zlacker

>>lostms+(OP)
Man, this hurt to read. Keivan’s response is the right one. But I wonder if the arrangements and outcome would have been different had AppGet been closed source.

This is just not cricket from team Microsoft.

>>ak39+B9
> I wonder if the arrangements and outcome would have been different had AppGet been closed source.

All of the Windows apps that MS did this to back in the 1990s were closed source. Didn't help. MS has more than enough horsepower to just reverse engineer whatever they can't get the source code for if they care enough about the features.

>>pdonis+Ya
I don't think so. There have been quite a few larger products, where Microsoft failed spectacularly.

>>lostms+5c
> There have been quite a few larger products, where Microsoft failed spectacularly.

Sure, but not because of failure to reverse engineer someone else's product.

>>pdonis+No
Right. That was the point: it is not enough to just understand how something was made. You have to be able to recreate it too. And building a similar system in just a bit different way to avoid potential copyright or patent claims is hard. If the system is complex, it is hard squared.

>>lostms+xw
> it is not enough to just understand how something was made. You have to be able to recreate it too

I meant to include both in "reverse engineering".

What I was trying to say was that the large products where MS has failed spectacularly don't seem to me to be products from some other company that they reverse engineered. They seem to me to be products MS thought up itself. MS is better at co-opting ideas invented by others than at inventing its own.