[OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ir6l0q$1he8$2 at digitalmars.com...
> Am 20.05.2011 22:41, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
>> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message
>> news:ir67mk$2jfi$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> On 5/20/11 2:33 AM, Don wrote:
>>>> You've really got to be a fanboy to claim that git is supported on
>>>> Windows. Sure, it "works" -- in the same way that hammering a nail with
>>>> a rock "works".
>>>
>>> Fanboyism for Windows or git? :o)
>>>
>>> I'm not surprised in the least. I was just remarking to Walter the other
>>> day that Unix has become the path of least resistance for doing
>>> programming-at-large and in particular OSS kind of work, just the same 
>>> as
>>> Windows is for office computing and OSX and portable derivatives for
>>> computer-based entertainment.
>>>
>>> The confusing part is that roughly all OSs offer (at least nominally)
>>> means for achieving most any given typical task, so comparing in terms 
>>> of
>>> "has/doesn't have" is not relevant. It's the many little differences and
>>> nuances that add up to a long tail. So it's not surprising that
>>> git/Windows has many issues, just the same it's not surprising that 
>>> people
>>> are having trouble playing media or using OpenOffice on Unixen.
>>>
>>
>> I realize you're not actually accusing him of Windows fanboyism, but that
>> trouble with media, etc on Unix brings up an interesting issue: Unix 
>> users
>> have a real, legitimate complaint regarding those problems. And when they
>> voice those complaints nobody would ever even consider dismissing that as
>> Unix fanboyism. And when those Unix users accuse various companies of
>> playing Windows favoritism: Well, they're absolutely right. It *is*
>> inexcusable Windows favoritism.
>>
>> But OTOH, when a Unix program has a shoddy "port" to Windows, and Windows
>> users complain, all of a sudden there are people (not necessarily you) 
>> that
>> push back with what basically amounts to "What the hell are you whining
>> about? Either shut up and use it or switch to Linux."
>>
>
> It's the same when it's the other way round. "You can't properly view
> that docx file? Just use Windows and MS Office like everybody else"

Yea, but 99.9% those are just moron office drones who barely even know how 
to use a mouse (Not that I mean to excuse it. It *does* piss me off when 
some dipshit service rep insists I should use Adobe's PDF viewer or MS's 
word processor "It works for all our other [idiot] customers, so quit being 
difficult!" Stupid fucking bitch...). Most Linux users, OTOH, are power 
users and should know better.

> "Stop complaining that there are no games for Linux, just boot Windows
> and be thankful that there's a PC port at all (and not just
> xbox360/PS3)" "If you want to use Photoshop just get a Mac or Windows" etc
>

Yea, and that's exactly the sort of thing I meant about corporations playing 
inexcusable Windows favoritism. But what I was talking about is just 
ordinary (knowledgeable) users and OSS contributors who actually know what 
they're doing. From what I've seen, there are a lot on Linux that consider 
shoddy msys/mingw/cygwin "ports" to be acceptable, but not so many Linux 
users who consider shoddy Windows->Linux ports acceptable.

(Although I'd modify that "xbox360/ps3" to just "xbox360". After all, one of 
the most important game engine developers out there, Epic, clearly cares 
about as much about the PS3 as they do Linux. Anything that isn't an MS 
platform, Epic just refuses to give a rat's ass about. Not that I'm a PS3 
fan, I think all the current game platforms are crap, but that's a whole 
other rant.)

>> It really reminds me of the old crusades: The Linux side feels it has the
>> moral high ground (and frankly, I can't totally disagree), but then ends 
>> up
>> using that to excuse going around employing whatever 
>> normally-questionable
>> tactics they damn well feel like using.
>>
>
> The difference is: The Unix/Linux programs are mostly open source, so
> anybody can create a Windows port or improve an existing port.
> Windows only programs (that are missed on Linux) tend to be closed
> source so you'd have to completely reimplement them for Linux support
> (and even then you'd probably have troubles with proprietary file
> formats and network protocols).
>
> So if there are really big problems with git on Windows anybody can (try
> to) fix them or even reimplement git for Windows (or platform
> independent with a higher focus on Windows) - the source is available
> (and with it documentation for file formats and network protocols).
>
> I do of course understand that you (or Don) personally don't have time
> for that and would prefer if it'd just work.

Well, I'm primarily a Windows user, but when I write an OSS app, I actually 
*design* it specifically to be cross-platform (ex: I don't design the whole 
damn thing around hundreds of Windows-specific assumptions), *and* then I 
actually test on Linux (And I plan to add FreeBSD now that VirtualBox makes 
installing/using another OS safe and easy. I'd happily do OSX, too, but 
that's locked into expensive proprietary hardware. But that's not so even 
with Windows). Maybe I'm just blind but to me that seems to be typical of 
Windows OSS developers: We don't just design with *only* our OS in mind and 
then pawn off the inevitably large porting job to someone else who may or 
may not come along. At least I sure as hell don't. But the other way around 
doesn't seem to happen much.