Let us suppose a world where there are 17 computer programs we need.
apt-get is one of them.
Great program! It has done the job we've needed for decades!
Millions of people are happy. Is there an ethical reason that should change?
The Day AppGet Died
121–130 of 566 posts
Re: The Day AppGet Died
#122The really sad thing is that I still don't think Microsoft has actually solved the package manager problem in any meaningful way. WinGet feels like just yet another subtly incompatible package standard. I would say Microsoft should buy Chocolatey but they would probably just ruin it. (Not to say this is a uniquely Microsoft problem; it's reminiscent of the Pipenv/Poetry/virtualenv... mess in the Python community.)
I'm convinced the sole purpose of some open source projects are to be good enough to prevent other open source projects from filling the void, but bad enough to keep from competing with vested commercial interests.
This might just be one of those cases. Why would Microsoft want to invest in another distribution platform when they already have the Microsoft Store where they can do whatever they want?
Sure, WinGet has an MIT license, but that doesn't mean anything. The only important thing is who gets to commit to the manifest(s) on the master branch. That's Microsoft. They own it. They control it. They curate it. They decide who gets to distribute via it.
I'd bet money they'll tie it in to Azure somehow at some point.
Re: The Day AppGet Died
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. Choose your side projects wisely.
I really doubt it was it. Sonarr was one of the topics we talked about during the first meeting at Microsoft Vancouver. Even if that was the case, I have no regrets.
I would say engineers have a different perspective than upper management.
Re: The Day AppGet Died
#124The title of this should really be changed to the more descriptive subtitle: "The story of how Microsoft embraced and then killed AppGet."
Not really. Afterall his AppGet package was open source....
Last time I checked, something being open-source doesn't mean corps like MSFT can shit on them.
Re: The Day AppGet Died
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love how those stories of the early years are so different from what I think of looking at companies today - > Jeff picked me up at the airport, and we drove to Microsoft's main building where we were joined by Neil Konzen, a talented 23 year old who was Microsoft's main systems programmer on the Macintosh. I knew Neil from his days as an early Apple II hobbyist, when we collaborated on adding features to an assemb…
You do realize that Microsoft Word has been on the Mac since 1985 suite and even the first Microsoft Flight Simulator was on the Apple II? Also Applesoft basic was derived from Microsoft basic? Yes, they did copy the operating system but that doesn't mean that the Mac Platform is unimportant to them.
> the first Microsoft Flight Simulator was on the Apple II?
Back then, Flight Simulator was still owned by subLOGIC. Microsoft got a license from them to make the IBM PC version.
Re: The Day AppGet Died
#126This is why it's important to license FOSS projects under the (A)GPL, rather than the MIT license. It makes it far less profitable for companies to steal your ideas/code, and ensures that anything based on your work will put users first.
They didn’t copy the code, just the APIs and ideas.
In another words, if ideas were copyrighted, GNU/Linux wouldn’t exist.
Re: The Day AppGet Died
#127Microsoft pretends to want to acquire a product or software and then release their own implementation. The developer was obviously brain-picked for any implementation ideas, as stated at scale. They should have been paying a retainer, or had an offer inside of two weeks. Let this be a warning for other developers.
I'd require earnest money at the outset.
After Microsoft flirted with acquiring Intuit, then shortly thereafter released Money to compete directly with Quicken, I assume all due diligence is just a way to hoover up intel.
To inform a buy vs build decision. To better validate market assumptions. To identify key contributors and poach them.
Whatever.
No earnest money? Fine. They clearly were going to drain my blood and powder my bones. Their prerogative. But they can proceed to kill me and my product without my help.
Re: The Day AppGet Died
#128Microsoft is the king of fake interviews. Absolute snakes. Netflix too. Funny how when you don't work for a competitor no one wants to talk to you, then you work for a competitor or are a competitor and the VP's want to interview you.
Look, people, don't waste anyone's time unless you are going to HIRE someone. If you have a product that a big tech company is interested in, acquisition is the only path you should be considering and you should get help. Wasn't there an article by a hacker news founder which basically said: don't talk to big companies until you are ready to sell, even then get help.
Re: The Day AppGet Died
#129In comparison, Apple hosted MacPorts, an early OS X package manager, and started to be involved in it directly.
(nowadays MacPorts is not really necessary with Homebrew around, but that’s another thing)
Re: The Day AppGet Died
#130When you release free (as in freedom) software, you are not entitled to revenue sharing when people use or modify that software, or if people use the ideas in that software to make new, from-scratch software. I think Microsoft is a terrible organization and will rejoice the day they finally cease to exist as a concern, but they didn’t do anything wrong here. PHP didn’t “rip off” Perl, nor did CoffeeScript “rip off” r…
Taking someone all the way through the interview process, then ghosting them, is doing something wrong. Add in the fact that they had planned on buying his app outright told him they would hire him instead to speed up the process, and it's an especially crummy thing to do.
I’m not sure I agree with that. No news is the equivalent of all other times: no deal/no hire. I think the game theoretic optimal choice from a liability standpoint is to simply stop sending further messages if you decide not to do business with someone, especially given all of the current litigation-happy people there are out there these days. (Even if you win a suit, you lose lots of money.)
It avoids the possibility of obsessive types getting agitated over an explicit rejection, et c. Anyone clever will see ghosting for what it plainly is: an explicit rejection.
It’s just business, not some trusted friend ghosting you on lunch plans and not calling. This is how business works, and it’s not rude, it’s just the protocol.