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

541–550 of 566 posts

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#541

Post by tw04 »

MatekCopatek wrote: post #415
sillysaurusx wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I flew to Seattle on December 5th to have a full day of interviews/meetings at Microsoft HQ. I met with four different people; three of the meetings were more like your typical interviews; the meeting with Andrew was more about what we should do once this is all over and how we would migrate AppGet’s process and infrastructure to be able to handle Microsoft’s scale. We talked about some of our options, but in general…

Cmon, I live in a country where there is a legal obligation to inform candidates whether they passed the interview. It's not a very high bar. We shouldn't be accepting this kind of behaviour - especially from someone as renowned as Microsoft. It would have been absolutely trivial for them to send a polite three sentence email when they made their decision. I mean, not to shoot the messenger, you're right, that's exac…

You obviously live in a country where people aren't sue happy. Half of the reason they don't respond when you fail an interview is because they don't want to open themselves up to legal liability if the first-year HR rep says something stupid when the person asks "but why?"

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#542

Post by tracker1 »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #119
tracker1 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course with all/most US routers generally taking only signed ROMs, it's mostly useless to even have the code. I wish they'd just create something closer to tomato than the flashy, less useful interfaces.

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

Unfortunately, it's come out from the FCC, not just the hardware companies in this case, and it really sucks... Raally need to drain the swamp in the FCC.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#543

Post by efreak »

fluidcruft wrote: post #499
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why is "WinGet" not also a reference to apt-get? I've never even heard of AppGet before this morning.

AppGet sounds like "apt-get". On the other hand "WinGet" sounds like "wing-it" i.e. release any piece of junk and fix later. Maybe. Which TBF does seem to be how Microsoft works anyway.

> release any piece of junk and fix later. Maybe. Which TBF does seem to be how Microsoft works anyway.

It's been a while, but I managed to corrupt oneget/package management on windows within a month of it being released; I spent about a week trying to fix it and eventually figured out what the problem was (though I've since forgotten the details) only to find it unfixable without reinstalling Windows.

Unfortunately, reinstalling Windows means Office won't reactivate--I've taken it into a Microsoft store, and they couldn't help me.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#544

Post by efreak »

908B64B197 wrote: post #527
chx wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If WinGet contains AppGet code and they didn't credit him then yes, absolutely, moral rights in copyright (attribution, right of association, integrity) cannot be transferred during the lifetime of the owner and yes MSFT can be sued for breaching them. It is extremely likely the penalties meted out by a judge wouldn't cover the costs of a lawyer. Not that anything like this would ever see a courtroom, MS will offer a…

In this case the author claims he could have obtained a patent and that code was copied. Both of these claims are pretty easy to dismiss by simply looking at the respective repositories. They share nothing.

> In this case the author claims he could have obtained a patent and that code was copied.

No. From the source:

> the core mechanics, terminology, the manifest format and structure, even the package repository’s folder structure, are very inspired by AppGet.

In the update it's slightly more vague, but there's no claim of coffee being copied there either:

> Code being copied isn't an issue. I knew full well what it meant to release something opensource and I don't regret it one bit.

And continues to be more explicit about his complaint:

> What was copied with no credit is the foundation of the project.

Lastly, looking at the repo really doesn't tell you if you could get a patent on it.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#545

Post by fomine3 »

_j7tr wrote: post #530
hoytschermerhrn wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying that it’s just “a big company thing” is giving Microsoft a pass here. Look at their recent PR: wanting to embrace the developer community [1], their love of open source [2], etc. While AppGet may be an isolated story, I’m inclined to believe that MSFT is simply acting they way they’ve always have — by embracing, by extending, and by extinguishing. 1. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/micro…

100% Microsoft doesn't let any open source build of VS Code access the VS Code Marketplace. Heavily reduces the benefit of VS Code being open source when you can't use any extension or service built for it without building it yourself. https://github.com/cdr/code-server/blob/master/doc/FAQ.md#di...

TIL. It looks like a drawback we should point out.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#546

Post by fomine3 »

908B64B197 wrote: post #525
kayone wrote: post #80

Author here, Because it's sure to come up here is a comment I wrote on Reddit that clarifies somethings, I haven't updated the original article since I'm not sure what the etiquette for updating a highly shared article is. ------ Code being copied isn't an issue. I knew full well what it meant to release something opensource and I don't regret it one bit. What was copied with no credit is the foundation of the projec…

Several things don't add up here. > Code being copied isn't an issue. I looked at both repos and they share no code at all. In his article, the author claims that " If I were the patenting type, this would be the thing you would patent. ps. I don't regret not patenting anything." That's really not how patents work, and looking at the repo, a second year CS student could do the same really. I don't see anything that c…

It seems. It looks like very few HN posters compares actual source code or even open GitHub (C# / C++).

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#547

Post by MaulingMonkey »

LockAndLol wrote: post #388
doublerabbit wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Microsoft is serious about supporting open source Microsoft isn’t serious about supporting open source at all. It’s just a gimmicky ploy to get users back from Linux to Windows.

And it's working. Linux users are even excited about WSL, cross-platform C#, Microsoft in a VM being called Linux native, github being bought, etc. Linux users aren't more principled or anything than windows users. I'd go as far and say that people just want free stuff and some are willing to put more effort into it. We have no higher standards or morals and are no better than the windows or mac crowd.

It's working both ways, fortunately.

Yes, I get to use Linux tools from Windows, helping keep me on Windows.

But it also means I'm more likely to build/test/fix my junk on Linux, helping me reduce my absolute and pre-existing dependency on Windows.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#548

Post by thePunisher »

kgwxd wrote: post #540
thePunisher wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be very difficult since there would be prior art.

They don't have to win the case, just the power of fear.

The prior art is so obvious that it wouldn't create any fear, merely a mild distraction at best.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#549

Post by bencollier49 »

lliamander wrote: post #508
kayone wrote: post #80

Author here, Because it's sure to come up here is a comment I wrote on Reddit that clarifies somethings, I haven't updated the original article since I'm not sure what the etiquette for updating a highly shared article is. ------ Code being copied isn't an issue. I knew full well what it meant to release something opensource and I don't regret it one bit. What was copied with no credit is the foundation of the projec…

What license did you release AppGet under? Almost every open source license at a very minimum requires that credit be given to the original authors. Arguably they are in a situation of legal liability (IANAL). You don't strike me as the kind of person that would litigate such things, but I would like to think that if the right people at Microsoft became aware of such a liability, they might choose to give you credit…

https://github.com/appget/appget/blob/master/LICENSE

Apache 2.0 by the looks of things.

Interesting question would be whether WinGet is a "derivative work" of AppGet.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#550

Post by jonhohle »

lysium wrote: post #221
jonhohle wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MacPorts (né DarwinPorts) was created by Apple engineers long before the App Store existed. IMHO it’s superior to Homebrew in just about every way, existed long before Homebrew and targets the same audience (unlike the App Store which is targeting a very different population). If you haven’t looked at MP lately, it’s worth reviewing.

I’ve just switched from MP to HomeBrew. I’m interested in why do you think MP is superior?

It includes a lot of Unixy “deep cuts” that aren’t in homebrew, it doesn’t stretch an unrelated analogy into its own jargon (brew, cask, etc.), it easily allows variants of builds when the defaults won’t do, it stays sandboxed in its own namespace by default, etc.

The original problem the brew developers seemed to have with MacPorts (no binary distribution) is now resolved and MP retains all of the flexibility of a source-based package manager.

I also “like” sudoing package installation/removal of system packages. It’s no different from any other Unix package manager. If I’m the only user, I can chown /opt/local Or install to my home directory and run MP without sudo.

Post reply on HN