1. I was genuinely happy that people are doing this. I'm happy because it's good for me (I can run more software in the way I prefer to, without installing it). I never expressed anything emotional icon other than the "smiley face", which does not denote sadness.
2. The items with similar timelines are not comparable. The link to AppFS is a link to working code being written and the other links are to documents regarding a desire to have working code written someday, maybe.
3. It's a good idea, that I did not claim to come up with. It's a refinement of how things were done on UNIX campuses long ago where the was a common NFS-mounted directory with applications installed on it. This is definitely not original out claimed to be do. Then the same model that Sun/Oracle uses for Solaris packages in "ipkg" in Solaris 11 is mixed in with that. The result is something very similar to something old as well called 0install, back when it used LazyFS. Again not original. The thing that AppFS adds beyond just the merging of these ideas is the additional idea that the filesystem should be writable. This is not original exactly either since the same thing is done for ClusterNFS (except per-system changes are preserved instead of per-uid).
Given that I've obviously used all these technologies to achieve similar goals it should be obvious that I don't think AppFS is original -- quite the opposite, I've been using it for decades.
The intent of my post, which you seem to have missed, is to point to something else that does the same thing as this new thing. The reason that I would do this is because the ideas a are old and we can improve upon them by looking at similar implementations. I certainly spent a lot of time with 0install's LazyFS (probably one of the heaviest packages).
As an aside, I found your post condescending in tone. Given that you acknowledged that all your statements were based solely on assumptions for things I did not write, I do not think this was effective in communicating your thoughts over this medium. Overall, I'm not sure what your message would contribute if these assumptions you made were wrong. My guess (assumption) is that you did not consider what your message was if your assumptions were wrong. If my assumption/guess is wrong here, please disregard this section and do note that this message still has content that communicates meaning.
2. The items with similar timelines are not comparable. The link to AppFS is a link to working code being written and the other links are to documents regarding a desire to have working code written someday, maybe.
3. It's a good idea, that I did not claim to come up with. It's a refinement of how things were done on UNIX campuses long ago where the was a common NFS-mounted directory with applications installed on it. This is definitely not original out claimed to be do. Then the same model that Sun/Oracle uses for Solaris packages in "ipkg" in Solaris 11 is mixed in with that. The result is something very similar to something old as well called 0install, back when it used LazyFS. Again not original. The thing that AppFS adds beyond just the merging of these ideas is the additional idea that the filesystem should be writable. This is not original exactly either since the same thing is done for ClusterNFS (except per-system changes are preserved instead of per-uid).
Given that I've obviously used all these technologies to achieve similar goals it should be obvious that I don't think AppFS is original -- quite the opposite, I've been using it for decades.
The intent of my post, which you seem to have missed, is to point to something else that does the same thing as this new thing. The reason that I would do this is because the ideas a are old and we can improve upon them by looking at similar implementations. I certainly spent a lot of time with 0install's LazyFS (probably one of the heaviest packages).
As an aside, I found your post condescending in tone. Given that you acknowledged that all your statements were based solely on assumptions for things I did not write, I do not think this was effective in communicating your thoughts over this medium. Overall, I'm not sure what your message would contribute if these assumptions you made were wrong. My guess (assumption) is that you did not consider what your message was if your assumptions were wrong. If my assumption/guess is wrong here, please disregard this section and do note that this message still has content that communicates meaning.