Re: INDI AP driver
On Feb 21, 2018, at 10:21 AM, 'Ray Gralak (Groups)' firstname.lastname@example.org [ap-gto] <email@example.com> wrote:A lot of us don't depend on IDEs - a lot of us aren't even interested in producing GUI applications. If I want to make a CLI for a telescope control system, or a web interface, or anything like that - I want to be able to do those things and have a menu of appropriate languages to choose from to implement these ideas. If that means PHP bindings to a INDI client library, then great. If that means Python or Go bindings to a client library, then so be it.And this is a perfect example of one of the big reasons why people do notwish to getinvoluntarily hitched to anything in the Microsoft world.Dale, I think your anti-Microsoft sentiment is showing. :-)
I'll repeat it again: The world does not revolve around GUI apps and Windows platforms. Your world might, but not everyone subscribes to your view and there is a pent-up desire for the ability to operate outside that world.
The INDI project is evident of this. Ever wonder why the progenitors of INDI didn't instead put their efforts into ASCOM? It's because of the continued hang-up ASCOM has with existing too up-stack, and too insular on its platform would make it tortuously inflexible in trying to bring to on others - and there would be real trade-offs. Obviously, they determined it was easier to create a new system than to change the existing one. The last paragraph of their "Intended Audience" succinctly conveys their desire:
2. Microsoft has also made .Net open source and a version of it crossHave you looked at the donetcore github PRs and group members and seen who they are? Spoiler alert: it's pretty much all Microsoft or dotnet Foundation employees.
This is what I call "Github Grandstanding". It's when a company open-sources a product (or worse, a subset of a complete product) but they don't actually grant the opportunity for the greater community to participate in any reviewer, committer, or architecture roles - ergo, any meaningful stewardship roles. While the code is open-sourced in the most basic definition, it's a Potemkin village - a place where you can look, but not touch. At the end of the day, its direction, features, and capabilities are deliberated in Redmond, WA conference rooms and not openly. This is universally considered to be unhealthy in the long-term for any truly open source project. This is what you're proposing to base a portable ASCOM on, with Microsoft's continued devotion to their platform being something it depends on into the unseen future.
3. How about another *free* software application from Microsoft, "Code". ItAgain, one should not require IDEs to produce code.