https://gist.github.com/slimsag/c01bb6508e3dfa744bf3bdafa0cfe07f

Skip to content
 
[                    ]
All gists Back to GitHub Sign in Sign up
 
Sign in Sign up
{{ message }}

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@slimsag

slimsag/ramblings.md

Last active Jun 18, 2022

  * Star 69
  * Fork 0

Star
Code Revisions 3 Stars 69
Embed
What would you like to do?
">Embed Embed this gist in your website.
Share Copy sharable link for this gist.
Clone via HTTPS Clone with Git or checkout with SVN using the
repository's web address.
 
Learn more about clone URLs
[<script src="https:/]
 
Download ZIP
Because cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building
natively
Raw
ramblings.md

 Because cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building
natively

I want Microsoft to do better, want Windows to be a decent
development platform-and yet, I constantly see Microsoft playing the
open source game: advertising how open-source and developer friendly
they are - only to crush developers under the heel of the corporate
behemoth's boot.

The people who work at Microsoft are amazing, kind, talented
individuals. This is aimed at the company's leadership, who I feel
has on many occassions crushed myself and other developers under.
It's a plea for help.

 The source of truth for the 'open source' C#, C++, Rust, and other
Windows SDKs is proprietary

You probably haven't heard of it before, but if you've ever used
win32 API bindings in C#, C++, Rust, or other languages, odds are
they were generated from a repository called microsoft/win32metadata.

Unfortunately, the source of truth for these generated SDKs - the
Windows SDK .idl files - are proprietary despite living in the same
repository with only an MIT license at the root.

Are derived community works, like say the D-language, Dart, or Zig
bindings to the win32 API which are generated from those files open
source - if Microsoft did not release them as such? I'll let you
decide.

 Azure Kinect DK is not open source

If you're one of the unlucky few who spent a few hundred dollars on
an Azure Kinect developer kit, eyes shimmering with possibility and
staring at that totally open-source microsoft/Azure-Kinect-Sensor-SDK
repository - it was perhaps short lived.

Unfortunately, the Body Tracking SDK is a proprietary binary blob -
so if you were looking to improve upon the body tracking, add ARM CPU
support, get it working on Linux, or anything else - you're out of
luck.

 .NET is not an open

As covered in isdotnetopen.com, despite best efforts .NET is still
not an open platform:

      + ramming in a proprietary extension to continue to lockdown
        .NET.
      + an open programming language is missing a debugger
      + leadership decision to remove hotreload angers community and
        devdiv employees

I'm still blown away that they literally made the .NET team revert
the dotnet watch PR at the last minute, so that they could sell it as
a feature.

 VS Code is marketed as open source, but it's not

The messaging around VS Code is clear, albeit a bit slippery, about
being open source:

    Visual Studio Code - Open Source ("Code - OSS")

    This project has adopted the Microsoft Open Source Code of
    Conduct.

    Free. Built on open source.

Meanwhile:

  * The Python integration, Pylance, is 100% proprietary
  * vscode-cpptools is proprietary
  * Live share is not open source
  * The C# and C++ debuggers are proprietary
  * WSL and SSH remote development extensions are proprietary
  * Telemetry is opt-out, not opt-in

Side note: If you're making VS Code extensions, please also publish
them to open-vsx.org as Microsoft has sent cease-and-desists to those
who use their extension registry outside of the VS Code product, so
it cannot be used in the open-source fork vscodium.

 I'm fine with proprietary software, but stop labeling it as "Made
with natural ingredients."

It's not the fact that this software is proprietary that bothers me.
I live with and use proprietary software daily. I'm not some purist.

What bothers me is that Microsoft pushes the idea these projects are
open source, hosts them on GitHub, only has MIT licenses in the
repositories, and doesn't mention it anywhere.

Then someone who actually cares digs in, only to find hidden
proprietary binary blobs and closed GitHub discussions concluding
'legal said no, we won't change the license'

"Made with natural ingredients." is what it feels like. And I
understand why they do it, too, how many people would eat the VS Code
cereal if it read:

     VS Code! A proprietary editor from Microsoft Corp! download now!

 Windows development is broken (symlinks)

While I'm airing all of my greviences, I've been writing a game
engine, Mach, in Zig for the past year. You know what Windows
developers constantly complain to me about?

    I tried it. It says the file doesn't exist

I point them to our FAQ, which gives two options:

 1. Option 1: Fix Windows
     1. Enable "Developer Mode" (warning: this turns on symlinks,
        which Microsoft says are a security risk)
     2. Enable symlinks in Git (Developer Mode is not enough.) git
        config --global core.symlinks true
     3. Retry
 2. Option 2: Cross-compile from WSL -> Windows using zig build
    -Dtarget=x86_64-windows

Because somehow in 2022 cross-compiling Windows native binaries from
Linux is easier than building on Windows natively.

 I wish that was the end of the Windows developer pain story

  * Long file paths: Azure, OpenSearch, and ~90 other open source
    projects have to document how to enable long file paths on
    Windows because the default is a ~255 character limit.
      + "Oh, but this is a fixed issue!, you just need to set a
        registry key!" - Microsoft PMs on Twitter tell me
      + (But, you know, beware, because according to Microsoft
        enabling this option may break File Explorer and other apps)
      + (Also, BTW, make sure you enable longfilepaths in Git too
        because enabling it in WIndows is not enough on it's own!)
  * CRLF: (Also, you know to configure core.autocrlf right?)
  * PowerShell ... BTW, Windows 10 ships with an outdated PowerShell
    version in which HTTP file downloadsare ~122x slower, you know
    you were supposed to update that out-of-band, right? Because
    Windows Update won't do that for you.

What does Developer Mode in Windows do again?

 My plea to Microsoft

Again, the people who work at Microsoft are amazing, kind, talented
individuals. I have no issues with you, I'm sure you are fighting the
Microsoft behemoth in the same way to improve developer's lives.

I beg of Microsoft to do the following:

 (1) Stop hiding proprietary code in 'open-source' GitHub
repositories

It's not in the spirit of open source. It feels like code "Made with
natural ingredients." only to find a plutonium core. If the license
says MIT, it shouldn't contain proprietary source code.

Enact a policy to never put proprietary code on GitHub. Have it
clearly stated in the README when a project contains proprietary
code, or depends on substantial proprietary code to be used
effectively.

I'm tired of finding this out through closed GitHub issues.

 (2) Fix Developer Mode on Windows

I'm just trying to reiterate that real people are facing the issues I
described above. They don't constantly raise these through your
Feedback Hub where you can count them because, surprise! They just
expect Windows development to be painful like this and expect to have
to Google workarounds 24/7.

Here's how you can fix this:

If someone installs or launches developer tools (WSL, VS Code, Git,
PowerShell, etc.) then prompt them to enable Developer Mode.

It's insane you can be using these tools, developing on Windows,
without any knowledge a 'developer mode' exists. It's almost
impossible to develop on a Mac without knowing about XCode.

If you turn on Developer Mode, have Clippy pop up and prompt the
user:

    Do you want me to enable symlinks (warning: this is a security
    risk)?

    Do you want me to update PowerShell? (or stick with the multiple
    years-old version where file downloads are ~122x slower?)

    Do you want me to enable file paths >255 characters? (warning:
    may break file explorer and other apps)

    Do you want me to install Git?"

    Do you want me to configure Git to use long file paths?

    Do you want me to configure Git to use symlinks?

    Do you want me to configure core.autocrlf?

Problem solved!

 Thanks

Again, I've no qualms with the people spending their diligent efforts
trying to improve Microsoft/Windows. This is feedback, I hope you'll
direct it to the right people.

You can find me on Twitter @slimsag in case you need to send the
Clippy hit squad.

@nblack33-acc
Copy link

nblack33-acc commented Jun 17, 2022

Good post. Most of this, I can imagine they have some weak opposing
argument, except this;

    Because somehow in 2022 cross-compiling Windows native binaries
    from Linux is easier than building on Windows natively.

I have no idea how MS thinks that makes sense. Why is it like this?
How have they not been working on this, shouldn't it be priority #1?
Do the devs at MS do their Windows dev work, in Windows?

Sorry, something went wrong.

@seyed-dev
Copy link

seyed-dev commented Jun 17, 2022



Sorry, something went wrong.

@sharpobject
Copy link

sharpobject commented Jun 17, 2022 *
edited

    It's almost impossible to develop on a Mac without knowing about
    XCode.

This is a bad thing, right? Like, people know about XCode because
they have to use xcode-select before they can build stuff, or because
they owe a $100 tithe or whatever.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@StephenHodgson
Copy link

StephenHodgson commented Jun 17, 2022

Same exact problem with the holotoolkit/mixed reality toolkit.

I spent oner 5 years working on that project for free only for them
to swoop in and take it over once it got popular 

Sorry, something went wrong.

@MrAndrew
Copy link

MrAndrew commented Jun 17, 2022

Also, please don't kill Atom. Create an ARM version instead.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@marco-trovato
Copy link

marco-trovato commented Jun 17, 2022

Nowadays everyone loves them, but unfortunately they will never
change.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@riverar
Copy link

riverar commented Jun 18, 2022 *
edited

    Unfortunately, the source of truth for these generated SDKs - the
    Windows SDK .idl files - are proprietary despite living in the
    same repository with only an MIT license at the root.

[DEL:Be aware GitHub does not support specifying more than one
license at a time.:DEL] It's true the convenience copy of SDK files
in the repository are proprietarily licensed but... why would anyone
care? The permissively-licensed metadata output (and tooling) is the
product!

    Are derived community works, like say the D-language, Dart, or
    Zig bindings to the win32 API which are generated from those
    files open source - if Microsoft did not release them as such?
    I'll let you decide.

The win32metadata is produced by Microsoft and is openly licensed
MIT. What license affixed to Microsoft-owned goop it was derived from
is wholly irrelevant and is not transitive to its own derived works.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@Trumeet
Copy link

Trumeet commented Jun 18, 2022

Also, as a POSIX developer, building Win32 binaries with the MinGW
toolchain on a Unix system is much much simpler than downloading and
installing and using all the Visual Studio toolchains.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@LayZeeDK
Copy link

LayZeeDK commented Jun 18, 2022

    Be aware GitHub does not support specifying more than one license
    at a time.

As of a month ago, it does.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@riverar
Copy link

riverar commented Jun 18, 2022

        Be aware GitHub does not support specifying more than one
        license at a time.

    As of a month ago, it does.

Wow, thanks, has been a long standing request and I missed the debut.
Will go take advantage of this right now.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@slimsag
Copy link
Author

slimsag commented Jun 18, 2022

@riverar I appreciate you taking the time to respond, just want to
highlight again, this is not targeted at you / any individual. I hope
there's no animosity over the rant I've written here.

    It's true the convenience copy of SDK files in the repository are
    proprietarily licensed but... why would anyone care? The
    permissively-licensed metadata output (and tooling) is the
    product!

The beauty of open source is in being able to modify and build upon
works. But this isn't some theoretical "I love FOSS" thing, I can
give you a concrete example of why myself and others care here.

Because those IDL files were in the repository, I myself and others
were under the impression they were MIT licensed (that's what the
LICENSE file said, after all, until it was later stated to not be the
case in the GitHub issue.)

I spent weeks personally investigating whether or not we could use
those IDL files to improve the accuracy of Wine's IDL files, which
are consumed by numerous open source projects (MinGW, Proton from
Valve, and the Zig programming language.)

I'm not the only one, either: the person who opened the issue asking
for clarification on the license is a Wine core developer who was
considering using these files. The Zig win32 bindings linked in the
win32metadata repository README were written by someone who later
said we need the IDL files to properly recreate the headers (because
the JSON is not sufficient).

You can also find numerous instances of where individuals working on
Proton spend countless hours recreating the IDL files for DirectX
headers.

It's fine that Microsoft doesn't want to open source these, it just
means others will spend the countless hours to recreate them without
a proprietary license (because distributing the Windows SDK is a
pain, and a licensing nightmare, especially on non-Windows
platforms.) But it would've been good to have it be much more clear
from the get-go that those files were indeed not MIT licensed.

That's why anyone would care. Hope that makes sense.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@riverar
Copy link

riverar commented Jun 18, 2022

@slimsag No offense taken, will get that README updated and pepper in
some files to light up GitHub. I recognize the repository MIT license
currently appears as quite the honey pot to the developers you listed
above.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@slimsag
Copy link
Author

slimsag commented Jun 18, 2022

Appreciate you!

Sorry, something went wrong.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an
account? Sign in to comment

  *  (c) 2022 GitHub, Inc.

  * Terms
  * Privacy
  * Security
  * Status
  * Docs
  * Contact GitHub
  * Pricing
  * API
  * Training
  * Blog
  * About

You can't perform that action at this time.
You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your
session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh
your session.