Live data from Hacker News

Windows Terminal Source Code

github.com

171–180 of 214 posts

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>to create an essentially perfect terminal/console Because they thought terminals are outdated and no one cares about them or/and it isn't a flashy enough addition for marketing.

Casey has shown how few resources it really requires.

yes, Casey has shown that, and I am thankful for it, and for him, because I didn't know it was as easy as it is. It turns out that a lot of people didn't know it could be so easy.

The approach Casey took is very obvious to game developers, and very foreign to other people, I would think. We're all still so poisoned by OOP and the normalization of unnecessary complexity that straight-forward solutions often don't occur to us.

Casey's misstep here is the same misstep that many of us make, and have made; the assumption that everyone should know something or understand it just as well. It is often hard for an individual to believe that something which they find obvious could be so out of reach of another person.

One might respond to that with "A Microsoft employee should know this kind of thing," and to that I would ask where they're supposed to get this "Microsoft people should know" knowledge. Where's this "Microsoft should know" academy? What is the list of things that an employee of a company like Microsoft should always know in order to be forgiven by the argumentative HN patron? There isn't a place for them to go, of course, they can only rely on their experience and their colleagues to help them do their work, the same as everyone else, and every person, team, and company has blind spots. Every last one.

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s orders of magnitude more closed source than open on macOS. But yeah, all software should be open source.

I probably shouldn't dignify this with a response, but yeah, you don't know what you're talking about. The kernel XNU is OSS. The BSD userland is OSS. This means that technically, the operating system is open source. If you go by file count, there is far more OSS in macOS than not. But if you want to go by file sizes, then the only closed source parts of macOS, again, are the GUI, the Quartz Compositor, and a lot of…

Cocoa/UIKit, Quartz, Core*, drivers, etc are all closed source and much larger (by line count) than the kernel and BSD stuff. You can even throw WebKit and LLVM (which are humongous) in the mix and it won't change the balance.

But since I can't link to them and neither can you, we're just going to keep saying the other one is wrong in a web forum.

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Casey's somewhat caustic exasperation can be a major distraction at times, especially if you are exposed to it the first time you listen to him. But I have to say, his frustration is justified. He has valid complaints about almost the entire industry and educational system, so it's not just directed at Microsoft, and certainly not just at the individual grunts working there (almost all of use are grunts). I d…

> why hasn't Microsoft leadership, running a multi-billion dollar company for decades, already devoted appropriate resources to create an essentially perfect terminal/console, something so discrete and simple and fixed in feature-set? competing priorities, lack of customer interest, lack of need, desire to keep backwards compatibility, additional support workload, probable belief that they had a good enough terminal,…

No post body was provided.

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#174
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They emulate ANSI control sequences originally intended for dumb terminals and the teletype bell.

Which were never a thing in MS-DOS, Windows, OS/2, Amiga, Atari,...

There were products like Concurrent DOS, Windows Terminal Server…

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Casey has shown how few resources it really requires.

yes, Casey has shown that, and I am thankful for it, and for him, because I didn't know it was as easy as it is. It turns out that a lot of people didn't know it could be so easy. The approach Casey took is very obvious to game developers, and very foreign to other people, I would think. We're all still so poisoned by OOP and the normalization of unnecessary complexity that straight-forward solutions often don't occu…

I think the best part of Casey’s critique is pointing out that trends indicate that those blind spots are only getting bigger. Individual/personal corrections are absolutely possible, but they’re not going to stop this accelerating blind spot growth problem (especially if just as many individuals are turned off by the tenor of the critique as are convinced by its substance — this aspect is where most of my many qualifications about his critique come from).

Personally, even taking his caustic critique as given, he’s more criticizing MS than the MS developers. If you know Casey’s opinions on FAANG companies, you’d know that when he says what a MS employee “should” know, it does not come from a position of holding MS in high esteem. He means, “how is this multi-billion dollar company getting it so wrong” not “how are these pitiable developers letting down the honorable MS corporation”.

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#176
post #174
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which were never a thing in MS-DOS, Windows, OS/2, Amiga, Atari,...

There were products like Concurrent DOS, Windows Terminal Server…

None of them had anything to do with UNIX terminals.

Ironically you even list one that is a RDP server, completly unrelated to CLI.

Random Google search without diving into details?

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to clarify, I do not hate MSFT. I just don't have the ability to implement such things and just curious whether it is feasible (in reasonable time) or not. If the actual code is not available maybe someone can fork the Terminal code? Or if that does not get around the legal stuffs, maybe take the idea and go from there?

You cannot use Casey's code (GPL) in Terminal (MIT). But he has explained his model. Issue is iirc what he proposed and how Terminal works significantly differ.

Yes, I’m skeptical that WT will incorporate his design, as it is a big design change. There’s no way to just “plug it in” somewhere, without replacing the beating heart of WT. It would be great if they did that though, and I’d applaud them for it.

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#178
post #176
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were products like Concurrent DOS, Windows Terminal Server…

None of them had anything to do with UNIX terminals. Ironically you even list one that is a RDP server, completly unrelated to CLI. Random Google search without diving into details?

I worked with Concurrent DOS about 25 years ago.

I had heard of Windows Terminal server but I’ve barely touched a Windows computer in 20+ years.

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terminals should not be sending telemetry. Imagine if every .exe and every .dll did that! That's not OK!

Why not? I want the features I use to be maintained. I am dead tired of advanced features being removed from applications I use. With web applications every single round trip to the server is logged, inherently, and there are far more than one round trip to the server than there are page loads, I assure you. So it's ok there? "oh that's just logging, not telemetry." That's what telemetry is! Google and Facebook track…

xterm, or urxvt, or bash, or nginx, never removed any advanced features, and they managed to do it without telemetry, and did it over the past few decades. amazing, how is it possible

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot use Casey's code (GPL) in Terminal (MIT). But he has explained his model. Issue is iirc what he proposed and how Terminal works significantly differ.

Yes, I’m skeptical that WT will incorporate his design, as it is a big design change. There’s no way to just “plug it in” somewhere, without replacing the beating heart of WT. It would be great if they did that though, and I’d applaud them for it.

Apparently they did and in retro-perspective it was indeed that simple. (Simple as in they made their own custom renderer afterall.)

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/case-study-how-ma...

Post reply on HN