Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft and GitHub Team Up To Take Git Virtual File System To MacOS, Linux (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the up-scale dept.

An anonymous reader writes: One of the more surprising stories of the past year was Microsoft's announcement that it was going to use the Git version control system for Windows development. Microsoft had to modify Git to handle the demands of Windows development but said that it wanted to get these modifications accepted upstream and integrated into the standard Git client. That plan appears to be going well. Yesterday, the company announced that GitHub was adopting its modifications and that the two would be working together to bring suitable clients to macOS and Linux. Microsoft says that, so far, about half of its modifications have been accepted upstream, with upstream Git developers broadly approving of the approach the company has taken to improve the software's scaling. Redmond also says that it has been willing to make changes to its approach to satisfy the demands of upstream Git. The biggest complexity is that Git has a very conservative approach to compatibility, requiring that repositories remain compatible across versions.

Microsoft and GitHub are also working to bring similar capabilities to other platforms, with macOS coming first, and later Linux. The obvious way to do this on both systems is to use FUSE, an infrastructure for building file systems that run in user mode rather than kernel mode (desirable because user-mode development is easier and safer than kernel mode). However, the companies have discovered that FUSE isn't fast enough for this -- a lesson Dropbox also learned when developing a similar capability, Project Infinite. Currently, the companies believe that tapping into a macOS extensibility mechanism called Kauth (or KAuth) will be the best way forward.

100 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. Fuck GitHub by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Go ahead. Become dependent on yet another third-party "cloud" service.

    Idiots.

    1. Re:Fuck GitHub by TFlan91 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Cool story bro.

      Good thing you don't need GitHub to use Git, right?

    2. Re: Fuck GitHub by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not hard to put git on a server that users have access to in a small corporate setting that then provides a central location to push to and pull from without needing GitLab to front it. It's nicer with something like that there, but not essential. The main issues with development are still communications and resolving branching for business needs, and merging when the communication regarding changes was insufficient. A nice front end to git doesn't currently fix that.

    3. Re: Fuck GitHub by MSG · · Score: 2

      Exactly. And what better authority than git's author? If you want to send him a patch, you just make a pull request, right?

      Wait, the Linux team doesn't use github? Isn't that peculiar? :)

    4. Re: Fuck GitHub by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      No, it's not peculiar. Keeping control of a _canonical_ git repository is very useful for a critical security system. It's awkward, but feasible, to link a local, working git repository to multiple upstream repositories such as github, gitlab, or an internal business managed erpository. I've certainly done so and guided technology partners in doing so.

    5. Re: Fuck GitHub by piojo · · Score: 1

      Gitolite is one piece of software that lets you "set and forget" a git server that seldom needs maintenance. The only time I've run into problems with it is when the server ran out of memory during a large operation. But that could be prevented by enabling swap.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    6. Re: Fuck GitHub by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      No, it's not peculiar. Keeping control of a _canonical_ git repository is very useful for a critical security system. It's awkward, but feasible, to link a local, working git repository to multiple upstream repositories such as github, gitlab, or an internal business managed erpository. I've certainly done so and guided technology partners in doing so.

      You know what's the best tool for that? Gerrit. It's also got a pretty damn nice web interface, and of course, integrates with every CI system out there Let it be the master repository and you can control who checks in what and review the code.

      You can branch, work on branches, etc, and people can approve checkins into the mainline canonical tree. It only slightly complicates the command line (you can't do "git push origin", you must "git push origin HEAD:refs/for/branch_name"), but you give a good enough tutorial on how users check in and it'll be native in no time.

      Granted, it also works well with repo which Google created to make submodule handling much easier..

  2. ClearCase again by gillbates · · Score: 1, Troll

    So, if I understand it right, they've just reinvented the MVFS system pioneered by ClearCase decades ago?

    The whole point of git was to have a decentralized repository, so that the repository could be rebuilt from anyone's local repository in the case of failure.

    But the larger problem is that if your dependencies aren't properly managed, you end up downloading the whole repository when you build anyway, so the only thing they've accomplished is delaying the build step rather than the clone step.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:ClearCase again by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      But the larger problem is that if your dependencies aren't properly managed, you end up downloading the whole repository when you build anyway, so the only thing they've accomplished is delaying the build step rather than the clone step.

      Which is generally fine, since you clone the code so you can dive into it - look at it, make changes, etc. If the first build takes longer because you have to grab the repository, I'm OK with that - I usually schedule the build to happen overnight anyways, so whether it finishes at 8pm after I leave or at 3AM, doesn't really matter to me. Heck, it can finish a moment before I get in the door. Or unlock my machine.

    2. Re: ClearCase again by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, it isn't generally fine. You can't have a distributed SCM and break the distributed part. Microsoft literally breaks git. I am guessing the half that was accepted upstream was the part that doesn't, and the half that does break it will never be accepted. Make no mistake about it their approach breaks git by design, intentional or otherwise.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    3. Re: ClearCase again by dwater · · Score: 1

      Troll?? I noticed the similarly too, though I've not looked into the details.
      I actually liked ClearCase...first used it when it was an Atria product and then when it was part of the CaseVision suite on SGI platforms. I have yet find anyone else who feels the same though.

      --
      Max.
    4. Re:ClearCase again by A.+Craig+West · · Score: 1

      I originally thought much as you do, that it was an attempt to bring Git in line with the old centralized server concept, but then I researched it a little more. Git, as it currently stands, is incredibly slow on very large repos. You might argue that the problem is that the repo is too large, but the solution to that problem frequently requires a Tardis.

      --
      It's not a bug, it's a feature...
    5. Re: ClearCase again by A.+Craig+West · · Score: 1

      I liked ClearCase, until I had to manage the server. It became a little less fun then...

      --
      It's not a bug, it's a feature...
    6. Re: ClearCase again by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You have confused the words "optimize" and "break". The former supports while the latter doesn't.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    7. Re: ClearCase again by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I've worked at places that used Clearcase and it's a brilliant version control system - with dynamic views/MVFS you could do a binary search on a version tree of a file to see where a bug was introduced.

      E.g if you know a bug was introduced between version 0 and version 100, try version 50. If it's still there try version 25 and so on. MVFS, dynamic views and config specs makes this easy. And they even had a version of make called clearmake that knew how to avoid doing a rebuild all

      https://www.ibm.com/support/kn...

      And the tools had the concept of a trivial merge - if there was only one set of changes, cleardiff was able to automerge them.

      And they had a nice graphical version tree browser so you could see all the branches and merges for a file. And all the labels too. I.e. which versions of the file had passed QA tests.

      It was all great, better than any version control system I've used since.

      Then again it's like vxWorks really - if your client is paying for the infrastructure and licence fees, it's great. If you had to pay yourself you'd slum it with git or svn.Then again if you're the only one working, you probably don't need to do a binary search in version space to find out where someone broke something in a very subtle way.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    8. Re: ClearCase again by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      First I would have to teach you how distributed SCM works, which is clearly beyond the scope of a Slashdot post. I'll try to summarize. If I fake clone Linus' tree (references only), then his tree subsequently becomes unavailable, then I am dead in the water, as is everyone using my repo as their upstream. That's the opposite of distributed. Sorry for making you look so stupid so quickly. Off you go now ...

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    9. Re: ClearCase again by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, OK. They do this for the same reason they show the desktop way before you can use it. It makes things appear fast so they can say look ... clone times on Linux and Windows aren't radically different now, we must be as good! Seriously, you are clueless about all this, so take the clown shoes comment from the ads you pulled it from and shove them in your mouth where they belong.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    10. Re: ClearCase again by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You don't get my point because you keep saying I said something I didn't. I didn't say it was a massive conspiracy. Never ascribe to malice what can easily be explained as incompetence as they say. Microsoft can't make their system perform well so they are trying to defer the lower performance parts so that it won't be so obvious. If you can't clone the repo then immediately disconnect all network connections and have access to all files then that is called centralized not distributed. Distributing the centralization doesn't make it distributed SCM. They broke it because they want to be able to hide the fact that the most important software development tool in the world today, bar none, can't perform nearly as well on Windows due to design weaknesses in Windows itself. They know most people don't understand git, so they know they can break it and look better to the ignorant, which is their wheelhouse. Note, they only break git when using their shitty solution. The rest of us aren't impacted by their incompetence, so don't think I mean git for competent people is impacted.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    11. Re: ClearCase again by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Again. Not what I said and you know that. I did realize that this will screw over Linux users too though IF their upstream is Windows hosted using their broken system. So again, they didn't say "let's sabotage the Linux code"; they know that can't happen as the git devs are never going to let that happen. They are sacrificing the distributed part of SCM in exchange for distributing the performance hit over time so it isn't so obvious.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    12. Re: ClearCase again by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      And for the record I am replying to your asinine posts in case someone else will learn and so they don't get sidetracked by your moronic trolling. Off you go now..

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  3. Re:Embrace, Extend, Extinguish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seemed like a way to torture programmers

    And that's not a part of Git today?

    It's a sad thing when you start to agree with Hitler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDeG4S-mJts

  4. Oblg. "Its a trap!" by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1, Troll

    The skeptical side of my is saying "It's a trap!"

    The practical side of me is suspending judgement and waiting to see how this play outs because MS, at this point, has ZERO confidence that they won't hijack this.

    --
    "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, badly" -- paraphrasing George Santayana

    1. Re:Oblg. "Its a trap!" by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Brother, any Slashdotter whose blood is Slashdot green would be saying the same things, or maybe "We are in the embrace phase, just before the "hug of death."

      I really can't help but wonder myself how they're going to twist the knife.here.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  5. It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extinguish. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's not 1995. Microsoft of today is very different of the Microsoft from two decades ago. The presence of Azure alone guarantees that their old business approaches are irrelevant in today's market.

    Microsoft has become one of the premiere open source providers. They've released a huge amount of great open source software, from .NET Core to Visual Studio Code to TypeScript and beyond.

    Maybe it isn't apparent to people firmly stuck in the past, such as yourself, but Microsoft has leapfrogged many of the traditional open source companies.

    People actually like using .NET Core on platforms like Linux and macOS. They like using Visual Studio Code, because it's an excellent cross-platform IDE. They love using TypeScript because it brings sanity to JavaScript.

    Yes, Microsoft does embrace and extend open source software. And we're thankful for it! They're providing us some great improvements. That's what open source is all about: allowing a wide variety of contributors to improve the open source software.

    As for the Extinguish phase you're fixated on, it's not an issue. They just aren't doing it. They can't really extinguish the projects based on the code they've released under very liberal open source licenses.

    Frankly, I've had far better luck with the open source software from Microsoft than I've had with open source software from the traditional open source companies.

    For example, software like .NET Core and Visual Studio Code has greatly improved my Linux experience. It has helped make me a more productive programmer. On the other hand there is a lot of software that didn't come from Microsoft, like systemd, GNOME 3, PulseAudio and NetworkManager, that has actually served to ruin my Linux experience in many ways.

    I never thought I'd be saying this, but Microsoft really has helped improve my Linux experience, while many traditional Linux supporters have actually made it worse! I encourage Microsoft to embrace and extend open source software. So far I've found their contributions to be excellent.

  6. The old story again. E E E. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The "problem" is that git takes a *conserv*ative approach towards compatibility?

    So in other words: Microsoft would like to break git's compatibility with non-Windows?

    YOU DON'T SAY!

    How many times have we go through this exact story again and again?!

    You do not deal with Microsoft. You do not talk to them, you do not take anything from them, you do not follow their suggestions, and you do not get in their van!
    Lest you want to come out once as the skin worn by Microsoft, and once as dog food from the meat grinder.

  7. First... by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not to be that guy, but 'typo in headline.' "GNU/Linux" is misspelled. (Sorry, I guess it turns out that I AM that guy.) Second... it's Micro$oft, and therefore, the fact that it's a trap kind of goes without saying.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    1. Re:First... by david.emery · · Score: 1

      4 Decimal or 4 Hex digits?

    2. Re:First... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Thou canst consider this the 4-digit seal of approval which thou seekest.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  8. Oh Great by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

    So what backdoors did they manage to stick in the upstream version of the Git source?

    1. Re:Oh Great by Scaba · · Score: 1

      The source is available, so you tell us

    2. Re:Oh Great by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      What a lazy attempt to shill. Looks like the same thing they did to corrupt Skype by changing it from a distributed system to a central repository.

    3. Re:Oh Great by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Shill? You are asking about what back doors they added. The source code to git is available to anyone. So if that is a real question and not just a lazy attempt to troll, read the source and report back.

      How about you read the post you're responding to, where it says what the backdoor is?

  9. Re: Microsoft kernel module for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... and systemd. No, wait, that abomination isn't Microsoft.

  10. Re:They need access to the kernel? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Not for network access, for local file access - just like all the other filesystem drivers.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  11. Re:It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extinguis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, yeah. We've all heard it before. Shut up. Microsoft has a track record stretching over 30 years of being a bunch of assholes and crooks. A few token efforts is nowhere enough to re-establish any kind of credibility. Establishing yourself as a shill and an apologist is pretty quickly done though, so congrats to that.

  12. Re:It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extinguis by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

    The Microsoft of the Halloween Documents doesn't exist anymore. If Linux does something well, Microsoft can make money from it selling Azure to run tasks on. If Android does well, Microsoft gets a chunk of every Android device going out there. So, unlike the past, their revenue streams don't depend on just Windows for an OS. For example, MS SQL server runs on Linux... and MS still gets their cut for licensing.

    MS is still a corporation, and they are beholden to the bottom line above all, but MS hitching their cart to Git is not unexpected. It is a widespread, easily maintained, relatively cheap technology... and having something different is expensive. So, moving to Git isn't a surprise move... and it is a good thing overall.

    Beats Visual Sourcesafe, definitely.

  13. Re:Embrace, Extend, Extinguish by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

    Microsoft was a strong mobile player. The problem is that Apple changed the entirety of what people expected in mobile phones, and MS had to pivot to keep up with it. Before the iPhone, the stylus was part of the interface, as well as a physical hardware keyboard. The iPhone set user expectations to a completely different style.

    I will give credit to MS for several things. There is nothing out there as scalable as AD for users, computers, and other core organization in a company. The DHCP protocol is also a big advantage... and beats what we had before (rarp/bootp.)

  14. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingui by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    So Microsoft hasn't changed because they will stop at nothing to make more money any way they can, regardless of it's impact on society or computing? Microsoft hasn't changed. Windows 10 proves that they will get away with whatever they can and leverage ignorance to line their pockets at every opportunity.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  15. Re: The obvious solution is to use gitd by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

    There are no git performance issues. There are Windows performance issues. In typical Microsoft fashion they aren't going to make their product better, but rather try to get others to behave differently so that they don't have to fix their garbage.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  16. Git virtual file system... by B1ackDragon · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've heard of people using git for strange purposes (blogging?!) but for a second reading this headline I had the horrific thought that someone was attempting to create a filesystem backed by git.

    Fortunately that's not the case, GVFS (not that other GVFS) provides a git-compatible filesystem abstraction on Windows 10.

    Although I'm not a big git fan, I do have to say I'm impressed with Microsoft's recent moves toward open-source and interoperability. If the Linux Subsystem is ever a first-class citizen in the MS ecosystem, I could even see myself using Windows again.

    --
    The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
  17. Being trendy has a cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is what happens when you pick technologies by popularity and groupthink. Git has very real flaws: the worst UI of any source control system I've ever used, inability to deal with large repositories, a confused and overcomplicated operational model, trouble with storing large binaries. You can always spot the people who learned Git as their first VCS: when confronted with these problems, they'll say things like "monorepos are bad" or "the CLI tools were always meant to have 'porcelain' built on top of them, not used directly, so it's fine if they suck" -- they have drunk the koolaid and can't see things any other way or explain real counterexamples to the contrary.

    For hobby projects these are academic problems, but if you're working at the scale of a complete operating system then you have to confront Git's weaknesses head-on and fix them. The fact that MS felt it was worth going down this rabbithole just to follow the crowd is sad.

    1. Re:Being trendy has a cost by Daltorak · · Score: 1

      This is what happens when you pick technologies by popularity and groupthink. Git has very real flaws: the worst UI of any source control system I've ever used,

      Whoah, whoah, whoah, now wait a sec here. We're talking about a program invented by Linus Torvalds, the creator of a kernel that routinely sits under userlands where a synonym of "feline" prints the contents of files, where a household cleaner (vim) is a text editor, where "more" and "less" do the same thing despite being literal opposites, and where sometimes, but not always, parameter names are case-sensitive (rm -r == rm -R but rm -i != rm -I).

      So of course git is hard to learn. Just like Linux itself, it makes you fucking work for it.... but then it pays you back a thousand times over. I'm not going to try to convince you that git is the best source control solution out there, but boy oh boy can you ever do a lot with it once you understand its mental model.

    2. Re:Being trendy has a cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a predominantly text version control system it doesn't want large binaries under vc that's not it's job. To manage large binaries you can use git-lfs and git can efficiently to the vc and the large binaries can be served via a service optimized for that.

      It seems your at-scale is in fact miss use, be kinder to you vc system.

    3. Re:Being trendy has a cost by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Git has very real flaws: the worst UI of any source control system I've ever used

      Whenever someone says this, ask them if they are comfortable with the command-line. The answer is always no.

      For hobby projects these are academic problems, but if you're working at the scale of a complete operating system then you have to confront Git's weaknesses head-on and fix them.

      Nah, there are huge, professional projects already using GIT.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Being trendy has a cost by tomxor · · Score: 1

      Git is always confusing when coming from most other SCM because it's almost nothing like most other SCM. It's biggest strength it's it's biggest hurdle, when you learn it from the outside in like most people (touching only the common porcelain commands) it's very easy to build up misconceptions that you can get away with but will confuse the fuck out of you as you try to expand your knowledge. To be fair to the git book beginner chapters and other tutorials they do attempt to reveal internals along the way but I don't think it focuses enough on them. To make matters worse the porcelain commands often look and sound very similar to other SCMs that work nothing like a content addressed file system.

      If you do a deep dive and are lucky enough to have time to spend on git internals then honestly you can just skim read the commands and they fall into place because you will have a good understanding of how they are all just arbitrary high level ways of manipulating a fairly straightforward data structure. Perhaps this is why git books and tutorials really should bother emphasising and explaining some level of internals more upfront. I think as a starter thinking about commits as objects alone (without going into tree, blob and tag objects) along with branches as commit references is enough to explain how almost all the porcelain commands operate on a graph.

    5. Re:Being trendy has a cost by dremon · · Score: 1

      There is a new interesting project for distributed VCS, called 'pijul'. Written in Rust, based on mathematical theory of patches. https://pijul.org/

    6. Re:Being trendy has a cost by Lord+Crc · · Score: 1

      Whenever someone says this, ask them if they are comfortable with the command-line. The answer is always no.

      I've used Mercurial from the command line for 5+ years, didn't even cross my mind to use a GUI for it. Git however is completely unusable to me without SourceTree. Git has a horrible UI, especially on the command line.

    7. Re:Being trendy has a cost by LubosD · · Score: 1

      I use Git every day and I cannot imagine how the stuff I can do with it via command line would be implemented as UI features.

      So the UI is limited to simple tasks performed by people who need nothing more than commit, push and pull and I see no problem with that.

    8. Re:Being trendy has a cost by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Problem detected between keyboard and chair....

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:Being trendy has a cost by tomxor · · Score: 1

      "distributed version control system" does not define git, that's more of a side effect. That's the problem with people who don't get git, evident in the countless comparisons when you google "the difference between git and mercurial" (two good distributed SCMs), they are full of misinformation and comparisons of things that work on top of git like git client UIs and git webserver interfaces.

      The XKCD is probably the most accurate description: "it's a beautiful simple use of graph theory which is extremely flexible... and I have no idea how it works" It's accurate, acknowledges git's beauty and power and the unfortunate truth that most people don't really understand it and view it through the sometimes questionably design porcelain commands.

      The grain of truth however in any of these shitty comparisons around the web, is how some git porcelain commands are confusing because they indeed provide many functions in the same utility which is ironic since git is considered very unix like in how it is built upon a collection of plumbing tools that mutate a graph of objects and merkel trees... If git could be improved for the 90% of people who don't care or "get" git, it's these handful of commonly used porcelain commands like checkout, they need to be more modular like mercurial, additionally they need to not mislead less knowledgeable users about what's really happening (some porcelain commands look like they emulate SVN commands but they really don't, they just look that way on the surface)

    10. Re:Being trendy has a cost by swillden · · Score: 1

      Whenever someone says this, ask them if they are comfortable with the command-line. The answer is always no.

      I've used Mercurial from the command line for 5+ years, didn't even cross my mind to use a GUI for it. Git however is completely unusable to me without SourceTree. Git has a horrible UI, especially on the command line.

      How does Mercurial perform on a 300GB repo? Honest question; I've dabbled briefly with Mercurial on small projects (where I found it nice, but slow) but never looked into how it scales.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    11. Re:Being trendy has a cost by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I've used Mercurial from the command line for 5+ years, didn't even cross my mind to use a GUI for it

      This is not the same as you saying, "I am comfortable with the command-line." It's more like, "I read a Mercurial tutorial once and know how to use that."

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Being trendy has a cost by Lord+Crc · · Score: 1

      It's more like, "I read a Mercurial tutorial once and know how to use that."

      The point is, you don't really need to do more to be comfortable with Mercurial on the command line. Things make sense there, unlike with Git which bleeds implementation details all over the UI for no good reason.

    13. Re:Being trendy has a cost by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      btw if Git is "completely unusable to you" on the command-line, you are either incompetent or spreading propaganda, and probably the latter. At the worst, Git is a little confusing on the command-line. If it's completely unusable, the problem is you.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:Being trendy has a cost by piojo · · Score: 1

      If you want to get this fixed, I can give some tips. First, note that the same bug is present in "git diff", so it's not just a gitk thing. Next, you can use "git blame" or "git log -p" to find the commit that originally added that bug. (Find the commit that touched those lines--who added this broken feature?) If you can't understand it, e-mail the original author or the git mailing list. If it seems like a useless feature, ask if it can be removed, and mention that it's buggy. If they say yes, submit a patch that deletes it in a more thorough way than just adding "if (0 && ..."

      If the feature can't be removed, either it's a fundamental conflict (some protocol adds "" to the file and it can't be changed), or it's fixable. If you can, make some change to the feature so it can be implemented without trying to match "". If it's not fixable, perhaps it could be changed to an option. In that case, this check (which breaks --word-diff=color) won't be done unless the user has requested it.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
  18. Re: Microsoft kernel module for Linux by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    No, Microsoft comes with too easy to get root-type access. Android has no root access.

  19. Microsoft is irrelevant by newdsfornerds · · Score: 2

    They can suck my codpiece.

    --
    Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
  20. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingui by Scaba · · Score: 1

    Can you provide the data you used to make these claims?

  21. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Sure. Here you go ...

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  22. Re:The obvious solution is to use gitd by jeremyp · · Score: 1

    You mean systemd-git

    --
    All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  23. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by Scaba · · Score: 1

    Ah, you don't have any data, so you doubled down on your ignorance. Let me guess - you're a Trump supporter?

  24. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    If you can't find the information there you are too stupid to understand it anyway. Just as there is no question that Trump is a degenerate sociopath who takes advantage of the weak and ignorant, so to is it well proven throughout the years that Microsoft is the corporate equivalent.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  25. Re:It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extinguis by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

    I agree with that last bit. Mr. Coward, you will never be trusted again!

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  26. git was made to make version control decentralized by ffkom · · Score: 3, Informative

    Now MicroSoft tries to turn it into the opposite, asking developers to depend on some remote repository in order to be able to work.

    The obvious agenda here is to make repository hosting first more centralized, then more "hosted at MicroSoft", then, once people depend on the hosted service, demand monthly fees for it.

  27. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by Scaba · · Score: 1

    The larger point, which you missed whilst sniffing your farts, is that those who are challenged to provide data to to back their claims but actually have no data will more likely than not often post a link to Google and demand the challenger find the data themselves while simultaneously trying to "blame the victim". You are weak and ignorant, so my guess that you are a Trump supporter is not without merit.

  28. apple? by barbariccow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why is this story at apple.slashdot.org ?

  29. Re:Embrace, Extend, Extinguish by barbariccow · · Score: 1

    Microsoft doesn't even follow the DHCP spec in several ways...

  30. Re:Embrace, Extend, Extinguish by barbariccow · · Score: 1

    Also, github is a web interface on top of git. gitlab is a shitty alternative. Both use "git' as the underlying server and client tools.

  31. Re:Embrace, Extend, Extinguish by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    The truth is, even though MS are the good guys these days I still put black tape over their keyboard logo.

    But they are pretty nice keyboards.

  32. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    From just an information theory perspective, you've demanded that research be done but you haven't actually specified anything more specific than "MicroSoft hasn't changed."

    And I impeach that by pointing out that once upon a time their product was a computer language written by hand by Bill and Paul. And now, Bill and Paul are off doing other things, they don't write the code by hand from the datasheet without a computer anymore. Somebody completely different is blindly pounding out code now! So we know that the statement "MicroSoft hasn't changed" is false.

  33. Re:git was made to make version control decentrali by Z34107 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The obvious agenda here is to make repository hosting first more centralized, then more "hosted at MicroSoft", then, once people depend on the hosted service, demand monthly fees for it.

    Nobody tell him GitHub already exists and charges money. Microsoft's interested in GVFS is because 1) Git sucks at handling large repos, and 2) Microsoft has a 270GB repo.
    The original /. article back in Friday had better comments, including one linking an article describing why they chose Git for source control, and what GVFS actually does.

    --
    DATABASE WOW WOW
  34. Nah by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Microsoft had to modify Git to handle the demands of Windows development but said that it wanted to get these modifications accepted upstream and integrated into the standard Git client.

    They're very likely doing something wrong here.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  35. They still won't change the name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In other news, arrogant Microsoft still won't change the name of GVFS that isn't already used by a prominent Linux feature: https://github.com/Microsoft/GVFS/issues/7

  36. Re: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish by UrbanMonk · · Score: 1

    Visual Source Safe was easy to use, came with a GUI.

  37. Re:git was made to make version control decentrali by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    270G is a large git repo? That's a bit over half the size of ours.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  38. Re: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish by eneville · · Score: 1

    Visual Source Safe was easy to use, came with a GUI.

    How many people were in your team? Switching from vss to subversion was an amazing improvement. People get on better with git though as its distributed and gives you the chance to rebase to make commit history less noisy and more concise.

    --
    Why UNIX?
  39. Before you do that by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

    Fix the piss poor Git integration in Visual Studio

  40. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    You have that bass ackwards. In the case of well known, thoroughly documented, and literally indisputable fact being advanced weasels like you try to win the argument by claiming that it is my responsibility to do your homework and then shout "I knew you didn't know the answer! " in hopes that they might save face.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  41. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    I didn't demand research be done. The other idiot wanted me to give him the answers to the test and I told him I wasn't going to play his little game. Do try to keep up. And you might want to learn about information theory before talking about it. This has nothing to do with it.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  42. Re:git was made to make version control decentrali by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    For a single git repository, it's quite large. Git's lack of ability to check out, and manage, a single directory of a much larger upstream can be problematic with this.

  43. Ha Ha Ha by emil · · Score: 1

    Very funny.

    http://www.supersu.com/

  44. Re: Microsoft kernel module for Linux by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    So Windows 10 uses normal init in the Windows Subsystem for Linux?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  45. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Cool story bro

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  46. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    I didn't demand research be done.

    And yet prior:

    Sure. Here you go ... [google.com]

    and then

    If you can't find the information there you are too stupid to understand it anyway.

    And if you can't comprehend that you were demanding unspecified research, I'll just answer by quoting you further:

    weak and ignorant

  47. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    You sound unhappy with my content. Now, wouldn't it make more sense for you to take anti-depressants? Me, I'm pretty happy with what I wrote.

  48. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Dumbfuck, he demanded I do his research for him. What you claim is my demanding is merely my refusal to capitulate to his demanding.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  49. Re:git was made to make version control decentrali by ffkom · · Score: 1

    GitHub still uses ordinary git repositories, and the people using github still have their whole, complete repositories on their own local machines. Quite different from the MicroSoft GVFS.

    If MicroSoft really put 270 GB of source code into one git repository, this only demonstrates how little they learned since the days they had to introduce a weird kind of "precompiled headers" in order to deal with their excessive use of one ".h" file that includes everything.

  50. Re:git was made to make version control decentrali by ffkom · · Score: 1

    One might argue that git's support for referencing sub-modules is not ideal at this time, but it sure exists and can be used to avoid overly large single repositories.

  51. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    He asked your reason. You appealed for him to do research.

    You're so smaht you can't see the difference? LOL

    If you explained your reasons and he wanted a citation, then it would be reasonable to say, "go and research what I said." But that isn't the case; you made a very very very broad statement, which I already impeached above, and he was asking you for data. Your claim had conclusions, but you didn't make any claims as to if there even is data that supports it. If you don't know if data exists that supports your claim, how do you know that research would uncover it? No, you have to have done the research already! And when you appeal to another to do research about your own claims, you'd need to be willing to make some sort of reference as to what was researchable. Just giving a bare google link with no description of the data is fucking moronic. Dumbfuck.

  52. Re:git was made to make version control decentrali by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    Git with submodules solves the _reverse_ problem. One would have to fragment a project into many distinct git repositories, and maintain them each individually with a master project, to allow developers to check out and work on only one small component at a time. To pick out only a small component for local development, one has to pre-separate and activate that one, separate component as a repository and modify the master repository to use submodules.

    It's feasible, and I've certainly helped workgroups do that. When a repository grows as large as the mentioned 270G, it's usually well past time to split up components into separate git repositories. And a master git project with git submodules under it may be the only reliable way in git to unify the project and allow subcomponent development to proceed efficiently. But that's a considerable amount of organizational work to achieve, even with a smaller project.

  53. Re: ReClearCase again by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    I already acknowledged that you are a troll. You can stop trying so hard to make sure everyone knows that now.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  54. Re:Embrace, Extend, Extinguish by terjeber · · Score: 1

    Hey, 1995 called and wanted its retarded memes back.

  55. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by terjeber · · Score: 1

    And you still are not capable of providing any supporting data for your retarded claims.

    OK, so you are probably not Trump, but you have documented you are far dumber.

  56. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by terjeber · · Score: 1

    I told him I wasn't going to play his little game

    Translation: have no facts to back up my unsubstantiated claims.

  57. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by terjeber · · Score: 1

    Dumbfuck, he demanded I do his research for him

    No, he asked you to substantiate your unsubstantiated claims. Have you stopped raping children? You never did you say? I say different. Check google

  58. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Right. It's like when someone says "prove to me I will fall if I jump from this cliff" and I refuse to teach them physics. Proof that there is no proof! Clearly anyone who wanted me to believe that would teach me Physics upon demand! You are a truly special form of special, aren't you?

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  59. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    You really should have chosen herpderper for your Slashdot login.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  60. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by terjeber · · Score: 1

    and you still have no arguments. How old are you? Five? Donald Trump indeed.

  61. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by terjeber · · Score: 1

    still, no ability to put together a coherent argument. Hello President Trump. You're a moron.

  62. Re: It's more like Embrace and Extend. No Extingu by terjeber · · Score: 1

    and still, not a single argument. Good for you. How's the recovery from your encephalectomy coming along?