Talk:Microsoft Solutions Framework
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Methodology
MSF is not a methodology for software development. It defines a a framework of phases and roles which can apply to many scenarios in IT projects . Interestingly, MSF has the concept of releasing the software product and then stabilising it with corrective actions (bug fixes for SW) . Anyone who has worked in the SW industry for any length of time will know that releasing an untested product to a user base is a disastorous process and should be avoided always. Summary , MSF is of little value ..
PS. No wonder its not used internally in Microsoft ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.235.156 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is blatantly false. The Stabilizing phase comes before the deploying stage. 204.210.193.197 02:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Whoever made the comment above does not know MSF at all (and could use a bit of spell-checking). MSF has been based on Microsoft internal processes summarized by Michael Cusumano as "Synch-and-stabilize" in books and several articles. Those keywords should be enough for you to do a search and find out about the original "Microsoft Development Framework" described by Cusumano and McCarthy. This was later generalized to include other types of IT projects, but primarily MSF was a development framework in the beginning (circa 1993). 70.122.34.130 02:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merged article "Microsoft Solution Framework" into article "Microsoft Solutions Framework"
I have merged a redundant article "Microsoft Solution Framework" (without the s) into this one. Someone with more knowledge about this framework should evaluate to make sure everything is accurate.--Afpre (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Propaganda
Can we just add a header stating, that this article tries too hard to conceal the emptiness of meaning and method behind a kind of Microsoft'ical mumbo-jumbo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.8.58 (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think we could find a place in this article for criticism of MSF as "empty of meaning and method", but only if we can find a reliable source that is making this claim. If there's an appearance of propoganda, I think it is likely the unintentional result of unclear writing that relies too heavily on company jargon. Much better than adding a header would be editing the article to improve it. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)