They have a predatory business model. “Hey we’re cheaper than the competition”. Once you’re soaking in it and need features, they have options but it’ll cost you. I reckon they have slick sales people who know how to pander to the egos of middle management as well. You know … The people who don’t actually have to use the tool but sure like to feel like they somehow matter.

Agreed on all of that. As I understand it, periods of better worker markets make for less of that nonsense people are willing endure. I’ve seen a recent trend of corporations turning up the BS because the job market has been tightening up and people are less willing to take risks.

That’s the MS business model in partnership with PC makers. It’s a juggernaut. They’ve operationalized it.

I’m sure it didn’t go well. If it was somehow framed in a sycophantic way where the police were led to believe it was their idea, I’m sure it would have gone better. Wait that might not be too difficult to do.

Might be about time for testers to start cr4pping their pants tho.

Bravo. Welcome to the world of greater control and flexibility.

I’ve seen some interesting thoughts on TDD with fail, pass, refactor assumptions. I’m curious if anyone here is writing functional code in order to then make a failing functional test pass i.e. BDD / ATDD. This follows similar logic without the refactor assumption. I’ve seen strong opinions on every side as far as this is concerned. On a team with Dev and QA competencies, I’ve heard a number of devs glad to get QA out of the bottleneck and put their knowledge to better use.