Code being copied isn't an issue. I knew full well what it meant to release something opensource and I don't regret it one bit. What was copied with no credit is the foundation of the project. How it actually works. If I were the patenting type, this would be the thing you would patent. ps. I don't regret not patenting anything.
And I don't mean the general concept of package/app managers, they have been done a hundred times. If you look at similar projects across OSes, Homebrew, Chocolaty, Scoop, ninite etc; you'll see they all do it in their own way. However, WinGet works pretty much identical to the way AppGet works.
Do you want to know how Microsoft WinGet works? go read the article (https://keivan.io/appget-what-chocolatey-wasnt/) I wrote 2 years ago about how AppGet works.
I'm not even upset they copied me. To me, that's a validation of how sound my idea was. What upsets me is how no credit was given.
I am really sorry this happened to you. On the scale of Microsoft, or even on the scale of what they're putting into this effort, it would have cost approximately nothing to give you an "acquisition" you would have been happy with. If the job didn't work out, they could have given you a fat consulting contract for a year or two. Or they just could have written you a check.
And it would have cost them actual nothing to just treat you with respect. Say how much they loved your work. Credit you publicly as a leader and an inspiration. Arrange a smooth transition for your users.
For what it's worth, I'm glad for you that the job didn't happen. Much better to be far away from people like this.
At least in that instance, there was never anything overtly malicious happening. It was just your garden variety "banality of evil" situation. The existing corporate decision-making structures - that is, the bureaucracy - had no real mechanism to make sure that things like this are handled in an ethical manner. It's really hard to accomplish something that the bureaucracy isn't designed to handle, because that means that it's not really anybody's job to keep that particular ball rolling. So all it takes is one person not really giving a damn (perhaps only because they don't understand why they should) to scupper the whole thing.
If that experience is similar to how these things happen at Microsoft and Apple and IBM, then the problem isn't Microsoft, the problem is American workplace culture, and we have a responsibility to change how we work. Not in reaction to specific instances like this that have already happened, but in anticipation of, and in order to prevent, things like this from happening in the future.
However, Microsoft specifically has a history of being aggressively terrible in exactly this way, which is what I was referring to. For example, the time they talked with a company about an acquisition only to ghost them and totally steal their work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_law...
I think the simpler explanation is that US v Microsoft and other anti-trust action combined with their declining fortunes scared them for a while, causing them to perform goodness. But now that the heat's off and they're on the upswing, they're returning to old patterns.
We'll see which explanation fits better over time. But it was all of two days ago that the Slack CEO, not given to hyperbole, said that Microsoft is "unhealthily preoccupied with killing us": https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270421/slack-ceo-stewar...
So I don't think my view is unreasonable.
Firstly, with the shift to the cloud, cross-platform was inevitably going to become more important - Linux is much loved in the server space.
Secondly, they realised the importance of developers in the shift to the cloud - their cloud, Azure, and also their DevOps tooling, Azure DevOps (and later Github).
Do I think their positive moves were altruistic? No, of course not - they are a corporation, a public one at that, and ultimately must generate money for their stakeholders.
But that doesn't mean their positive moves can't benefit me, or the development community, at the same time.
Honestly, the embrace & extinguish thing became a tired meme long ago; Microsoft are not somehow special in occasionally fucking someone over - every large corporation does this. It doesn't excuse it, of course, but the point is it's not a "Microsoft thing", and it doesn't invalidate all the goodwill they have generated in the past decade or so.
As to the reason for the change I think we're saying the same thing. If they could have snuffed out Linux, they would have. Their ongoing antitrust problems helped prevent that, allowing the Linux ecosystem to flourish. They have since been unable to abuse the power that they no longer have.
Again, time will tell if you're right thinking that Microsoft is merely just as awful as other large companies. But reasonable people can assume that it will be just as bad as before if they regain their power.
This "Andrew" is isolated from everything by multiple levels of bureaucracy and regulations. Even if he wanted to make right, he would've just burned his accumulated clout it vain. Hire as a contractor? No matching position. Write a check? No such budget line item. Give a shout-out? Leave marketing to the marketing dept.
I've also heard it expressed as "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence".
Although in this case I'm not sure organisational incompetence is necessarily a good enough explanation given there are ex-Microsofters in the discussion suggesting that people would actively have been weighing up whether or not to screw over Keivan. (Obviously I have no idea how likely that is to be true either.)
I wouldn't say that. It's a big company thing.
Microsoft doesn't let any open source build of VS Code access the VS Code Marketplace. Heavily reduces the benefit of VS Code being open source when you can't use any extension or service built for it without building it yourself.
Microsoft has unusual ability to move swiftly, with all its weight it may be not graceful. That said they do not always extend and extinguish. Often they make clone and ride it
Oracle => MSSQL
Java => C#
AWS => Azure
To make objective decision it would be nice to have a list of Microsoft inspirations with their fate and Microsoft actions.
Does Microsoft select for assholes or something? There's a thousand other package manager names  in the wild and they chose that one.
So much for "developers, developers, developers"...
I feel for the guy, but someone who called their package manager "app get" in 2014 when "apt get" has existed for since 1998 is in no position to take umbrage at a competing package manager having a six-letter name ending in get.
Also, they have now corrected the credit: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/winget-install-le...
I thought it was better named than Chocolatey or Scoop.
Edit: plan > pun. (no idea why I wrote plan, i think I wanted to write play)
'WinGet', a direct copy of 'AppGet', is not a friendly reference IMO.
On the other hand "WinGet" sounds like "wing-it" i.e. release any piece of junk and fix later. Maybe. Which TBF does seem to be how Microsoft works anyway.
It's been a while, but I managed to corrupt oneget/package management on windows within a month of it being released; I spent about a week trying to fix it and eventually figured out what the problem was (though I've since forgotten the details) only to find it unfixable without reinstalling Windows.
Unfortunately, reinstalling Windows means Office won't reactivate--I've taken it into a Microsoft store, and they couldn't help me.
Should they name it "wget"?
Probably, but it's not limited to Microsoft.
Any company where revenues are the highest goal (and all publicly traded companies should be this way; it's an obligation to share holders) will, generally speaking, select for assholes and sociopaths.
How strong that selection is, how pervasive, and how quickly it happens are variables in the equation, but the effect is the same, and it sucks.
- "NuGet" is super-popular in .NET circles (included in Visual Studio by default)
- "apt-get" is the classic tool for Windows Subsystem for Linux
So "WinGet" certainly "makes sense" as a name without being a direct ripoff of AppGet
FWIW, I agree with you that WinGet is an entirely logical choice, catchy, and ultimately unrelated to AppGet. Yeah, it may seem like the choice was made intentionally / in spite of AppGet, but anyone who knows a bit about big company dynamics will tell you that the explanation for situations like this is usually mundane, innocent, and often dysfunctional — much like a toddler. A toddler that happens to have a billion dollars and can reshape the world with its decisions, but still similar. “The name is catchy and I like it” is akin to “I see red ice cream and I want it,” and it’s probably nothing deeper than that.
It was rather unfortunate to use apt-get as an example and then say it was for Windows, though. :)
APT is the classic tool for debian-like Linux distributions. FTFY
Edit: Imo not a bad thing, it's just how it is. A lot of people will learn (of) Linux through WSL. Linux as a runtime.
pretty subjective, I'm guessing most people find terminal-based stuff easier/nicer on a computer with an actual keyboard, rather than a (relatively) small phone screen with a touchscreen keyboard.
I believe Termux is also pretty majorly restricted by Android 10 (can only run binary code included within the application package, so no downloading additional linux packages or compiling things locally, I believe)
It's pretty compelling, I predict they will pull in a lot of Apple (who use it for the terminal) devs and make a lot of Windows first devs very happy. And there are a lot.
Btw, am I downvoted because my original comment in not constructive or do people not agree with me?
Context matters. That's the key point here.
Plus your two examples out of a hundred or so examples doesn't make it common either (or maybe one in a half examples since apt/apt-get/apt-cache are the three Debian programs under APT umbrella).
 there was no way this project was going to continue despite their nonsense about "broadening the options in the community", they knew what they were doing
Many OSS projects (and pretty much all of mine) were started to scratch a particular itch, so if that itch gets scratched by another project, I'm not terribly concerned.
It's more problematic if the competition is a half assed solution that, by virtue of being backed by a larger company, still sucks the oxygen out of the space you're trying to serve.
Hello darkness, my old friend…
I would have preferred irrelevantGet but WinGet is unambiguous enough.
Don't work for free on proprietary systems or single sponsor opensource is a lesson cheaper learned by watching others.
Well in the author's case the tool was just as useful for them than for the others. Nothing wrong with helping the community, regardless of the ecosystem.
So they did this and... it looks even worse.
The meat of this blog post, to me, seems like the terrible hiring pipeline with no feedback. That seems like a really bad experience. I can only imagine that someone really dropped a ball somewhere.
It reminds me of the way secure boot was rolled out where Microsoft said that this was all about "trust" and yet OEMs who are always keen to keep Microsoft sweet would strangely only bundle windows keys.
I wonder if things would have been different, if the product was licensed under Gplv3. If so, he could demand to check if Microsoft violated the license https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.en.html (to check if this is a completely new rewrite for example).
Update: Ah looks like Winget was sourced in C++, and Appget is in C#
They could have approached the project owner, said they'd like to use the structure under the MIT license and offered a job/cash as a thank you for his dev time.
They could at least send the guy a fish, if his contribution was significant.
I'm an architect, so just keen to understand your architecture on the backend :)
after all this is over, I'll probably do a write up of hall it all worked behind the scene + all the server code.
Robert patented it but still megacorps tried to screw him over because they thought they could. He did win but only after an exhausting trial that took years.
Really sucks when credit is not given where due.
In 1990, they put out Stacker, which did transparent disk compression, effectively giving people twice as much disk space. It was a huge hit, so Microsoft called them up about an acquisition, entered discussion, and as part of the due dilligence process, even looked at the source code.
In 1993, Microsoft released their own version of Stacker as part of the OS. No thank you, no money for Stac, just a giant middle finger. Stac sued and eventually won some money, but it was never the same.
Everybody keeps telling me that Microsoft is different these days. About how they love open source now. And it's true that after decades of erosion of their primary monopolies, they can't get away with being as lazy and awful as they were in, say, the early IE era. But this suggests to me that deep down they haven't really changed.
I think I had a 200MB hard drive at the time.
It does not matter if Nadella is a nice guy. It does not matter if everyone reporting to him is a nice guy. They are still forced to operate with a megacorp filled with lizard people.
On the other hand, it might be just the usual confusion that large administrative structures needed for megacorps cause.
Adding “UPDATE:(date)text” either in the footer - with a brief dip in the header saying there’s an updated in the footer is an easy way to accomplish this.
Looks like all the bigger companies are doing this now.
This furor is a surprising flip-flop given the usual "information wants to be free" and "patents for software are dumb" cheerleading that we usually see around here.
Microsoft all but invented the practice at the 90's.
This seems like genericisation in trademarks to me. Sometimes things grow to be useful more broadly -- that seems like something to celebrate.
If you're railing against capitalism in general however, then I'm with you! Distribution of wealth shouldn't be left to a fight between a small cadre of corporation owners vs. the populous.
At least they were nice enough to pay you a trip to Seattle and (briefly) mentioned your project in the release announcement, I didn't even get a "thank you".
As a result of this I re-licensed my code from MIT to OSL-3 and reduced my involvement in this project a lot so I focus on the things that actually matter in life: my wellbeing and spending the time with my family.
That's what I don't get about people who don't think this is a big deal. That a license is open source does not mean it is without conditions.
My former employer is still using it and saving yearly multiple times my previous 6 digit salary, so I got a nice promotion out of it before I left.
It also helped me get my current job at AWS(pretty much half of the interview I was just talking about how I built it), and I now make some $500 monthly (before tax) from a few users who pay for official binaries.
I'm now only working on it occasionally, just enough to maintain this income stream, but previously I put a lot of time and effort into building it.
My motivation to work on it plummeted when I saw those companies reap the benefits of my hard work without giving anything back.
It would a futile endeavour, a realization acknowledged by the author, any further dev cycles on it would be wasted & are better spent elsewhere.
And the icing on the cake is the "btw, we are giving you the exclusive so keep it secret".
Like, wtf. He ain't TechCrunch. Why the fuck are they giving him that exclusive? Nothing yells "we stole your stuff, but dude it was open source so you really can't complain, and thanks for the idea" more than that.
You can't make up this shit.
Last year a huge game company released something built on my tiny open-source game engine (uncredited), and I only found out about it later from a kind internet stranger. All things considered, better to know in advance so you can at least have your own response ready, so you can comment in the relevant HN/reddit threads, etc.
That said, the "keep it secret" part of the mail here does sound weird, but given the other history there may have been an NDA in place.
That said, in my case the summary makes it sound better than it actually was. The game they released was a one-off promo thing, which made a big splash for a few days but was effectively dead by the time I heard about it a week or two later. Then there followed a dialog with a separate team inside Microsoft, about hopefully updating it, which dragged on for a while and basically resulted in their bit getting updated but not mine, etc. etc. Altogether it was a big distraction and a pretty dreary episode.
Not clear if they were trolling or just tone deaf.
As opposed to the other tech bloggers who will have a scramble to write it after hearing about it with the rest of the world
You and countless other made impossible. Created community Microsoft could not ignore. It had to adopt, it had to change. Scary beast really. It does not know how to work with, it knows how to ride.
It took path you've paved. I see it - there is no dependency resolution, no make dependencies - as simple as possible so people can participate. More like Flatpack than apt.
Microsoft does not like fragmentation. There would be a big pull of users. It's interesting how they are going to fight mallware, spyware, ransomware. Issues like chrome Stylish and npm leftpad. With all respect it is not clear you could manage it, there is quite a list in the queue .
Please don't despair, you've made gift to community not Microsoft.
If that's all the innovation that MSFT has supposedly 'copied'...
> Code being copied isn't an issue.
I looked at both repos and they share no code at all.
In his article, the author claims that " If I were the patenting type, this would be the thing you would patent. ps. I don't regret not patenting anything."
That's really not how patents work, and looking at the repo, a second year CS student could do the same really. I don't see anything that could remotely be patented. It reads where to find the installer from a config file and determine what to do based on an enum.
Throughout the article the author uses the term acqui-hire but it seems Microsoft was simply considering him for a PM position (and he failed the interview). There's nothing to acquire since there's no patent, no IP and no brand. Only a registered domain and what seems like an anemic userbase, if any.
Being featured in The Verge and on HN's front page will probably bring a lot more eyeballs to the startups he's trying to promote. So congratulation for the free advertising!
I think I will not credit everyone on my comparison tables. I only credit who inspired me hugely. MS hasn't implemented everything AppGet had. I bet MS is waiting for public feedback for the next point. Acutally MS has its Roadmap:
For the spec, only two common options: YAML & JSON. And every YAML spec looks this way.
MS has other experiences like TypeScript Definition also.
My last meeting ended at around 6 pm. I took an Uber to the airport and was back in Vancouver.
And then, I didn’t hear anything back from anyone at Microsoft for six months.
For what it's worth – and I'm not really sure whether it's helpful to say this, or whether it's even true – this situation often means "you didn't pass the interview."
The reason I mention it, is that it took an embarrassingly long time for me to understand this. Maybe it's common knowledge. But an identical situation happened to me at Magic Leap. I hesitate to mention their name, lest it sound like I'm calling them out or something, but I'm not. And in general I no longer feel negatively towards companies that end up doing that, so I don't think any particular stigma should be attached to Magic Leap for doing that.
I'm trying (and possibly failing) to share a personal experience of "I used to feel awful in situations like this; now I realize it's just business, and the decision of pass/fail has extraordinarily little to do with the skill of the programmer being interviewed, so don't take it as a sign of anything."
None of this is to undermine your overall point that it's generally not cool to ghost a candidate (to put it mildly), and that it's a doubly not-cool move to then clone the product of the candidate in question. But, it happens, and I just wanted to reassure you that yes, it does happen. It would've helped me to hear that at one point, so here it is, just in case.
I mean, not to shoot the messenger, you're right, that's exactly what it meant, but it isn't acceptable behaviour.
To put an even finer point on it, a business is made of people. Individuals. The individuals involved behaved exceptionally poorly (to be charitable) toward another human being. How shameful of these individuals to act that way, and then (presumably) hide behind the collectivist shield of "the business".
To my mind, it also means the interviewers didn't pass.
A company that's indifferent to the people it's hiring is unlikely to be magically different once you're in the door.
MS and many others don't love OSS or contribute them back. Few really do it. But instead, they are leveraging software because OSS licenses allow it. One example, see GPL, they didn't ever accept it. But they embrace any other software without restrictions on top of "OSS", if not so, they just create its own "permissive" licenses (MSPL).
Many of us are creating software even without expecting to get money back from users of any kind. Money back in many situations can be just a gentle retribution from community (E.g voluntary donations).
So, No MS, you don't really "love" OSS.
You don't strike me as the kind of person that would litigate such things, but I would like to think that if the right people at Microsoft became aware of such a liability, they might choose to give you credit (to be on the safe side).
Apache 2.0 by the looks of things.
Interesting question would be whether WinGet is a "derivative work" of AppGet.
They don't share any code. As far as copyright law is concerned, it is not a derivative work.
And what would be the benefit if Microsoft gave you credit for it? Most likely their lawyers would reject it since you may then be able to sue them for...I don't know what, but money in any case.
It's a very Microsoft-thing to do to copy someone else's idea and improve on it (C#, RDP, Excel). If you release something as open-source you have to ask yourself if your doing it out of altruism or for money? In case of the latter you have to plan accordingly, by patenting or with restrictive licensing.
Regardless of the legal case, the idea that concerns of reputation or credit are irrelevant to open source work is a crock. People may be working on open source because they genuinely want to help others, but if you deny them credit for the work they did then you can very well expect the well of open source innovation to dry up pretty quickly. And for a company like Microsoft, reputation is exactly why they are contributing to open source in the first place.
I'm not even sure if the author's idea was original anyway. It looked more a CLI program to download and run installers.
Apache license requires to preserve copyright notices, did you have any?
The manifest format is particularly egregious.
> Do you want to know how Microsoft WinGet works? go read the article (https://keivan.io/appget-what-chocolatey-wasnt/)
But that alone doesn't particularly strike me as a completely novel approach on its own. Looking at package definitions for firefox across various package managers, you can notice that they all look somewhat similar to some degree. Though one could argue that appget and winget looks more similar than others, I'm not sure this is wholesale copying without digging into more details. But again, I'm not trying to argue that it's not, and I also agree the OP should've received more credit.
homebrew cask: https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-cask/blob/master/Casks/...
That being said, the fake interview process explained in the article is totally unacceptable and deserves some explanations from MS.
It's literally the new cuddly microsoft Embracing, Extending and Extinguishing this guy's work.
Logic is futile
Your job is to create an App Manager.
There is already a code base under a MIT license.
You use it.
I'm not seeing the issue.
The issue is when they didn't just fork the codebase, they repeatedly flew the person who wrote the code out to Seattle on false pretenses, implying a job offer and additional money for their work, then picked the developer's brains until Microsoft learned all they needed from him, then just ignored all communication from him.
The issue is that it was dishonest and scummy behavior.
You just milk him for information and let him go without any further communication.
And you keep the copyright notice, otherwise you're violating the license.
If it's based on the same design (i.e. same file formats, mechanisms, etc.) then the issue is still not giving credit and pointing out the design it's based on. Doesn't cost them a thing and gives a lot of goodwill from people.
Like, if someone uses my code, I'm happy, if they copy the idea and present it as their own that's dishonest.
And lets not forget - they had similar open source project and community. They decided not to participate but create their own. This new project will overshadow existing and eventually kill community.
They didn't use any of AppGet's code.
Though nobody is questioning whether what MS did was legal. The issue is whether it was moral.
> Do you want to know how Microsoft WinGet works? go read the
article I wrote 2 years ago about how AppGet works.
I try to assume no bad intentions these days.
In the past, I've been in talks with an employer about a job, and my enthousiasm was only so-so, and that tended to put a brake on the proceedings.
I too have been in a similar situation (being interviewed at a startup and being clearly not super enthusiastic about the position being offered) but they decided to go with somebody else they gave me a courtesy call letting me know about it. I think it's the right thing to do.
I just think Microsoft should have found a way to credit the guy. Even just a footnote in their WinGet announcement blog post would have been better.
> I'm sure there was a reason they decided to not hire me. Maybe I had a shitty attitude? I don't know. I'm not questioning that. But I think an email letting me know and some credit would be fair to expect.
I realize I'm missing some context here, but I can't see how your life would work out better from _not_ receiving a heads up that the process has ended.
Having worked at Microsoft, and seeing the nature of the bureaucracy, the only advice I would give for next time is...
Just realize you can't set terms with a large company like MSFT unless you get lawyers involved early.
Stealing from you outright is simply too tempting, given their resources.
I noticed there were some conditions Keivan tried to set regarding the future evolution of the technology before joining MSFT.
In a large company like MSFT, there were bound to be large internal email threads relaying a play-by-play of negotiations with Keivan to: inside legal counsel, developers who already gave t-shirt sizes for building the tech in-house, product managers, and dozens of others.
No matter what they tell you, they're internally weighing
- Should we just rip him off?
- Should we hire him? Would that be better or worse for liability?
- How IP protected is this? How much can we "borrow"?
- Is it worth the hassle of dealing with an aqui-hire we can't control? Would that expose us to even more IP risk, or less?
Once companies reach this size, they simply can't be trusted to handle a negotiation transparently and in good faith, unless you have well paid lawyers fighting for you, or well established IP protection.
I guess what I'm saying is...
When dealing with any large tech company with near infinite resources -- like MSFT, GOOG, etc --, find a legally defensible upper hand, and assume they are weighing the cost-benefit of screwing you.
(Sadly, this is exactly why lawyers make so much money.)
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23332123 elsewhere in this thread for an example of the consequences.
The cost of GitHub to MS was around 250 usd per user. If 4000 users leave that’s already a million USD.
Even in their recent history Microsoft has repeated incidents, but also has some very big positive milestones. Also, keeping in mind, some customers will only see the positive milestones.
When people were warning against Microsoft on this forum they were just set aside as cynical, grumpy Unix-beards. If that happens even here, what do you think will happen elsewhere?
For example, I wanted to buy Win10 recently, and also wanted to sign up for Teams. Both experiences were so unimaginably ridiculously terrible, that I ended up cancelling the Teams subscriptions the same day and not buying Win10.
On the other hand .NET (Core), PowerShell, TypeScript and VS Code are all great things.
If more stories like this one come out I'm sure the goodwill turns fast.
If they stole his unpatented ideas then there's nothing.
Both of these claims are pretty easy to dismiss by simply looking at the respective repositories. They share nothing.
No. From the source:
> the core mechanics, terminology, the manifest format and structure, even the package repository’s folder structure, are very inspired by AppGet.
In the update it's slightly more vague, but there's no claim of coffee being copied there either:
> Code being copied isn't an issue. I knew full well what it meant to release something opensource and I don't regret it one bit.
And continues to be more explicit about his complaint:
> What was copied with no credit is the foundation of the project.
Lastly, looking at the repo really doesn't tell you if you could get a patent on it.
He goes to say that "If I were the patenting type, this would be the thing you would patent. ps. I don't regret not patenting anything."
I mean come on. Every package has a .yaml manifest where there's a download link for every architecture, a hash, a version and an installation recipe. There's nothing to patent here. It would be extremely hard to argue there's no prior art, considering most languages and distributions have been shipping with package managers built just like these for years. Even my text editor has one!
Realistically, the author managed to get a lot of attention for his other startup for almost no cost. By bashing the company that's trendy to bash right now.
The original people (not recruiters) who reached out to you should've connected after the decision was made. They probably figured the recruiters would do their dirty work, so no need to engage.
Full disclosure: I worked at Microsoft for over a decade, so I know how slow and lumbering it can be. I bet some emails were missed and people didn't follow up because "they had a lot of other things they were tracking".
Total misjudgment on their part. Thanks to this one HN post they already lost in terms of developer good will way more than his potential salary would be.
Every time anyone who uses WinGet, who read this, will think 'oh, yeah, that's the tool that Microsoft build their version of behind original author's back, while stringing him and ghosting for few months".
In reality, these kinds of antics just don't hurt companies significantly -- even ridiculously horrible things that are arguably crimes against humanity (have I invoked Godwin's law?) In comparison to some of the incredibly awful things companies do (and get away with), this is minor to the point of not even being a footnote in the annals of evil (note to self: don't google that term to check the spelling...).
However, there will be a few of us who will be reminded of why we don't do business with MS (and hence will have no need of WinGet). It won't make any difference, but it will be there.
Totally reasonable to still boycott them, makes more sense than getting annoyed at Microsoft in a situation like this (which is also deserved but more minor in the grand scheme of things).
Which was inadverted addition of arsenic specific to Morinaga in Japan, and not Nestle. However, the committe which managed the case and dragged it on was not created by the company but the Japanese government consisting of a newspaper publisher (??), a hospital director, 2 lawyers and a human rights lecturer.
So it seems like an insufficiently related market and lack of oversight made this drag on causing many deaths and even more people crippled by arsenic. One person was sentenced to 3 years in prison.
Compare with China who executed 2 people involved in the 2008 milk scandal and gave much harsher sentences to others. Although that scandal was deliberate rather than a cover up of bad practices.
The problem is people have short memories and are driven by convenience so will conveniently forget how evil a company is when they show another side. Or sometimes they can continue being evil and people still just do nothing because it's so convenient (see Amazon).
There is not enough direct experience of the evil for our monkey brains to make sense of it. If you see someone kill a baby with their own two hands you will never trade with that person again, they are dead to you full stop. If a company knowingly kills babies by proxy and extorts mothers you get mad for an afternoon then you forget. We need to evolve as a species or find some way to make it more real.
I've been anti-Microsoft for about 15 years but even I'll admit that I've warmed up to them over the past few years because of their seemingly good works (and amazing PR). Stuff like this helps me remember why healthy skepticism is still super important when it comes to giant companies like MS.
I suspect a week from now, 99% of people who read this will have forgotten about it.
So much of what Microsoft has been doing — GitHub, .NET Core, NPM, Visual Studio Code, Windows Subsystem for Linux, etc. — has been to build goodwill with “developers! developers! developers!” Taking the resources to do an acquihire (or hire + bonus) right is small relative to the PR hit.
And when I first heard about WinGet I though, "Yay! They continue to catch up to the place where developers are! Good for them!", but then this surfaced.
WSL has been built for webdevs not to flock to *NIX from Windows, nothing else.
Even naming it "Windows Subsystem for Linux" is an insult, since it sounds as if it was something for Linux, when in reality it's a "Linux Subsystem for Windows" and doesn't benefit Linux itself in any way.
The developers of WSL have said* that was mostly a legal concern. Calling it “Linux Subsystem for Windows” (listing “Linux” first) has wider implications for copyright/licensing:
> Just who is allowed to call a product or service Linux, anyway?
> Linus Torvalds has an answer for that: Nobody. Not without his say-so.
> The term "Linux" is a trademark and Torvalds owns it. His assignee, an organization called the Linux Mark Institute (LMI), is empowered to collect licensing fees from companies and individuals who want to use the word commercially.
> - https://www.infoworld.com/article/2671387/linus-gets-tough-o...
*I think it was during a Microsoft Build 2020 Q&A with the WSL team, but I can't find the video on YouTube.
Alternatively, calling it something like Nix subsystem for Windows or maybe just LSW would also do the trick, this seems like a lame excuse.
It's a totally different world inside a huge company like Microsoft, though. It's massive and its own little world. After working inside for a few years, you start thinking that it's "normal". You see projects start up and get shut down, you see people trying to get into the company, you see people trying to transfer to other teams within the company, you see people trying to leave the company, you see people in the same team for a decade or more, etc. Because of the scale of things, you sort of become numb to a lot of things you see, so I sort of "understand" if somebody just figured recruiting would sort out that someone wasn't the right "fit" for the company.
I don't think this kind of behavior is necessarily the right one, but it's the outcome of a large behemoth made up tens of thousands of people.
This happened to one of my referrals so i know this firsthand.
The developer was obviously brain-picked for any implementation ideas, as stated at scale. They should have been paying a retainer, or had an offer inside of two weeks.
Let this be a warning for other developers.
Some open source guy wants to pick your brain: Sure lets get lunch and split it.
Some small single digit founder start-up wants to talk abut your work: Ok sure, pay for my lunch lets talk about how I can help you change the world.
Freaking Microsoft wants to talk: That'll be 1k an hour plus expenses (also get a limo and a nice dinner).
The humility of engineering should stop at the boundary between people who want to change the world and those who just want to profit off of you.
After Microsoft flirted with acquiring Intuit, then shortly thereafter released Money to compete directly with Quicken, I assume all due diligence is just a way to hoover up intel.
To inform a buy vs build decision. To better validate market assumptions. To identify key contributors and poach them.
No earnest money? Fine. They clearly were going to drain my blood and powder my bones. Their prerogative. But they can proceed to kill me and my product without my help.
Paintings are just paint on a canvas, and all code is just clicks on a keyboard. That doesn’t make it any less immoral to blatantly copy without recognition.
It’s perfectly fine to carry out a fork, the irony here is that Microsoft likely tried you play this angle of “we’re just competing, not copying you” because they thought carrying out a fork with attribution would blow up in their face, which this now has.
Ever heard of NuGet? Been around since 2010.
WinGet isn't a fork of AppGet, the codebases share nothing.
There is far more to things than code. Examples: what is your ARPU, why didn’t you do it this way, how many bytes per unit time can you upload this way, where do you see the market going, who is still at the company, what do you think of this type of market?
MSFT is treating open source communities and free F/OSS code contributions the way they might have treated blogging and IT forums in a prior era.
It's "developer community" and "power user" engagement. It's a hybrid product management and marketing function.
In this particular scenario, the winget product manager views the appget author as a "Windows enthusiast" of sorts, not a competitor, a peer, or a colleague. Just a "power user persona" of the Microsoft userbase.
So, when you understand this, reading the PM's email to him ahead of winget's launch makes more sense.
> We give appget a call out in our blog post too since we believe there will be space for different package managers on windows. You will see our package manager is based on GitHub too but obviously with our own implementation etc. our package manager will be open source too so obviously we would welcome any contribution from you.
Specifically: it's like getting called out explicitly by a forum mod, or being a frequent blog commenter who is mentioned by name in a blogger's main post.
It's "an honor" to have appget explicitly mentioned in an "official" Microsoft announcement. And to have your community work "inspire" so much of winget's design! So when the PM wrote the email, he probably wasn't even thinking it would feel like trolling. He was probably thinking, "isn't it cool we are doing this 'F/OSS collaboration thing' together? How 'New Microsoft' of us!"
And I can't say I blame him. Microsoft is just less smooth about their appropriation of F/OSS for marketing purposes. Other companies manage to do it without the developers noticing.
The difference is that, in 1984, Bill Gates immediately offered $40k and Steve Jobs offered $100k for plugging a hole in their operating system.
In 2020, Microsoft just strings you along on vague promises while they simultaneously rip you off.
> Jeff picked me up at the airport, and we drove to Microsoft's main building where we were joined by Neil Konzen, a talented 23 year old who was Microsoft's main systems programmer on the Macintosh. I knew Neil from his days as an early Apple II hobbyist, when we collaborated on adding features to an assembly language development system when he was only 16.
Just... "Microsoft's main systems programmer on the Macintosh" is such a weird sentence to read today. On the other hand, Microsoft also shipped Xenix, a full-on licensed Unix™ OS before they shipped DOS.
For anyone who doesn't get this reference:
Also Applesoft basic was derived from Microsoft basic?
Yes, they did copy the operating system but that doesn't mean that the Mac Platform is unimportant to them.
Back then, Flight Simulator was still owned by subLOGIC. Microsoft got a license from them to make the IBM PC version.
When you use it, you get a nice Korn shell and it is built on PE binaries linked against PSDLL.DLL. there's a functioning but very old version of GCC that ships with it.
The PE binaries mark up the desired subsystem to be invoked so you don't have to be in the environment to execute one - the kernel takes over.
PSDLL acts as a translation layer for NT much as kernel32 does for win32. You can't run unmodified Linux binaries like you can with wsl. On the other hand, WSL requires that you invoke lxss with some special com magic to get access to Linux first so you can't just exec an elf file directly. The Pico processes you mentioned - these allow the kernel to install specific handlers/translators of their syscall functionality into the windows kernel.
So yeah architecturally they're pretty different and WSL isn't really the same subsystem concept they started with. On the other hand it that's probably a good thing because everything needed a rebuild for SUA.
In the end, it just makes more sense to pull in the actual Linux kernel than to try and achieve the same performance semantics.
Due to this lots of Linux stuff is based around huge masses of tiny files (build processes, VCS, docker, etc) and there was just no chance the windows kernel was ever going to come remotely close performance wise.