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

Windows Terminal Source Code

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 214 posts

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#201

Post by babylonunited »

Maursault wrote: post #190
tambourine_man wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And that is expected, because graphics takes up a lot of space, so this comparison is not intellectually honest. But I'd like to see you try running just the "Cocoa/UIKit, Quartz, Core*, drivers, etc" without the kernel and BSD userland. Without the GUI, we still have an operating system that is entirely OSS. With only the GUI, we have nothing that works.

> But I'd like to see you try running just the "Cocoa/UIKit, Quartz, Core*, drivers, etc" without the kernel and BSD userland

That's the point we can't because they are binaries (with strict EULA at that) but make it open source I can guarantee they will be ported to Linux within a year :D

> Without the GUI, we still have an operating system that is entirely OSS. With only the GUI, we have nothing that works.

entirely OSS operating system that lacked hardware supports to be useful, what is the point over something like Linux. Even FreeBSD supports more hardware.

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#202

Post by babylonunited »

Maursault wrote: post #189
babylonunited wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of value comes with the Frameworks, with them you get at least source compatibility with macOS and without them the core operating system will just be another Unix operating system without much hardware supports. So I personally put much more weight on the Frameworks over XNU and BSD userland. There is a reason GNUStep is less dead than PureDarwin :D

That's fine, but the frameworks are not installed with macOS. In order to get them, one must sign up for a free developer account, at least, and install Xcode, which is massive, but I'm not sure how you can say it is part of the OS when most people never install it.

The system frameworks e.g. Cocoa, Foundation, CoreServices come with every installation as binaries. These are the building blocks of the GUI and mac default apps. They act as the abstractions to the underlying BSD and Mach system and basically what define a macOS system. [1][2]

My point is I put more value on the closed source parts more than the core OS and even the GUI itself. If these were to be open sourced, practically means possibility of source compatibility (even binary compatibility) on Linux and that is huge deal for the public. On the other hand, I'm not sure how can anyone besides compiler and driver developers can benefits from Darwin being open source.

[1] https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ma... [2]https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ma...

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#203

Post by what-the-grump »

jiggawatts wrote: post #122
what-the-grump wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just FUD? You are running an operating system made by Microsoft, they could monitor how often you click your mouse just like every website on the planet at this point but dont. Boolean telemetry on feature use is somehow the end of the world? Get out.

Look at it this way: PowerShell sends telemetry. The Terminal in which it runs sends Telemetry. The "dotnet core" framework PowerShell uses in turn also sends telemetry. The PowerShell modules you load (from Microsoft!) send telemetry. In effect, ONE application has at least four independent sets of telemetry. This is the console , the kind that you would use on servers . High-security servers in DMZs. Servers hostin…

Why is any of this an issue if they are collecting actual metrics on their own software?

I have plenty of environments that run whitelist only, you can always go that route and not think about any vendor, any software not getting out.

And stuff like this is just inflammatory:

>Similarly, some Windows telemetry uses "microsft.com" instead of "microsoft.com" to bypess firewall rules blocking the latter.

Do you think we'd just block *.microsoft.com over their telemetry domain, microsft.com? Half the planet is in O365.

And on the flip side you know we'd all block telemetry.microsoft.com just because, it wouldn't matter what they collect and not think twice, then turn around sell it to people as "we are adding security".

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#204

Post by [deleted] »

tambourine_man wrote: post #172
Maursault wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#205

Post by tambourine_man »

Maursault wrote: post #190
tambourine_man wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And that is expected, because graphics takes up a lot of space, so this comparison is not intellectually honest. But I'd like to see you try running just the "Cocoa/UIKit, Quartz, Core*, drivers, etc" without the kernel and BSD userland. Without the GUI, we still have an operating system that is entirely OSS. With only the GUI, we have nothing that works.

>because graphics takes up a lot of space, so this comparison is not intellectually honest

I've written “by line count”. It's more code, lots of it, not binary size.

>Without the GUI, we still have an operating system that is entirely OSS. With only the GUI, we have nothing that works.

You're discussing merits, I've been arguing about an absolute value: lines of code.

But if you want to discuss merit, here's another objective data: Darwin has been open source for 20 years. No one runs it. Because all the value is at the top layers and lower closed source ones. See the trouble folks at Asahi Linux are going through to reverse engineer the M1's GPU graphic driver.

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#206

Post by CoolCold »

nyolfen wrote: post #66
dpool wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're probably already aware of this, but just in case you're not (or someone else reads this that's curious), running tmux (src: https://github.com/tmux/tmux/wiki ) inside alacritty will give you tab functionality along with the ability to horizontally/vertically split and a host of other fun features.

yes, i'm still a tab clicker though :)

Wezterm then

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#207

Post by tambourine_man »

babylonunited wrote: post #202
Maursault wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine, but the frameworks are not installed with macOS. In order to get them, one must sign up for a free developer account, at least, and install Xcode, which is massive, but I'm not sure how you can say it is part of the OS when most people never install it.

The system frameworks e.g. Cocoa, Foundation, CoreServices come with every installation as binaries. These are the building blocks of the GUI and mac default apps. They act as the abstractions to the underlying BSD and Mach system and basically what define a macOS system. [1][2] My point is I put more value on the closed source parts more than the core OS and even the GUI itself. If these were to be open sourced, pra…

Yeah, I almost spit my coffee.

>>…but the frameworks are not installed with macOS

To paraphrase Maursault, he has no idea what he's talking about and we shouldn't dignify him with an answer.

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#208

Post by rbanffy »

dmurray wrote: post #161
rbanffy wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? It's not something that gives Windows a competitive edge and it's very unlikely it could be ported to another platform.

It might have vulnerabilities that a motivated attacker could discover by reading the source code. It might contain copied code that Microsoft doesn't have the right to distribute. Not saying these are good reasons, but in a company whose main products are closed-source software, I'd expect some PM to make these objections.

> It might have vulnerabilities that a motivated attacker could discover by reading the source code.

I'm sure the flipside of that, that lots of people looking at the code will uncover the vulnerability and fix it, more than compensate for that.

> It might contain copied code that Microsoft doesn't have the right to distribute.

This is why opensourcing an existing codebase can be complicated, but, if you start something managing the licenses of included code, then it's not a huge issue.

> in a company whose main products are closed-source software, I'd expect some PM to make these objections.

I'm sure they'll never opensource Exchange, SharePoint, or SQL Server.

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#209

Post by rbanffy »

DHowett wrote: post #108
rbanffy wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Not this one. It's too much work to test everything. A much more concise can be used from: curl -q http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/multimedia/animation/vt100-animation/torturetest.vt On a real terminal, you'll be able to see even the smooth scrolling function that AFAIK no windowed terminal implements.

Whoa, thanks! It looks like I’ve got some reading to do.

Next steps would be supporting Tektronix and ReGIS graphics.

Sixel graphics are a terrible idea.

Re: Windows Terminal Source Code

#210

Post by naikrovek »

naikrovek wrote: post #119
Spooky23 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know what you’re sending up? With a website, you can control what you do where. If your terminal client is sending stuff to the sky, you never know what it’s actually doing.

you can see the exact data collected, what are you talking about?

yes. Diagnostics Data Viewer[0]. you can use that tool to see what data is collected and even delete it all from Microsoft's servers.

it's all plain JSON, too.

but people still bitch endlessly about "spying" and foam at the mouth (literally) while they yell about it, acting like they know everything about the situation.

[0] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/privacy/diagnostic-...

Post reply on HN