Microsoft Moves Ahead With Renaming "GVFS" Project To "VFS For Git"

[reavertm]

As for questions about FUSE implementation, there will be none due to syscalls induced performance penalties. Microsoft stated this in github issue created to track project rename. You can learn there as well that this VfsForGit requires Team Foundation Server with related extension to run. There is also Linux support related github issue, where they seem at least welcoming the idea of Linux support. So doesn't sound very EEE to me.

[Weasel]

And yet who's doing it? It's not MS, it's not me, it's not you, it's not -anybody-...

The definition of open source is not reliant on people's whims, so the questions make no sense and are irrelevant.

And you can bet your last dollar MS already knew.

No, they did not and couldn't care less. You can do it. You just don't want to. Nothing stops you, so stop being lazy and demand it from others? Sheesh.

The only way to believe what you say is to assume that MS is totally fucking retarded and has no clue at all what they are doing, but they do whether you like it or not.

Obviously they aren't retarded. They would be totally fucking retarded to put effort into porting this for free to a competitor. Basically that's what you're asking from Microsoft, to port it for free to your platform which happens to compete with theirs. The fact that it's open source is good already. Microsoft is not a Linux charity.

They might port it if it's deemed necessary for Azure or whatever they're using Linux for. But until then, it's enough they don't stop you from doing it, so go ahead and do it if you really want it.

[duby229]

The definition of open source is not reliant on people's whims, so the questions make no sense and are irrelevant.

No, they did not and couldn't care less. You can do it. You just don't want to. Nothing stops you, so stop being lazy and demand it from others? Sheesh.

Obviously they aren't retarded. They would be totally fucking retarded to put effort into porting this for free to a competitor. Basically that's what you're asking from Microsoft, to port it for free to your platform which happens to compete with theirs. The fact that it's open source is good already. Microsoft is not a Linux charity.

They might port it if it's deemed necessary for Azure or whatever they're using Linux for. But until then, it's enough they don't stop you from doing it, so go ahead and do it if you really want it.

You can think whatever you want, but MS is a corporation and Apple already proved beyond any doubt what corporations use open source for. I mean there already is precedence.

[Weasel]

Guess what, most opensource projects probably don't have a so huge mess of code like Windows as they prune away the bullshit as time passes to keep the code maintainable (much to the dismay of crappy programmers like Weasel), so they don't need this addon to work on their codebase.

That's why most opensource projects are laughable and attract the shitty opinions of non-programmer hipsters like you right? They'll forever be in the shadows of "huge mess" behemoths because they'll keep dying and reincarnating while the behemoth charges full steam ahead.

The Linux kernel doesn't "prune" old syscalls either, so really not a single successful and large open source project ever follows your shitty principles. Clearly facts aren't on your side. (and by successful I mean that in a very big way, not tolerant of crap with 5% market share or less).

[Weasel]

You can think whatever you want, but MS is a corporation and Apple already proved beyond any doubt what corporations use open source for. I mean there already is precedence.

Using Apple as an example to anything is anti-logic. Apple is a company that screws users over with price gouging and other practice. I mean, they got so successful (in terms of cash) and with all those resources, still have a pitiful market share *everywhere*, should tell you all there is about the quality of their software.

That's a lesson for starshipeleven to learn as well. Probably how his vision of a "successful" project ends up as: with massive amounts of resources pulled into it and still failing to grasp relevant market share in any area, or be better than the competition (Windows).

[duby229]

Using Apple as an example to anything is anti-logic. Apple is a company that screws users over with price gouging and other practice. I mean, they got so successful (in terms of cash) and with all those resources, still have a pitiful market share *everywhere*, should tell you all there is about the quality of their software.

That's a lesson for starshipeleven to learn as well. Probably how his vision of a "successful" project ends up as: with massive amounts of resources pulled into it and still failing to grasp relevant market share in any area, or be better than the competition (Windows).

I like how you use the words "price gouging" in the same sentence where you imply MS doesn't do it.... 200$ retail.... Lets not even begin to discuss OEM contracts and how has been proven beyond any doubt many times to employ anti-trust tactics... Or about how they prop up unprofitible businesses with money from other businesses and try to make it look like it was legit through the use of laundering.... Facts are facts....

[Weasel]

I like how you use the words "price gouging" in the same sentence where you imply MS doesn't do it.... 200$ retail.... Lets not even begin to discuss OEM contracts and how has been proven beyond any doubt many times to employ anti-trust tactics... Or about how they prop up unprofitible businesses with money from other businesses and try to make it look like it was legit through the use of laundering.... Facts are facts....

When did I imply MS doesn't do it? I said that's the only reason Apple has success in terms of revenue (not market share). You'd be blind or plain ignorant to claim that's the only reason Microsoft is successful.

I mean... Apple sell you like 32GB of flash memory for their stupid iPhones at least 4 to 5 times more expensive than a brand that actually makes flash media (e.g. Sandisk), when Apple don't even manufacture it. Talk about a joke of users fanboys they have.

[duby229]

When did I imply MS doesn't do it? I said that's the only reason Apple has success in terms of revenue (not market share). You'd be blind or plain ignorant to claim that's the only reason Microsoft is successful.

I mean... Apple sell you like 32GB of flash memory for their stupid iPhones at least 4 to 5 times more expensive than a brand that actually makes flash media (e.g. Sandisk), when Apple don't even manufacture it. Talk about a joke of users fanboys they have.

Ummm, Windows phone anyone? Just ask Nokia....

[Vistaus]

You think I'm out of touch? Really? The real question is since when is open source equal to MS? I think you guys are the ones out of touch.

MS is really upping their game in the open source world. Even an open source Windows might be a reality some day: https://www.wired.com/2015/04/micros...tely-possible/

[Vistaus]

I like how you use the words "price gouging" in the same sentence where you imply MS doesn't do it.... 200$ retail.... Lets not even begin to discuss OEM contracts and how has been proven beyond any doubt many times to employ anti-trust tactics... Or about how they prop up unprofitible businesses with money from other businesses and try to make it look like it was legit through the use of laundering.... Facts are facts....

Yes, MS is also a price gouge when it comes to their Surface line-up, BUT the difference is that you don't have to buy a Surface product. In fact, you can buy a $35 laptop on Amazon and use Windows. Sure, it'd run like crap, but the point is that it's possible. Apple is a very different price gouge as you have to have Apple hardware in order to run macOS. Yes, there are Hackintoshes but that's not something the average user would buy and use and even if you do, you're still very limited as you can only use hardware that's supported by macOS. Windows supports nearly all kinds of hardware, so you can buy whatever you want.
Sure, the Windows license might be overpriced, but it's still cheaper to buy decent hardware and a Windows license than to buy Apple hardware. In fact, not even diehard Apple fans will deny the fact that Apple hardware is expensive (they will claim it's not overpriced though, but they won't deny the fact that Windows hardware, with the exception of the Surface line-up, is much better bang for the buck IF that's what you're after).
So no, MS is a different kind of price gouge.