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

Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 349 posts

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#191

Post by zie »

jrm4 wrote: post #5

Microsoft's days as a 'primary' desktop operating system are numbered. The OP doesn't seem to understand this, but even Microsoft itself does, which is why most of its major moves the past few years haven't been improving its own desktop, but positioning itself to control "open source" the best it can. More people within the MS ecosystem should understand this.

I agree with everything but the "controlling open source" bit. I think what they are actually doing is trying to create new platforms they can control, because that's a great business model. Open source, via Github is just a small piece of the pie they want.

Think MS teams/Office365, Linkedin, Gaming, Github, etc. These are platforms they are interested in controlling and deriving revenue from.

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#192

Post by denimnerd42 »

naikrovek wrote: post #180
userbinator wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's Microsoft being (the new, not the old) Microsoft... they seriously fucked up the MSDN documentation when it was migrated to docs.microsoft.com, so I'm not surprised that a similar thing happened to the blogs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20351358

they knew they would and they advertised that fact, and made blog and content owners migrate their stuff if they wanted it kept. many chose not to. those are the people you should be angry with.

that's quite a take.. expecting previous article writers to manually migrate their stuff is just as good as killing it.

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#193

Post by labrador »

a-dub wrote: post #189
labrador wrote: post #18

This what is called in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy "All or Nothing Thinking." Microsoft is a for-profit company. It is pro open-source when it helps them and closed source also when it helps them. I like the new Microsoft which has open sourced a lot of stuff. It's way better than the old closed source regime.

yeah the acceptance of oss is cool but they still ship a lot of weird software and technology... which is fine assuming you can avoid it... but sometimes you can't and then it becomes torturous.

A big reason for that is their commitment to compatibility to past software. They kind of have to because they have people all over the world using old Microsoft software. They finally were just able to kill IE6 and Japan is screaming about it. So they ship a lot of ship a lot of weird software and technology in your words. Google just kills things when they get bored with it. Microsoft can't do that.

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#194

Post by manigandham »

naikrovek wrote: post #180
userbinator wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's Microsoft being (the new, not the old) Microsoft... they seriously fucked up the MSDN documentation when it was migrated to docs.microsoft.com, so I'm not surprised that a similar thing happened to the blogs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20351358

they knew they would and they advertised that fact, and made blog and content owners migrate their stuff if they wanted it kept. many chose not to. those are the people you should be angry with.

Or they could've just migrated it for them, and kept everything running.

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#195

Post by delta_p_delta_x »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #121
jmpeax wrote: post #117

Microsoft's own machine learning repo "Project azua" ( https://github.com/microsoft/project-azua ) runs on JAX. Let that sink in.

At this point Windows as a primary development platform is essentially dead. With a few exceptions (DX) nearly everyone writes code for Unix/Linux and then cross-compiles for Windows. Windows is the afterthought. Let that sink in...

> With a few exceptions (DX)

'Let me just exclude an entire multi-billion-dollar industry to cherry-pick examples to make my point sound stronger.'

Yeah, no; Windows isn't going away.

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#197

Post by SCLeo »

kretaceous wrote: post #182

I mostly agree on the VSCode part. They should put it up front in the README, homepage and maybe a info modal/badge whenever a user installs said extension. But genuinely asking, how else would you 'label' VSCode? "A free and open-source code editor with some optional components that are proprietary"?

Same as Google Chrome. No one claims Google Chrome is open source nowadays.

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#198

Post by a-dub »

labrador wrote: post #193
a-dub wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah the acceptance of oss is cool but they still ship a lot of weird software and technology... which is fine assuming you can avoid it... but sometimes you can't and then it becomes torturous.

A big reason for that is their commitment to compatibility to past software. They kind of have to because they have people all over the world using old Microsoft software. They finally were just able to kill IE6 and Japan is screaming about it. So they ship a lot of ship a lot of weird software and technology in your words. Google just kills things when they get bored with it. Microsoft can't do that.

that's the classic excuse. but even azure, which was built from the ground up, is pretty weird compared to its major competitors.

also, apple showed us how to do this. build the right thing for today and use virtualization to support yesterday until it can be updated. all software is living these days anyhow.

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#199

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

manigandham wrote: post #196

The comments here showcase why webapps and Electron/webview shells are so common now. Maybe WebAssembly and its up and coming runtimes can finally some of this mess.

I disagree. Cross-compiling has nothing to do with why Electron is common. The browser is the runtime that currently fixes this mess. WebAssembly would need a runtime matching current browser runtimes to be a real contender, and the best choice here is... a browser. So now you have electron but it's WebAssembly, which isn't significant enough to make a dent in this mess.

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#200

Post by thomasjudge »

labrador wrote: post #74
unnouinceput wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, you and the article's author are either forgiven or seeing the best in people. Me, on the other hand, who lived the Microsoft with their shady dealings in Bill's / Ballmer's era, I remember their crushing on OEM's to not allow even a shred of openness in their systems. Only because of shifting in developer's in favor of Apple's / Google's Microsoft changed the tune with "Microsoft loves Linux". Bleah! I have no l…

Gates and Balmer are long gone and it's no longer the same company. If they only loved money, they wouldn't be amenable to their workers unionizing. "CWA, Microsoft Announce Labor Neutrality Agreement" https://cwa-union.org/news/releases/cwa-microsoft-announce-l... Sorry to be this way, but I'm refreshing my memory about CBT today: Over-generalization: Make a comprehensive, negative conclusion that is beyond the curr…

Feel compelled to repost

https://www.hanselman.com/blog/microsoft-killed-my-pappy

Post reply on HN