Shouldn't these platforms work on getting Rust to support it rather than have our tools limited by what they can consume? https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs
A maintainer for that specific platform was more into the line of thinking that Git should bend over backwards to support them because "loss of support could have societal impact [...] Leaving debit or credit card authorizers without a supported git would be, let's say, "bad"."
To me it looks like big corps enjoying the idea of having free service so they can avoid maintaining their own stuff, and trying the "too big to fail" fiddle on open source maintainers, with little effect.
It's additionally ridiculous because git is a code management tool. Maybe they are using it for something much more wild than that (why?) but I assume this is mostly just a complaint that they can't do `git pull` from their wonky architecture that they are building on. They could literally have a network mount and externally manage the git if they still need it.
It's not like older versions of git won't work perfectly fine. Git has great backwards compatibility. And if there is a break, seems like a good opportunity for them to fork and fix the break.
And lets be perfectly clear. These are very often systems built on top of a mountain of open source software. These companies will even have custom patched tools like gcc that they aren't willing to upstream because some manager decided they couldn't just give away the code they paid an engineer to write. I may feel bad for the situation it puts the engineers in, I feel absolutely no remorse for the companies because their greed put them in these situations in the first place.
Yes. It benefits them to have ubiquitous tools supported on their system. The vendors should put in the work to make that possible.
I don’t maintain any tools as popular as git or you’d know me by name, but darned if I’m going to put in more than about 2 minutes per year supporting non-Unix.
(This said as someone who was once paid to improve Ansible’s AIX support for an employer. Life’s too short to do that nonsense for free.)
As you're someone very familiar with Ansible, what are your thoughts on it in regards to IBM's imminent complete absorption of RedHat? I can't imagine Ansible, or any other RedHat product, doing well with that.
I wouldn’t say I’m very familiar. I don’t use it extensively anymore, and not at all at work. But in general, I can’t imagine a way in which IBM’s own corporate culture could contribute positively to any FOSS projects if they removed the RedHat veneer. Not saying it’s impossible, just that my imagination is more limited than the idea requires.
IBM has been, and still is, a big contributor to a bunch of Eclipse projects, as their own tools build on those.
The people there were both really skilled, friendly and professional.
Different divisions and departments can have huge cultural differences and priorities, obviously, but “IBM” doesn’t automatically mean bad for OSS projects.
To me it looks like big corps enjoying the idea of having free service so they can avoid maintaining their own stuff, and trying the "too big to fail" fiddle on open source maintainers, with little effect.