Who would notice?
I can never tell if there's a bug or if teams is behaving as intended, it's that bad.
Microsoft's Slack-alike, Teams, has taken a beating from the stick of instability, and was still wobbling at the time of publication. Users around Europe and beyond began reporting issues connecting to the online collaboration platform from around 10:00 UTC. The problems cover both the app and web versions of Teams, with users …
Recently the rumors are that Microsoft may be ditching Edge for a new browser based on Chromium (or maybe just WebKit?). Microsoft deploys a Linux enivronment, tries to support Powershell (by the way, poorly) on real Linux, attempts to move away from Wrm to ssh, yes you're Windows has an ssh daemon now.... etc...
Maybe Microsoft should just buy Slack and go with that...
"I’m currently investing heavily into Powershell on Linux"
Out of curiosity, why? I'm not baiting here, either, I'm genuinely curious what PS does for you that the native Linux toolkit can't handle better, faster, easier, with a smaller memory footprint and thus inherently better security?
"that the native Linux toolkit can't handle better, faster, easier, with a smaller memory footprint and thus inherently better security?"
Powershell does pretty much anything better. For a start there is no need to format text with SED, GREP, etc. It's way easy in general to use and learn that say BASH, with mostly English commands and consistent formats across commands. And it's way way more secure by including many security related features that Say BASH simply doesn't have like code signing and execution policies.
"What do you mean poorly on Linux?"
Since nobody else has answered this, I'll take a stab at it. First, the open source versions of PowerShell are still very new and have the elevated number of bugs you would expect from new software. So I'll ignore those.
Here's what I think is the fundamental problem with PowerShell on Linux -- compatibility. PowerShell does not handle the differences between platforms well at all, and they are not fully interchangeable. So if you write a PowerShell script for one system, there is no guarantee that it will work on another system. The PowerShell ports also implement a subset of what is available in the proprietary version. There are commands available in some environments that simply are not available in others. PowerShell is full of gotchas along similar lines.
The scripting tools that ship with Linux distributions have none of those problems (and are easier to use and more powerful anyway). Not to mention that in order to use it, you have to talk Linux users into taking the extra step of installing PowerShell in the first place. I think getting more than a minority to do this would be a heavy lift.
Given those problems, I honestly can't think of a real world use case for PowerShell on anything except Windows.
We have been piloting it and when I was struggling with killing a chat I did some searching and found a huuuuuge pile of comments around the GDPR issues with Teams (ie, you cannot delete data from old chats, just hide it)
With the reams of overlapping products from Microsoft you have to wonder quite why they are bothering with Teams, seems to be the ginger-headed child of all the unloved MS products.
My Skype for business (as poor as it was) had all the basic functionality I needed. I then got notifications
You are being upgraded to Teams!
When I saw the horrible mess that passes for a user interface, it was promptly deleted. Much more complex to use, a crappy UI and a resource hog.
Shame really as it is part of the subscription, but I cannot see any practical use for it that I cannot get elsewhere with a far superior experience.
Funny you should say that. I was about to express scepticism about how MS might have been achieving the figures to claim that "Teams is the fastest growing business app in Microsoft history".
Wouldn't have surprised me if they were giving it away free, or bundling it as part of a deal that worked out more favourable than not having it, just so they could make some fluff claim.
"87 Fortune 100 companies use Teams". Really? Technically, I guess they could make that claim that if one person in the company used it, or at least sent a test message to ensure it was working. Or possibly if they'd been given a free subscription, regardless of whether it was actually used. I've no idea if that's the case or not.
(IIRC, didn't MS have a deal with GoDaddy and/or some other large registrars to get them to run the holding pages for newly-registered or unused domains using IIS, so that they could claim some misleadingly high percentage of "websites" or "domains" were running it?)
Back to Teams, though- if they're counting all the people they're automatically "upgrading" from Skype for Business to Teams, then it doesn't mean much. But they get to make an impressive-sounding claim to PHBs, so who cares?
If it's really doing that well... well, good for MS, if not their users. But you'll excuse my scepticism.
"Technically, I guess they could make that claim that if one person in the company used it"
This is likely the case. It's long been standard practice for enterprise software companies to claim "corporation xyz uses us" based on even a single product registration or invoice. That's why such claims should always be ignored.
"Slack continues to enjoy a greater share of the market in spite of the gang at Redmond flinging out a free edition of their platform to get users on board"
Of course Microsoft is doing that. It's Market Capture 1-0-1 : hook the greatest number possible on the free version, then transition them to the paying version.
Or kill it and propose a new product that does the same thing, but you have to buy it.
"While deep within the bowels of Redmond, a sorrowful engineer reset the "Days without an incident" clock, Microsoft's support orifice initially professed ignorance of the issue, much to the annoyance of users."
Looks to me like that clock should be showing hours instead of days if it ever wants to show a respectable number (more than 1) again
I think MS are trying to do too much. Pretty much all of their products are unfinished, unreliable, slow, buggy, inconsistent etc etc. Office in the browser, or worst, in Teams is like wading through treacle.
As for running poweshell in Linux, mind blown!
There is a disaster coming and I’m not talking about their licensing model.
I generally like Office365 Groups, but Teams seems to have been created as a set of disconnected features stuck on top of Groups. Teams also seems to completely bypass all Office and Windows settings for language and formatting, so if you're not a vanilla US English user then it's a friggin' mess.
They do like to advertise their Agile approach, but it seems that there are multiple feature teams agilely running in different directions - result: product is drawn-and-quartered.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019