Microsoft's CoApp To Help OSS Development, Deployment

badpazzword writes "Microsoft employee Garrett Serack announces he has received the green light to work full time on CoApp, an .msi-based package management system aiming to bring a wholly native toolchain for OSS development and deployment. This will hopefully bring more open source software on Windows, which will bring OSS to more users, testers and developers. Serack is following the comments at Ars Technica, so he might also follow them here. The launchpad project is already up."

Comments

I'll follow them here too. :D

[His name cannot be s]

Ask me about CoApp, I'll tell ya everything ya wanna know.

Garrett Serack
CoApp Project Owner

Re:I'll follow them here too. :D

[His name cannot be s]

Well, considering that I spent several months hacking thru red tape to get VP approval, and the enthusiasm that I've been getting, I'm pretty damn confident that we're clear sailing.

And given the first three targets that on my radar are PHP, Apache and Python (and the 40 or so shared library dependencies), and that's what I took to the VP, I'm fairly confident that's not going to be an issue.

And, on top of that, MS doesn't own the project, I do. "Shutting it down" is not an option for them.

Re:I'll follow them here too. :D

[His name cannot be s]

That is precisely the red tape that I had cut.

Microsoft has given me a signed contract that says that whatever I produce for the CoApp project isn't owned by them. They do get a license to everything I make (fair deal), but they don't own it in the end.

That, and I've also chosen the BSD license for it's do-what-the-f*-you-want spirit.

Re:I'll follow them here too. :D

[His name cannot be s]

No.

My intent is to completely do away with the practice of everybody shipping every damn shared library. It's one of the things that piss me off the most. I've got a very workable solution that uses WinSxS to cleanly handle this.

It is extremely important that there is a unified method for sharing libraries between apps.

Re:I'll follow them here too. :D

[His name cannot be s]

Is this some kind of back-handed comment based on the general view at Microsoft about Open-source software, or the general view that MS would like to push out to userland? That people should use MS OSS because you need to be a developer to use it on other platforms?

No-no.. exactly the opposite

Have you tried to roll out some OSS apps on Windows?

On Linux it's two clicks, and BAM! Done.

On Windows, it's almost never that easy to setup OSS apps.

The problem I see is that it doesn't take a Developer on Linux to get Apache installed and configured. Why should it on Windows?

Re:I'll follow them here too. :D

[His name cannot be s]

As for the first five points, yes I'm aware of all of that, and I'm working to solve all of them. Some of them are not possible (mixing compilers has a lot of bad mojo) and some are solvable with some really good best practices.

1/ Microsoft are stopping using WinSxS assemblies for managing the C/C++ runtimes as it is complex to manage and get right;

Ah, Visual Studio is backing away from WinSxS. I read their justification. I didn't buy into it. I think it's a solvable issue.

2/ With XP, Microsoft were selling WinSxS as being able to deploy different versions of the binaries, but for Vista/Win7 they are now saying that WinSxS is for archival purposes (see the Engineering 7 blog)

Uh, what? I've been talking to the maintainer of the WinSxS system. He's fully supportive of my plans.

3/ It does not really work as intended in practice -- e.g. comctl32 version 6 is different in Vista/Win7 than in XP, yet the applications that reference the XP version use the Vista/7 version

It works just fine, as long as you use it correctly; if they didn't, it's not my fault. Some of the tools I'm building will make it easier not to screw up.

Re:Why only open source?

[His name cannot be s]

Why limit this to open source? It would be great if the users could update every program easily and painlessly, at least the ones that use this new system.

I'm Busted. It isn't really restricted to Open Source... but that's my mission. Commercial apps will be able to play just fine in this ecosystem.

I am assuming that this system will allow easy and painless upgrading like on most Linux systems. Is that true? Will it have automatic dependency handling and command line installation?

Yes. Painless and automatic dependency handling, and yes command line tools. You are singing the chorus to my theme song!

Re:Why only open source?

[His name cannot be s]

I second the question about limiting to open source. A good package management system that can could make using SxS painless would be awesome in an enterprise environment.

I agree. it ain't really limited to Open Source

Since this is open source and .msi based I assume you will be leveraging WiX somehow?

Yes indeed. The author of WiX is on the mailing list, and a personal friend. He's very excited about all this too.

I hope this isn't going to be a big collection merge modules with duplicated component guids..

Nope. I don't believe in merge modules. I believe in a system that works.