As good as Casey Muratori is, Microsoft is more than big enough to have the means of taking his core ideas and implement them themselves. It may not take them a couple weekends, but they should be able to spend a couple experienced man-months over this.
The fact they don't can only mean they don't care. Maybe the people at Microsoft care, but clearly the organisation as a whole as other priorities.
Besides, this is not the first time I've seen Casey complain about performance in a Microsoft product. Last time it was about boot times for Visual Studio, which he does to debug code. While reporting performance problems was possible, the form only had "less than 10s" as the shortest boot time you could tick. Clearly, they considered that if VS booted in 9 seconds or less, you don't have a performance problem at all.
I commented on a separate issue re: refterm
--- start quote ---
Something tells me that the half-a-dozen to a dozen of Microsoft developers working on Windows terminal:
- could go ahead an do the same "doctoral research" that Casey Muratori did and retrace his steps
- could pool together their not insignificant salaries and hire Casey as a consultant
- ask their managers and let Microsoft spend some of those 15.5 billion dollars of net income on hiring someone like Casey who knows what they are doing
--- end quote ---
One thing to remember is that it is always possible and acceptable to contact the author of a GPL-licensed piece of code to enquire whether they would consider granting you a commercial license.
It may not be worthwhile but if you find exactly what you're looking for and that would take you months to develop yourself then it may very well be.
Microsoft's attitude towards the code seems a little odd. [0]
Unfortunately the code is intentionally GPLv2 licensed and we‘ll honor this wish entirely. As such no one at Microsoft will ever look at either of the links.
Given that WSL exists I can't imagine this is a universal policy towards reading GPLv2 code at Microsoft.
[0] https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/10462#issuecomm...
Why is that a problem? A GPLv2 terminal would not be a business problem for Microsoft. People would still have to buy licenses for Windows. Maybe they would lose a little face, but arguably they have already done so.
At least it’s not GPLv3 which this industry absolutely and viscerally hates (despite having no problem Apache 2.0 for some reason, Theo de Raadt is at least consistent).
They can alternatively buy a commercial license, as another user said below.
That's not unfortunate. Having people who work on competing Free Software is a good thing. It would be even better if Microsoft adopted this code and complied with the terms of the GPL license. Then we won't have to deal with problems like these because they'd be nipped in the bud. And we would set the precedent to take care of lot of other problems like the malware, telemetry, abuse of users' freedoms.