* If someone writes a patch for your project, the burden of proof is on the maintainer not to accept it, rather than on the submitter.
* If someone domiciles their open source project at VMware, they assume an obligation to all of VMware's customers.
Neither statement has any truth to it. You're just throwing stuff at the wall to see what will stick, which is why your comments are turning light grey and mine aren't.
Can I ask you an orthogonal question?
What's the last project you used Redis on? How'd it turn out for you? What do you like about Redis?
Then you should go back to logic school. Let me make it clearer for others reading this, as yourself appears to be a lost cause:
(1) Microsoft develops web browser (2) rendering could theoretically be made standard compliant with minor changes (3) people submit style sheets and javascript files that, if included in a web page (or embedded into IE) would achieve that functionality. (4) Users can reasonably expect Microsoft to do that.
Wait, what?
Furthermore, your logic breaks in other places:
(5) ... there is no demand for it (from article: "I don't think Redis running under win32 is a very important feature.").
How does "not important" imply "no demand"? Let me give you an example that will make it clear:
"Apple just said that getting Win7 apps running on the iPad is not important". You bet there's demand for that, and yet that does not make Salvatore's or this (fictional, but realistic) Apple quote wrong in any way. "important", unless otherwise qualified, is to the speaker.
(6) Users have been denied functioning code because of arbitrary decision by guy.
Wrong. They could just build it from source. Less convenient? Well, it takes just one person to package it and make it into an .msi.
Furthermore, the decision is not arbitrary -- you may disagree with the reasoning, but he gave detailed reasoning.
You sir, are either an idiot or a masterful troll -- I would pick the first, if only because it makes me feel better to think I haven't been trolled :)
When the other person consistently ignores logic and invents their own facts and reality, I occasionally adopt the Linus strategy; but I still take care to address the argument itself.
Point well taken. HN is a better place thanks to people like yourself.
This is a direct patch applied to an open codebase, which in turn allows users to reasonably expect that, there being no technical or resource obstacles to implementation, a platform port could be expected.
Your critique of my 5th statement is not unfair--I should've elaborate on the connection between "not important" and "no demand". I was in error. Your analogy using the iPad simply muddies the waters.
Your critique of my 6th statment is also unfair. The decision was arbitrary (we know that technical constraints don't exist, and that it isn't "free work" being asked for unreasonably). Asking people to just build it from source is not good for users, and forcing the creation of a fork of a codebase is not good for developers. You are being unreasonable, I believe.
The reasoning given for the decision is heavily based in arbitrary judgements not backed by valid engineering concerns (a lot of that low-level OS stuff? Yeah, actually pretty standard across operating systems, though the incantations may be different).
You sir, are either an idiot or a masterful troll -- I would pick the first, if only because it makes me feel better to think I haven't been trolled :)
I wasn't attempting to troll here, and I prefer not to think of myself as an idiot--then again, I also prefer to debate with people who can structure arguments without excessive namecalling or misleading strawmen.
EXPLICITLY BECAUSE microsoft refused to patch internally, which is what you think antirez is doing wrongly!
> Your example with the Microsoft web browser is disingenuous, as it involves a closed, proprietary system, and
So? Where is the contract, written or social, that antirez signed, which predisposes him to accept patches that go against his philosophy of keeping the code base lean, simple and efficient?
> This is a direct patch applied to an open codebase, which in turn allows users to reasonably expect that, there being no technical or resource obstacles to implementation, a platform port could be expected.
THERE ARE TECHNICAL OBSTACLES, CLEARLY DETAILED BY ANTIREZ. You might disagree with them, but they are not empty words. And furthermore: WHY? WHY SHOULD IT BE EXPECTED?
> The decision was arbitrary (we know that technical constraints don't exist,
PLEASE READ ANTIREZ AGAIN (AND AGAIN (AND AGAIN)) THERE ARE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS WHICH YOU FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE
> The reasoning given for the decision is heavily based in arbitrary judgements not backed by valid engineering concerns (a lot of that low-level OS stuff? Yeah, actually pretty standard across operating systems, though the incantations may be different).
So please explain to everyone how easy it is to do copy-on-write from memory to disk without pausing and without fork() -- because THE GUYS AT MICROSOFT WHO SUBMITTED THE PATCH DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT. THEY THINK THEY MIGHT HAVE A SOLUTION BUT HAVEN'T POSTED ONE YET.
> You are being unreasonable, I believe.
The only unreasonable thing I am still doing is replying to you. We apparently live on different planets. ANTIREZ HAS NO COMMITMENT TO THE GOOD OF USERS OR DEVELOPERS. Furhtermore, ANTIREZ BELIEVES AT THIS POINT SUPPORTING WINDOWS WITHOUT FORKING IS AGAINST THE GOOD OF USERS, DEVELOPERS AND HIMSELF, as he has clearly stated.
> I also prefer to debate with people who can structure arguments
Funny ! I'll come back to this post when I need another laugh!
The code is brought into existence. Code is observed to be capable of being modified into working on Windows (i.e., nothing radically platform-centric about it). Microsoft provides the grunt work to accomplish a patch that proves this observation true.
Very much, by definition, users can reasonably expect a Windows port. The capability exists. The code exists. The patch functions. If Windows User Clippy says "I expect that redis will be ported to Windows, given these facts", Clippy is not being unreasonable.
I'm sorry, but to claim otherwise is merely being obtuse.
Your points about IIS7 and Transmit are correct, as those rely on specific OS functionality that is unique--the constructs Redis uses are not, and again code has been written to show this fact.
Now, there very much is something to be said for Salvatore (antirez?) not having to do this work for free. Indeed, VMWare may be spending a good chunk of change paying for his services ( http://antirez.com/post/vmware-the-new-redis-home.html ). I do not wish to suggest that he go uncompensated.
What I do wish to suggest is this:
VMWare: this dude you are paying to develop a widely-used and respected project has (seemingly arbitrarily) turned down code submitted from other practitioners in the field. He has suggested they fork the project (diluting the quality of the Redis brand and potentially removing resources that could improve mainline Redis). He has suggested that the project is too difficult to make cross-platform; I'm sure that you folks might have a different opinion on how important cross-platform support is.
Pay him more to make a better project (with help from people in the community!). Or acknowledge that he is correct in his assessment that this is somehow a Linux-only problem. Or do something else to help him figure out how his goals align with the VMWare mission.