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

[starshipeleven]

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.

Yeah, the behemoth that could not provide a decent competitor to Linux on server, networking devices (by their own admission when they designed switches for Azure), embedded, automotive, machine learning, HPC and mobile, that is stuck on the same market that it monopolized by sheer luck decades ago. That is also getting beaten senseless in the console market too, by a device that has basically the same exact hardware but is running some proprietary fork of FreeBSD.

Yeah Windows is a mess totally because being a massive mess is better, not because they are maintained by a huge monopolist that can and must dump a lot of cash into maintaining a massive horrible mess because it's the only thing they can do to not fade into irrelevance.

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.

Ths is why I said you are a crappy programmer. The linux kernel sheds driver API/ABI every other week, and that's where most bloat and baroque bullshit in a kernel happens, not in syscall interface that does not really need to change that much if at all because it's doing basic stuff.

That said, the kernel is just a part of the whole OS. Ever heard about our lord and saviour Qt? They aren't really 100% compatible between major versions yet they are an industry standard. Most userspace middleware stuff both on Windows and Linux breaks some things between major versions because they simply can't go the Microsoft Way (tm) as they don't have the budget nor the desperation to deal with massive and bloated codebase like them.

EDIT: what I like to point out is that there is a middle ground between "not breaking anything ever" and "breaking shit every minor revision". Most opensource software does break only between major revisions, which means once every year or more, and that is normal for most types of software. What is not normal is to break every minor revision, like GNOME or GTK does.

[starshipeleven]

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.

And yet again some proof you are just a crappy programmer, thinking that good code quality or even good products are a thing you need to be successful.

Apple's goal isn't producing good hardware or software, or to have large market share. They exist to make money. Look at the revenue. With a small marketshare and good-looking crap products they are still making as much money as Microsoft is, with just a fraction of the market share in either PC and mobile.

[Weasel]

Yeah, the behemoth that could not provide a decent competitor to Linux on server, networking devices (by their own admission when they designed switches for Azure), embedded, automotive, machine learning, HPC and mobile, that is stuck on the same market that it monopolized by sheer luck decades ago. That is also getting beaten senseless in the console market too, by a device that has basically the same exact hardware but is running some proprietary fork of FreeBSD.

So what's a decent competitor to Linux on the server? Windows is like 2nd place already.

And you're missing the point. Linux server is not much different than Windows in this context. Most sysadmins still use iptables and decades old "cruft". The kernel itself follows Windows' model in half (for userspace) so it becomes a "behemoth" too so I'm not sure what your point is? Yeah the in-kernel interface is not stable so they drop stuff all the time but guess what? Servers don't give a shit about drivers, usually, as long as the basic ones (especially storage) work.

On the other hand it's a known fact that Linux suffers a LOT on some devices, like craptops, due to lack of (proper) drivers. And that's, again, where Windows is superior (these are facts, sorry), proving again that behemoths are the right way to go. Personally I don't care about craptops though, so to me it's ok.

See, on Windows, stable driver interface = companies write drivers for Windows = Microsoft don't have to = they have drivers now. Companies don't like to write drivers for Linux, especially with unstable interface. Like I said I personally don't care about this, but I know a lot of people whine about it, so... clearly, behemoth wins here. Just logic, sorry.

Yeah Windows is a mess totally because being a massive mess is better, not because they are maintained by a huge monopolist that can and must dump a lot of cash into maintaining a massive horrible mess because it's the only thing they can do to not fade into irrelevance.

Apple has more resources and drops much more stuff than MS on Windows so your logic is invalid. Looks like it's a good allocation of resources to me, unlike Apple's.

Ths is why I said you are a crappy programmer. The linux kernel sheds driver API/ABI every other week, and that's where most bloat and baroque bullshit in a kernel happens, not in syscall interface that does not really need to change that much if at all because it's doing basic stuff.

And Windows changes its internals all the time, only keeps the external interface stable, so your point is what? Zero brain logic.

That said, the kernel is just a part of the whole OS. Ever heard about our lord and saviour Qt? They aren't really 100% compatible between major versions yet they are an industry standard. Most userspace middleware stuff both on Windows and Linux breaks some things between major versions because they simply can't go the Microsoft Way (tm) as they don't have the budget nor the desperation to deal with massive and bloated codebase like them.

Where Linux shines, on the server, they usually don't give a shit about toolkits, so point is invalid.

So that might be why it shines on the server and not desktops, maybe.

You can't just say "Linux is dominating the servers, so here's me using desktop arguments against you", as if you had a point

what I like to point out is that there is a middle ground between "not breaking anything ever" and "breaking shit every minor revision". Most opensource software does break only between major revisions, which means once every year or more, and that is normal for most types of software. What is not normal is to break every minor revision, like GNOME or GTK does.

Once a year is like breaking it every minor revision. Maybe 2 decades would be more reasonable, but it's still bad.

Remember that most sysadmins still use bash practices and scripts from 3 decades ago. If Linux on the server *truly* followed your bullshit vision, it would be dead in the water and we'd suffer with Windows Server dominating that space as well. The fact is that for what the server admins care about, Linux *is* stable and "acts" like Windows (in this context). Bash scripts are central to that, for example. They don't break or rarely do.

So no, your vision is why everything that follows it sinks. Linux is not, only some libraries are, which aren't even popular in servers, lol!

[Weasel]

And yet again some proof you are just a crappy programmer, thinking that good code quality or even good products are a thing you need to be successful.

Apple's goal isn't producing good hardware or software, or to have large market share. They exist to make money. Look at the revenue. With a small marketshare and good-looking crap products they are still making as much money as Microsoft is, with just a fraction of the market share in either PC and mobile.

LOL what a joke. I'm a crappy programmer because I value code quality over money? Man, do you even read what you type? It's like you talk exactly backwards logic.

I don't give a shit if Apple is successful in terms of revenue or profit, already said that. Money was not the topic. Profit does not mean that something is of better quality, what are you, 5 years old? That would mean that Windows is superior to Linux in every way imaginable since it has way more profit and revenue than Linux. It also means that Linux is completely shit since it's "free" and companies like RedHat are a drop in the bucket compared to Microsoft.

Code quality and market share are much more important. Despite the amount of profit and the resources, they still manage to have worse code and market share, due to having stupid visions and goals.

You can't possibly say stupid shit like "Microsoft have market share only due to their massive resources, their code is actually a mess" while I just PROVED YOU WRONG due to Apple in THIS ARGUMENT. Fucking hell. If Microsoft is ONLY successful due to resources and their "behemoth" decision is BAD, then why hasn't Apple surpassed them in market share? They could allocate resources in the same way. They don't surpass anything anywhere, not even on phone market. Such is the anti-behemoth vision.

[intelfx]

The MIT license does not respect the Four Freedoms. This software from Microsoft does not respect the Four Freedoms. Open Source is a marketing tactic, pure and simple, but this is a baby step in the right direction. It's a Good Thing and I'm not complaining.

This is factually wrong. The "MIT licenses" (both of them; the X11 License and the Expat license) are explicitly designated as Free Software licenses by the FSF on their License List.

Actually, the Four Freedoms, as defined by the FSF, do not include the requirement for a program to be licensed under a copyleft license. It is explicitly stated on the page you refer to — have you actually read it?

[kneekoo]

Now I wonder if they're willing to rename their "Azure Sphere"OS to something that doesn't resemble the good old VMware vSphere.

[jacob]

You say one thing and then you say something completely anti to that..... Either MS is supporting open source or they are supplanting it... You can't have it both ways.

To the contrary, it's almost always both ways. The world is not divided neatly into FOSS friends or foes. Most companies have some very anti-FOSS projects and activities and, in parallel with that, almost all of them ALSO support FOSS communities on different projects. Even Oracle does. As for MS, Windows 10 itself, for example, is as far removed from being FOSS friendly as it gets, but at the same time MS develops Iron Python and Iron Ruby, they contribute to the Linux kernel, Git and GHC, they have opensourced previously proprietary software like ASP.NET and Powershell, etc. Apple is the most fanatical proponent of locking things down, but they have also created LLVM, etc. In other words, you should always look at individual projects, not at whose brand it is.

[jacob]

Well, no. If the source code is available and redistribution is licensed under an acknowledged open source license (like the MIT license), then it's Open Source. If it respects the Four Freedoms then it's Free Software. The MIT license does not respect the Four Freedoms. This software from Microsoft does not respect the Four Freedoms. Open Source is a marketing tactic, pure and simple, but this is a baby step in the right direction. It's a Good Thing and I'm not complaining.

Strictly speaking that's true, but in practice the differences between open source and free software are next to irrelevant. "Open Source" has been devised as an alternative name for "Free Software" to avoid ambiguity, not as part of some conspiracy to avoid mentioning freedom as RMS seems to believe. There are some licences recognised by the OSI that don't qualify as free software, but that's basically accidental. In fact the distinction only exists in English, because of the unfortunate dual meaning of "free software". In both French and Czech, for example, everyone just uses the literal translation of "free-as-in-freedom software" which is unambiguous in those languages, and there is no need for an equivalent of "open source" at all.

[bregma]

Actually, the Four Freedoms, as defined by the FSF, do not include the requirement for a program to be licensed under a copyleft license. It is explicitly stated on the page you refer to — have you actually read it?

The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The MIT license does not require the publication of source code. You can distribute your binaries under an MIT license and deny users at least one of the four freedoms.

[bregma]

Strictly speaking that's true, but in practice the differences between open source and free software are next to irrelevant.

Hardly. I currently work in a billion-dollar industry where the lawers scan every line of code we use to make sure it uses an "open source" license not a "free software" license so it doesn't get contaminated. The difference is highly significant to the point where office towers full of lawyers spend many billable hours on the distinction.

"Open Source" has been devised as an alternative name for "Free Software" to avoid ambiguity, not as part of some conspiracy to avoid mentioning freedom as RMS seems to believe.

That's simply not experienced reality. "Open Source" is a marketing gimmick aimed at jowly balding middle managers who want to be "with it" and "dial in" to that trend they read about in CIO magazine while on the john. It's a term made up by ESR while he was stroking his gun barrel and embraced by suits at conferences involving junkets and cocktails and lots of middle aged white men shaking hands and making slide decks with their Microsoft. It's fluff that means business as usual while appearing forward-thinking and progressive, just give me my bonus and lets go out and play the back nine.

I see it every day. The difference is real and it's significant and it means real money.