Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Day AppGet Died

keivan.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 566 posts

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#171

Post by jjeaff »

13of40 wrote: post #114
ahmedalsudani wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > Do you want to know how Microsoft WinGet works? go read the article I wrote 2 years ago about how AppGet works.

This is very unhelpful - I'm not really in a position to code review Microsoft's implementation and compare it to this document. I was hoping for something more like some high level details from the author of AppGet.

No one's asking you to compare. He's just saying winget works exactly the same as appget. So you can read that article about appget to learn how winget works.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#172

Post by ryandrake »

ahelwer wrote: post #84
intern4tional wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't secret news, but when you interview at MS there is always a secret / hidden interviewer. This is publicly known information from Cracking the Coding interview. This person is called the as appropriate and you only meet them if you pass all the prior interviews. Per his writeup, he did not meet that person, which means that he most likely did not pass the interview. He also for some reason didn't follow up…

Reminds me of: https://twitter.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768?lang=en How exactly could a PM interview process (which is just asking you to walk through a bunch of design scenarios) give a stronger hiring signal than having developed a product the company wanted to acqui-hire? Honestly somewhat insulting that they made him go through a full external interview loop. At most it should have been some informal chats…

> Honestly somewhat insulting that they made him go through a full external interview loop.

Wait, what? So if someone is a "name brand" celebrity, they should get to jump the queue and coast by with an "informal chat?" How is that fair? I don't care if I'm interviewing John Carmack, he's getting the same evaluation process I would give to any other senior candidate. Software Engineering's got enough problems with interviewing--it doesn't need an aristocracy that gets special treatment.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#173

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

oneplane wrote: post #135
sansnomme wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Windows NT is designed out of the box for extending and embracing Unix. The whole Linux Subsystem thing isn't something new that required deep reworking of the kernel.

On the other hand, WSL2 is based on virtualisation rather than NT kernel personalities. Apparently building it 'on top' or 'inside' NT ends not not being good enough.

I don't think that's a failure of the NT subsystem approach, I think that's just that Linux turned out to have a massive and changing ABI surface and Microsoft didn't want to try and recreate the whole thing by clean room reimplementation. Yes, there were some difficulties because of different underlying primitives, but in my outsider's opinion, they could have made it work if they've been wanting to spend the time and effort.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#174

Post by hizanberg »

whoisjuan wrote: post #148
hizanberg wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't think of a more wasted effort then trying to compete with maintaining a package manager in your spare time than a clone from the OS vendor who can out resource, outspend, out market, out evangelize, out reach you, etc. It would a futile endeavour, a realization acknowledged by the author, any further dev cycles on it would be wasted & are better spent elsewhere.

The most cynic part of this story is sending him an email the day before the launch with a heads-up that WinGet was launching. And the icing on the cake is the "btw, we are giving you the exclusive so keep it secret". Like, wtf. He ain't TechCrunch. Why the fuck are they giving him that exclusive? Nothing yells "we stole your stuff, but dude it was open source so you really can't complain, and thanks for the idea" mo…

That was just MS sending "Thoughts & Prayers" for the death of his multi-year efforts that they've cloned & looking to extinguish & claim originality credit for with their celebratory announcement.

Not clear if they were trolling or just tone deaf.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#175

Post by wvenable »

sansnomme wrote: post #78
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #38

Earlier 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…

Windows NT is designed out of the box for extending and embracing Unix. The whole Linux Subsystem thing isn't something new that required deep reworking of the kernel.

The Linux Subsystem actually doesn't use the NT subsystem technology that you're thinking of. They did end up inventing a few new kernel concepts (like pico processes) in order to do WSL v1.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#177

Post by lostmsu »

pdonis wrote: post #118
lostmsu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. There have been quite a few larger products, where Microsoft failed spectacularly.

> There have been quite a few larger products, where Microsoft failed spectacularly. Sure, but not because of failure to reverse engineer someone else's product.

Right. That was the point: it is not enough to just understand how something was made. You have to be able to recreate it too. And building a similar system in just a bit different way to avoid potential copyright or patent claims is hard. If the system is complex, it is hard squared.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#178

Post by colejohnson66 »

chii wrote: post #169
colejohnson66 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That problem is called TiVoization. It’s addressed with the 3rd version of the GPL. Sadly, Linus is adamantly against that clause.

> Linus is adamantly against that clause. oh i didnt know he was adamant against the clause - i thought that he didn't want to force it upon the many existing users of linux.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

He also has refused to release any of his projects under GPLv3 (or even “v2 or later”).

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#179

Post by 5etho »

foobarbazetc wrote: post #133
lame88 wrote: post #47

Fuck anyone callous enough to take something as far as an onsite trip with the pretense of a job and then just ghost them. I can't think of a much clearer way to show that much disrespect of someone and their time. And that's just the tip of the iceberg in this case. Remember things like this whenever you see the "microsoft <3 linux" slogan and the rest of the PR facade people are all too willing to swallow.

This exact thing happens all the time. And not just Microsoft. Usually you sign something that prohibits you from talking about the meetings, though.

Lol i thought it was a 4chan joke: Company [1] is not bad because every company do so.not just micro$oft 1 source: I work in the company

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#180

Post by lostmsu »

leonidasv wrote: post #79
lostmsu wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK AGPL permits linking without disclosing linked code like LGPL does. Meaning they can still distribute it as their own, train models and serve them with a simpler framework. Just can't build services powered directly by it.

AGPL is as strict as GPL. It's just that GPL allows you to modify the source, serve them as a web application and not have to disclose the code. AGPL addresses that by putting code distributed as a web application in the same category as compiled code.

You seem to be correct. Still the note about training a deep learning model using the framework, then publishing it without applies.
Post reply on HN