Git 2.1 To Further Mainline Windows Support Patches

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Git 2.1 To Further Mainline Windows Support Patches

The Git 2.1.0-rc0 release was tagged on Sunday that provides a wide assortment of improvements, new features, and bug-fixes for the Git revision control system...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTc1MDk

[KellyClowers]

Mainlining the Windows support patches, eh? Personally I would avoid injecting any patches into my bloodstream, especially Windows patches, but that's just me :-P

[randomizer]

Mainlining the Windows support patches, eh? Personally I would avoid injecting any patches into my bloodstream, especially Windows patches, but that's just me :-P

Most of them just look like improvements to filesystem path handling.

[Luke_Wolf]

Mainlining the Windows support patches, eh? Personally I would avoid injecting any patches into my bloodstream, especially Windows patches, but that's just me :-P

Oh yes because we should clearly not support windows users with our software. That'll show them, we should force all those windows software devs to use Team Foundation Server, and all sorts of other proprietary software. That way if they ever decide to look at a FOSS OS they will be working with totally unfamiliar software and be a stranger in a strange land, which means they'll just go back to windows where they clearly belong.

Or how about we don't be asses and recognize that if we're going to get people to switch they need to be able to use software that they're familiar with and want to use under FOSS OSes, and that a large part of that is making FOSS software better and advertise it so that people are more likely to use it.

[Azpegath]

Oh yes because we should clearly not support windows users with our software. That'll show them, we should force all those windows software devs to use Team Foundation Server, and all sorts of other proprietary software. That way if they ever decide to look at a FOSS OS they will be working with totally unfamiliar software and be a stranger in a strange land, which means they'll just go back to windows where they clearly belong.

Or how about we don't be asses and recognize that if we're going to get people to switch they need to be able to use software that they're familiar with and want to use under FOSS OSes, and that a large part of that is making FOSS software better and advertise it so that people are more likely to use it.

It was a joke. Relax.

http://sv.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mainlining

[brosis]

Oh yes because we should clearly not support windows users with our software. That'll show them, we should force all those windows software devs to use Team Foundation Server, and all sorts of other proprietary software. That way if they ever decide to look at a FOSS OS they will be working with totally unfamiliar software and be a stranger in a strange land, which means they'll just go back to windows where they clearly belong.

Or how about we don't be asses and recognize that if we're going to get people to switch they need to be able to use software that they're familiar with and want to use under FOSS OSes, and that a large part of that is making FOSS software better and advertise it so that people are more likely to use it.

Wrong. They do not switch for the sake of switch. They switch because of the reasons! Software being more maintainable, more predictable, having transparent costs, features and so on.
If they do not find this differences, they will not bother. This is called advantages.

If you build software that runs on Windows, then there is no reason to use anything different than Windows. Millions of people use Firefox under Windows. That way, Firefox is more likely to support Windows. Tell me why?!
Isn't there enough evidence that microsoft has been killing compilers, browsers, office suits, anti-malware sofware, music players an so on? Why do you think Valve is making a switch to SteamOS?

Also, if there is still a thin chance of users trying to change a base OS from windows, even if the software they use is also present on windows, they will still be forced to learn differences and nuances that is Linux specific. This may be good, this may be bad, but this is always one thing, no matter what - a time consuming process, a disadvantage.

So with your approach, you just eliminate the advantages of wasting time learning the different underlying OS. With your approach, much much less people will even consider trying, and they gain virtually nothing except core OS features.

Build software that is incompatible with proprietary OS. Force people to switch to open ecosystems. Build value to this systems, instead improving the proprietary! Because exactly this proprietary OS will do everything to eliminate alternatives from itself in next opportunity, and you are actually harming open stack by stripping its possible additional value. So many people here dualbooting windows for few more FPS - this exactly the crap proprietary is doing and until people understand this and use it against itself, nothing will change in regard of with low market segment of open stack.

[Luke_Wolf]

It was a joke. Relax.

http://sv.urbandictionary.com/define...erm=mainlining

Ah well my apologies then, I don't run in those circles, so I was unaware of that term particular definition of the term.

[Luke_Wolf]

Wrong. They do not switch for the sake of switch. They switch because of the reasons! Software being more maintainable, more predictable, having transparent costs, features and so on.
If they do not find this differences, they will not bother. This is called advantages.

Of course people will switch for reasons as opposed to the sake of switching, however I think you'll find that support for their favorite applications falls under the list of Pros for most people, and not having that support as a con.

Now if you're the market leader you can keep market share by ensuring that your products are completely incompatible with everything else, thereby locking people in, If however you're not you benefit from being as open as possible and not creating a lock-in ecosystem.

If you build software that runs on Windows, then there is no reason to use anything different than Windows. Millions of people use Firefox under Windows. That way, Firefox is more likely to support Windows. Tell me why?!
Isn't there enough evidence that microsoft has been killing compilers, browsers, office suits, anti-malware sofware, music players an so on? Why do you think Valve is making a switch to SteamOS?

So what you're saying is that applications are all that matters and that the operating system itself doesn't provide any advantages or disadvantages to users? Or in short you're saying that there's no advantage to running Linux *the os* over Windows?

Also, if there is still a thin chance of users trying to change a base OS from windows, even if the software they use is also present on windows, they will still be forced to learn differences and nuances that is Linux specific. This may be good, this may be bad, but this is always one thing, no matter what - a time consuming process, a disadvantage.

Of course they're going to have to learn the differences yes, but by not allowing the user to run their favorite apps you're compounding the differences adding more disadvantages to switching to an alternative OS. This is why for example a gamer might really like linux, they might even have it as a secondary OS or run it in a virtual machine, but if they can't run their games they won't be getting rid of windows.

So with your approach, you just eliminate the advantages of wasting time learning the different underlying OS. With your approach, much much less people will even consider trying, and they gain virtually nothing except core OS features.

because the core OS features definitely aren't things the kinds of people who have enough technical competence to install an OS on their own or would look into alternative OSes care about. Obviously Linux provides no real advantages over Windows, clearly none whatsoever.

Build software that is incompatible with proprietary OS. Force people to switch to open ecosystems. Build value to this systems, instead improving the proprietary! Because exactly this proprietary OS will do everything to eliminate alternatives from itself in next opportunity, and you are actually harming open stack by stripping its possible additional value. So many people here dualbooting windows for few more FPS - this exactly the crap proprietary is doing and until people understand this and use it against itself, nothing will change in regard of with low market segment of open stack.

So we're going to force people to switch to open ecosystems by forming a closed lock-in ecosystem against a monopoly vendor, as opposed to by bridging the gap and seducing them bit by bit into the open ecosystem, until they wake up and realize they're running a full FOSS environment. Please do tell me how that works out for you.

[brosis]

Of course people will switch for reasons as opposed to the sake of switching, however I think you'll find that support for their favorite applications falls under the list of Pros for most people, and not having that support as a con.
<sip>

They will NOT.
Windows has open_application1, open_application2, runs closedapplicated3 and closedapplicated4 natively.
Linux has open_application1, open_application2, runs closedapplication3 at decreased framerate and does not run closedapplication4.

By giving out equal support to open_application1-2 to Windows, you yourself are increasing its value and undesire to switch.
Isn't it obvious?

They just publish more incompatibilities into closedapplicationX, they don't even need to bother about open_applicationX!
In companies, they just evaluate available software, and given the fact that git now can do about same thing that on Linux, there is no point in Linux now. Windows can do it already, and much more (that Linux - can't, and its all proprietary).

Now, if open_applicationX wouldn't even exist, and windows user would have to install closed_application1/2 and pay for them (classic closed model), THEN there would be a difference.

Ofc Linux provides more than windows internally - its an open Kernel&Userspace ecosystem with own culture.

Stop improving crap. You are not building bridges, you are integrating yourself into proprietary system making it stronger. End of story.