concept that the majority of the world community is in agreement with.

    Sunday, August 5, 2007 at 3:43 pm | Permalink
  34. Smikey wrote:

    HAHA – Microsoft has it’s way with the OSI – too bad for Google :)

    Friday, October 19, 2007 at 7:50 pm | Permalink
  35. Bill Barry wrote:

    reply posted here:

    Thursday, July 3, 2008 at 10:14 pm | Permalink
  36. Sarath C wrote:

    Microsoft is capable of doing things. they’ve best resources and products. When you’re playing with web a google like approach would be better I think

    Friday, July 4, 2008 at 12:18 am | Permalink
  37. matt mc wrote:

    The comments here are pretty funny. I am just glad everyone is finally using version control. With Visual Source Safe it was pretty ridiculous- in many cases you were safer not using it.

    When we tried to use TFS (in late 2006) for the version control features we had to drop it in favor of Subversion because it was lacking a command line client. This meant that in order to check out the build I needed a GUI client installed (and licensed) on the server. Needless to say, this makes a lot of build and deployment automation tasks more difficult. I am glad to see that has been addressed, to the extent that it has.

    TFS was also a lot of work to manage in terms of permissions and licensing- we wanted to able hit source control from anywhere- even RedHat and Solaris servers, log in, and go. I thought I was going to like the task integration part, but it had way too many features. We were able to get started with svn and trac in 4 hours after a couple of weeks of messing around with TFS.

    I suppose MS is working on a distributed version control system next- or are they going to wait until git has been around for five years to see if it catches on?

    Friday, July 4, 2008 at 12:19 am | Permalink
  38. Martin Zugec wrote:

    100% agree – I was surprised when I tried to contact Microsoft regarding TFS (I was curious about advantages), we were premium customer.

    They send “TFS specialist” – when I asked him how could TFS compare to our current setup with subversion (and some custom components), he asked “Subversion what?”.

    That was very disappointing. Not to mention fact that we were engineers, not developers (and used SVN for scripts or some packages), so he should be much better informed than us :(


    Friday, July 4, 2008 at 6:22 am | Permalink
  39. Toby wrote:

    @ Eddie Garcia, Svn 1.5 brings mature branch/merge tracking. Not bad for $0.00, eh. Plus there are a lot of things Svn does *better* then Perforce, etc.

    @ Eric B, I hope other commenters have persuaded you that there was actually quite a bit technically wrong with CVS. Certainly Svn is the “compelling replacement” and one would never feel comfortable with CVS again after adopting it.

    @ all the astroturfers: Bwahahaha….

    Friday, July 4, 2008 at 4:03 pm | Permalink
  40. Bruce wrote:

    @Tet you said “There’s just no valid rationale for not using a distributed version control system in this day and age. There are many available (mercurial, darcs, git, monotone, svk, bzr, etc., and of course, bitkeeper), so take your pick. But Subversion is a tool from the dark ages.”

    How can you say that without realizing that SVK is built on top of SVN and that the SVK developer is a contributor to SVN development?


    Saturday, July 5, 2008 at 7:15 pm | Permalink
  41. eam wrote:

    Good point. It’s a lot easier to eat the dog food than it is to make it.
    We all know the metrics on bugs per line of code.

    Monday, July 7, 2008 at 10:22 pm | Permalink
  42. > Welcome to the enterprise model. Microsoft as any other enterprise likes to provide a
    > complete solution themselves. They don’t want to be dependent on an open source project.
    > You’ll find the same model in any other enterprise.

    DEPENDENT?? So you can become dependent on a free software project? Wow that’s _nasty_. I wonder how do IBM & HP & Google & Sun & all the big players manage to survive?

    Or maybe those are not enterprise. /me points and laughs

    Wednesday, July 9, 2008 at 1:34 am | Permalink
  43. Good points there, nice article. Many people have to learn the hard way, so at least this waste of time results in progress eventually.

    Saturday, August 16, 2008 at 8:35 am | Permalink
  44. yeah,good points though,and i dont think that its the hard way…

    Sunday, June 27, 2010 at 7:10 am | Permalink
  45. fantastic post, very informative. I’m wondering why the other specialists of this sector do not understand this. You must proceed your writing. I am confident, you have a huge readers’ base already!

    Friday, October 14, 2011 at 11:10 am | Permalink
  46. This could be a single specified of the most beneficial websites We have at any time arrive across on this matter. In actual fact Wonderful. I am also a specialist in this matter so I can recognize your onerous deliver the results.

    Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 5:54 pm | Permalink
  47. I love the daily blogs, brilliant. You’ve inspired me. I’ve started blogging again. Thank you!lm201201

    Monday, January 16, 2012 at 4:03 am | Permalink
  48. UGG 5119 wrote:

    It is a very informative and useful post thanks it is good material to read this post increases my knowledge.lm201201

    Monday, January 16, 2012 at 5:39 am | Permalink
  49. Takeseele wrote:

    adultfriendfinder mobile adultfriendfinder download

    Monday, January 30, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Permalink
  50. Londa Swarn wrote:

    Superior information and facts covered by articles could make up for the best e-book

    Sunday, March 18, 2012 at 3:35 am | Permalink
  51. I do think your own trusty viewers could well possibly want a lot far more nicely written content this way carry on the fantastic perform. cryptids

    Friday, August 24, 2012 at 12:41 am | Permalink
  52. This post is genuinely realy important personally. Thanks relating to this sort of details.

    Wednesday, September 12, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Permalink
  53. valuable job for bringing a factor clean to the net!

    Wednesday, October 10, 2012 at 1:30 am | Permalink
  54. Rocky Sirnio wrote:

    Keep up the great work, I read few articles on this internet site and I conceive that your site is rattling interesting and has lots of excellent information.

    Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 1:06 am | Permalink

6 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. links for 2007-03-29 at Baron VC on Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 4:25 pm

    […] Codeplex wastes six months reinventing wheels I guess Microsoft needs to make busy work for their engineers. Isn’t this the company where programmers produce around 600 lines of code per year? (tags: microsoft) […]

  2. […] [DEVELOPMENT] Codeplex wastes six months reinventing wheels (, 17 saves) […]

  3. […] old and familiar maneuvers, new project though. This time Microsoft is redoing SVN. It’s doing it the ‘Microsoft way’. This infuriates me. This cool thing they […]

  4. […] Codeplex wastes six months reinventing wheels, Ryan Davis has a bone to pick with Microsoft: I saw an announcement [in March, 2007] that […]

  5. Mike on Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 4:49 am

    Just Browsing…

    […]While I was surfing today I noticed a great post concerning[…]…

  6. […] Codeplex wastes six months reinventing wheels […]