7 ms·
The title of this should really be changed to the more descriptive subtitle: "The story of how Microsoft embraced and then killed AppGet."
by MikusR 6y ago
The title of this should really be changed to the more descriptive subtitle: "The story of how Microsoft embraced and then killed AppGet."
- boromi 6y agoNot really. Afterall his AppGet package was open source....
- neatze 6y agoWhat point exactly are you trying to make ?
- chii 6y agoThe post was trying to imply that because the project was open source, it's a free-for-all for microsoft to just take and modify for their own needs. And that is exactly what happened.
- boromi 6y agoHonestly the tech innovation of AppGet while good, isn't something groundbreaking. Manifests have been used by other package managers in the past. Yes it's stinks he didn't get more credit, but IMO it's blown out of proportion.
- 3ycombinator 6y agoMicrosoft shill
- boromi 6y agoDid you spend time to look at the architecture he created with AppGet?
- ralphstodomingo 6y agoLast time I checked, something being open-source doesn't mean corps like MSFT can shit on them.
- WJW 6y agoThe MIT license expressly allows for shitting on software though. In fact it's allowed for anyone, not just megacorps.