4 ms·
The list of "thanks" people is clearly fluff, I don't see the point either. It reads as an excuse to name drop to make the whole thing seem more novel and inter
by junon 4y ago
The list of "thanks" people is clearly fluff, I don't see the point either. It reads as an excuse to name drop to make the whole thing seem more novel and interesting than it is. Sorry if that's harsh.
There is someone on that list that I wouldn't even want to be associated with to begin with, too. Their conduct in the OSS space is consistently hostile, arrogant and unproductive, and what they're credited for here is not something they themselves even devised or created, so not sure why their inclusion is significant here.
Really strange article.
EDIT: Someone at Microsoft involved with this article has a history of not crediting security researchers, too. Not the author, but someone on Twitter who is clearly involved.
Dunno why but this article really rubs me the wrong way.
EDIT2: Thinking more about it, why wasn't Tyriar of Ansi.js mentioned? IIRC that library was the basis for ANSI rendering in VSCode, at least at one point, and I would imagine WT was heavily inspired by it as Microsoft had a huge interest in it at least as recently as a few years ago - around the time WSL and WT started to get popular.
ANSI.js did a lot right and used hardware acceleration as well. It's just a weird, seemingly random collection of credits...
- curiousgal 4y ago> The list of "thanks" people is clearly fluff Everything I read online makes me swear off open sourcing stuff. Literally last time this ordeal unfolded on HN people called the dev team out for not thanking people by name and now that they did people think it's fluff? This is why we can't have nice things.
- junon 4y agoYou've read one sentence and made a conclusion without addressing the rest of my comment. I didn't at all criticize them for citing people. I criticized their choices and reasoning for citing people.
- lozenge 4y agoThe backstory is that the idea was suggested on GitHub, where it was rudely dismissed as impossible/inappropriate by the article author, who then tried to implement his preferred solution (with the kernel's text rendering team) and months later came round to the solution proposed on GitHub. Then published this blog post crediting it to "a community member". The backlash was big enough to make the edit we see today, but if they had written credit and a "literature review" from the start it would have made a better summary of the history of terminal text rendering.
- curiousgal 4y ago> it was rudely dismissed as impossible/inappropriate by the article author I invite everyone to go through the actual discussion[0] and draw their own conclusions. 0.https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/10362 https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/10362
- junon 4y agoCasey was argumentative and unproductive. Again. Whether or not one is correct doesn't really matter when you don't give the maintainers much reason to engage with you.
- green_biri 4y agoMicrosoft: Does not give credit where it's due HN: They should credit Casey Microsoft: Credits Casey and several authors HN: The credits list is clearly fluff. Never change, Internet.
- junon 4y agoGreat job completely misrepresenting my point in redditor fashion.