If you are saying they won't support iOS OpenGL apps, that's one thing toward your hypothesis. It would not, however, make anything easier for iOS apps if macOS apps can't use OpenGL....
Note that in the Windows case, the OS does not provide nor need it provide the APIs, the APIs are provided by the GPU vendor as part of it's 'driver' package (which also generally includes OpenGL libraries).
Microsoft also deprecated the APIs, but that does not preclude third parties from stepping in to do what's required. At the time there was a great amount of fear and assumptions that it was going to kill off OpenGL, but in the end OpenGL carried on forever because it turned out there was a market for a cross-platform solution, even if each platform wasn't interested in enabling it.
I remember when Microsoft dropped OpenGL from the Windows platform. In practice, nothing changed as the GPU vendors kept providing OpenGL implementations anyway.
It just meant that MS was stopping the rather crappy job they were doing with OpenGL that the GPU vendors were already replacing anyway.
It being Apple, they could throw a bigger fit and forbid it, but at least it's possible that OS dropping support may mean nothing in practice.
No, we have one standard (OpenGL and subsequently Vulkan) and two proprietary implementations (DirectX and Metal).
In Windows land, the only thing that is required to work (by Microsoft) is DirectX, but in practice the GPU vendors always have to support OpenGL and Vulkan.
It may be possible that Apple is taking a similar stance (according to Microsoft in the strictest interpretation, neither OpenGL or Vulkan is 'supported' in Windows either, last I heard). I don't know if GPU driver vendors are going to be similarly empowered to bring Vulkan support regardless of the OS not doing so.
No one who passed it will be in office in 2045. As such, they don't own ultimate accountability for actually making it happen, but they can pat themselves on the back for 'driving it to happen'.
Reminds me of when IBM CEO declared a certain crazy fiscal target for 5 years out, and immediately retired so it would be someone else's fault the target was not feasible.
I know this is a troll, but to react with data, there's good reason breast cancer gets so much more attention, it's 44 times more likely to happen to a person under 40 than prostate cancer is.
Also, as noted by others, prostate, ovarian, and breast cancer have been considered in the same boat with respect to being tricking for immunology based approaches for treatment, so if this is validation of a procedure rather than a lucky one-off, this would be fantastic news for people worried about prostate cancer as well.
The holder of the copyright can take the content 'private' once licensed and released. They are unable to restrict users of their previously acquired software in such a way.
So if MS says 'new projects must not be GPL' or 'your project must change away from GPL or get removed or set read-only', then people can in fact go away from GPL from that point forward.
This is frequently infeasible for many projects (unable to reach copyright holders to agree to a license change) unless that project also had copyright assignment as a contribution condition (which when required by companies is generally booed, but the FSF requires copyright assignment so ironically the FSF could kill GPL for all projects it provides).
All this is speaking to a hypothetical I seriously doubt. I assume MS is not stupid and realizes just how little 'stickiness' there is in the github userbase, and that any change that would scare off users could kill the platform within a few weeks. It's as much about marketing their image as it is about the revenue stream.
This presumes that web devs don't make these mistakes anymore.
They make this sort of mistake all the time. The difference is that any big, recognizable name that failed to fix this ultimately failed for one reason or another. Look at smaller sites or internal services at companies that are home grown, they are still chock full of this stuff.
The problem is people shaping this as a 'Windows' thing rather than a 'Microsoft' thing, or even broadly a 'big corp owns everything' thing.
It's healthy for them to move beyond self-delusion that they can always make Windows the answer, but in a way this makes them a bigger threat to the industry at large. The ideal end game for them is regardless of your technology choices, you give Microsoft money. Everything they do is in pursuit of that goal.
Again, it's also worth being worried more broadly about the industry trend of consolidation. It's why we currently only have 4 opinions to reconcile in the US cellular networking market (the leaders of the 4 providers). We should worry about Microsoft, but we also should be at least as worried about Google, Amazon, and Facebook.
Note that github has never been open source. They have facilitated open source projects, but they have kept their code proprietary.
It's an interesting set of expectations. When self-hosted, people would care about the open source nature of it. If you *only* host, no one seems to have any expectation of how open or closed your software is.
There is every chance that the vast majority will not abandon github just at the MS annoucement. Sure there will be some, those will be very vocal and in fact given the community, a higher percentage than those who abandoned linked in, for example.
Well, the content is, as it stands, subject to licensing and copyright.
In theory, MS could change the terms to say that MS has rights to all code under licensing terms of their choosing, in addition to whatever licensing the project chooses to offer everyone else.
This is the same company that once had ambitions of organically providing their own, but dictated things like licensing (codeplex forbade GPLv3 as one example, until 2013). The license was always a drop down, not freeform, so you didn't get to pick your license freely.
In practice, it's probably more about the social aspect than the code assets. Any move to do anything remotely worrisome with terms and conditions would sink the site faster than you can say 'sourceforge'.
Yes they do. They also glitch out the page on scroll often (how many times I've tried to scroll and it flickers right back to the top for... some reason... until I delete the sidebar and then can scroll.
Frankly, I'm not a big fan of Atlassian, so personally I wouldn't know how to feel. I'm subjected to their software daily and it's hard to imagine it getting more 'messed up' than it already is for my tastes. Note this isn't so much bitbucket as their other assets.
Somehow google can live an advertising without having to make browser-killing and image-laden ads the norm.
There's a middle ground between 'free services without ads subsidized by hopefully paying customers' and 'ads that make you want to claw your eyes out'
Also, there's the fact that they can't sell out to microsoft because microsoft would have to want them in the first place.
Might have to look into that. While I generally like gitlab's general end result interface and capabilities, under the covers it feels like duct tape upon duct tape. When things go south, it's very hard to put humpty dumpty back together again.
Git as a technology is distributed (well, apart from GVFS, which Microsoft drove, which centralizes Git).
The question is what development-oriented userbase will be in use in the future by 'default'
The value of github is a very common way to submit a proposed change without having to first join a project or figure out that specific projects procedures and tools. This works simply because github is popular and supports the one way to do it.
So what is going to be the popular one way to do it in the future? It might be github, might be something else.
If called for, a migration is easier because every developer has a copy of the full repository (unless they are using GVFS...)
1) They open sourced the parts that were not doing well competitively. Notably, they do not open source enough to make desktop applications. Only server applications can benefit from what they did open source, and they had nothing to lose as C# had no market share. 2) IE's market share had cratered, so ignoring what other browsers were doing was no longer an option. 3) It's billed as an 'Azure Development Tool', and it's never going to be allowed to infringe upon the desktop application side. Again, MS has a problem with other cloud vendors advocating for linux centricity and MS has to do something to accommodate for their rental model to pan out. 4) The alternative is Google Docs taking out their market. 5) Mostly toward the end of making Linux friendlier toward their on and off-prem virtualization technologies. If you are not a Windows or Azure customer, those contributions don't really help you. Again, their competition that had a head start is hosting Linux on either Linux or Xen and MS needs to invest to have their solution be competitive. 6) They will enthusiastically take your money for anything. Again, they got blindsided by Amazon getting ahead and Linux being the gold standard in the market. Note that from the inception, the internet services market has never gone Microsoft's way. 7) Apple is so focused on their phones they are not even giving a crap about the desktop/laptop market. Besides, mostly I see 'innovative' desktops from MS partners, not so much from MS themselves (hardware wise). Desktop wise, I'm not sure I'd call Windows more innovative than OSX at this point. 8) Evidence of the claim? Other than a brief period where they did 'Windows with Bing' on Tablet form factor devices under 10" in screen size, I have seen no sign of a change of direction on that front.
The only place where MS did try to actually genuinely compete with OEM license was back in the days of Windows 8 tablets, when people assumed that tablets would be a thing but it wasn't clear that MS would even have a role.
That was a pretty brief time and very narrow market (devices with an integrated screen and that screen had to be no larger than 10"). Otherwise as far as I know, they still treat their vendors about the same as they always have.
One, most people don't think too much on Netscape, that was one of the *least* insidious ways they attacked the market. Of course the more insidious technical examples are even older (intentionally making popular microsoft software fail to work correctly with competing DOS implementations). Business wise it has been consistent and pervasive throughout. They have recently been better for those who care about the technology and espouse open source values, but business wise they continue to do things that aren't the healthiest for the industry.
Note that MS is not alone here, all the big tech companies with billions in profits didn't get there by being nice and doing the right thing by the industry.
Between gitlab and atlassian, there are at least healthy alternatives that have easy issue tracking/git commit integration and continuous integration packages for those who don't feel ilke understanding how to set it up themselves (which as you suggest isn't too hard either).
Slashdot Mirror
If you are saying they won't support iOS OpenGL apps, that's one thing toward your hypothesis. It would not, however, make anything easier for iOS apps if macOS apps can't use OpenGL....
Note that in the Windows case, the OS does not provide nor need it provide the APIs, the APIs are provided by the GPU vendor as part of it's 'driver' package (which also generally includes OpenGL libraries).
Microsoft also deprecated the APIs, but that does not preclude third parties from stepping in to do what's required. At the time there was a great amount of fear and assumptions that it was going to kill off OpenGL, but in the end OpenGL carried on forever because it turned out there was a market for a cross-platform solution, even if each platform wasn't interested in enabling it.
I remember when Microsoft dropped OpenGL from the Windows platform. In practice, nothing changed as the GPU vendors kept providing OpenGL implementations anyway.
It just meant that MS was stopping the rather crappy job they were doing with OpenGL that the GPU vendors were already replacing anyway.
It being Apple, they could throw a bigger fit and forbid it, but at least it's possible that OS dropping support may mean nothing in practice.
No, we have one standard (OpenGL and subsequently Vulkan) and two proprietary implementations (DirectX and Metal).
In Windows land, the only thing that is required to work (by Microsoft) is DirectX, but in practice the GPU vendors always have to support OpenGL and Vulkan.
It may be possible that Apple is taking a similar stance (according to Microsoft in the strictest interpretation, neither OpenGL or Vulkan is 'supported' in Windows either, last I heard). I don't know if GPU driver vendors are going to be similarly empowered to bring Vulkan support regardless of the OS not doing so.
It is a tricky situation. If your intentions are genuine, a timeline for which you could be held reasonably accountable is unrealistic.
However a realistic timeline takes burden of accountability away, and then insincere politicians have an opportunity for some easy 'wins'.
This is true, but the claim verbatim is 'first-ever 5.0 ghz', so it's correct to call them out on not hitting the front.
No one who passed it will be in office in 2045. As such, they don't own ultimate accountability for actually making it happen, but they can pat themselves on the back for 'driving it to happen'.
Reminds me of when IBM CEO declared a certain crazy fiscal target for 5 years out, and immediately retired so it would be someone else's fault the target was not feasible.
Well, they couldn't kill it for copies already downloaded, but they can re license new downloads of the exact same code.
I know this is a troll, but to react with data, there's good reason breast cancer gets so much more attention, it's 44 times more likely to happen to a person under 40 than prostate cancer is.
Also, as noted by others, prostate, ovarian, and breast cancer have been considered in the same boat with respect to being tricking for immunology based approaches for treatment, so if this is validation of a procedure rather than a lucky one-off, this would be fantastic news for people worried about prostate cancer as well.
The holder of the copyright can take the content 'private' once licensed and released. They are unable to restrict users of their previously acquired software in such a way.
So if MS says 'new projects must not be GPL' or 'your project must change away from GPL or get removed or set read-only', then people can in fact go away from GPL from that point forward.
This is frequently infeasible for many projects (unable to reach copyright holders to agree to a license change) unless that project also had copyright assignment as a contribution condition (which when required by companies is generally booed, but the FSF requires copyright assignment so ironically the FSF could kill GPL for all projects it provides).
All this is speaking to a hypothetical I seriously doubt. I assume MS is not stupid and realizes just how little 'stickiness' there is in the github userbase, and that any change that would scare off users could kill the platform within a few weeks. It's as much about marketing their image as it is about the revenue stream.
This presumes that web devs don't make these mistakes anymore.
They make this sort of mistake all the time. The difference is that any big, recognizable name that failed to fix this ultimately failed for one reason or another. Look at smaller sites or internal services at companies that are home grown, they are still chock full of this stuff.
The problem is people shaping this as a 'Windows' thing rather than a 'Microsoft' thing, or even broadly a 'big corp owns everything' thing.
It's healthy for them to move beyond self-delusion that they can always make Windows the answer, but in a way this makes them a bigger threat to the industry at large. The ideal end game for them is regardless of your technology choices, you give Microsoft money. Everything they do is in pursuit of that goal.
Again, it's also worth being worried more broadly about the industry trend of consolidation. It's why we currently only have 4 opinions to reconcile in the US cellular networking market (the leaders of the 4 providers). We should worry about Microsoft, but we also should be at least as worried about Google, Amazon, and Facebook.
Note that github has never been open source. They have facilitated open source projects, but they have kept their code proprietary.
It's an interesting set of expectations. When self-hosted, people would care about the open source nature of it. If you *only* host, no one seems to have any expectation of how open or closed your software is.
There is every chance that the vast majority will not abandon github just at the MS annoucement. Sure there will be some, those will be very vocal and in fact given the community, a higher percentage than those who abandoned linked in, for example.
Well, the content is, as it stands, subject to licensing and copyright.
In theory, MS could change the terms to say that MS has rights to all code under licensing terms of their choosing, in addition to whatever licensing the project chooses to offer everyone else.
This is the same company that once had ambitions of organically providing their own, but dictated things like licensing (codeplex forbade GPLv3 as one example, until 2013). The license was always a drop down, not freeform, so you didn't get to pick your license freely.
In practice, it's probably more about the social aspect than the code assets. Any move to do anything remotely worrisome with terms and conditions would sink the site faster than you can say 'sourceforge'.
Yes they do. They also glitch out the page on scroll often (how many times I've tried to scroll and it flickers right back to the top for... some reason... until I delete the sidebar and then can scroll.
Frankly, I'm not a big fan of Atlassian, so personally I wouldn't know how to feel. I'm subjected to their software daily and it's hard to imagine it getting more 'messed up' than it already is for my tastes. Note this isn't so much bitbucket as their other assets.
Somehow google can live an advertising without having to make browser-killing and image-laden ads the norm.
There's a middle ground between 'free services without ads subsidized by hopefully paying customers' and 'ads that make you want to claw your eyes out'
Also, there's the fact that they can't sell out to microsoft because microsoft would have to want them in the first place.
Might have to look into that. While I generally like gitlab's general end result interface and capabilities, under the covers it feels like duct tape upon duct tape. When things go south, it's very hard to put humpty dumpty back together again.
sourceforge is still a festering bloat of ads. Just opening a sourceforge download tab makes my fan spin up.
gitlab or atlassian would be the winners if any.
Git as a technology is distributed (well, apart from GVFS, which Microsoft drove, which centralizes Git).
The question is what development-oriented userbase will be in use in the future by 'default'
The value of github is a very common way to submit a proposed change without having to first join a project or figure out that specific projects procedures and tools. This works simply because github is popular and supports the one way to do it.
So what is going to be the popular one way to do it in the future? It might be github, might be something else.
If called for, a migration is easier because every developer has a copy of the full repository (unless they are using GVFS...)
1) They open sourced the parts that were not doing well competitively. Notably, they do not open source enough to make desktop applications. Only server applications can benefit from what they did open source, and they had nothing to lose as C# had no market share.
2) IE's market share had cratered, so ignoring what other browsers were doing was no longer an option.
3) It's billed as an 'Azure Development Tool', and it's never going to be allowed to infringe upon the desktop application side. Again, MS has a problem with other cloud vendors advocating for linux centricity and MS has to do something to accommodate for their rental model to pan out.
4) The alternative is Google Docs taking out their market.
5) Mostly toward the end of making Linux friendlier toward their on and off-prem virtualization technologies. If you are not a Windows or Azure customer, those contributions don't really help you. Again, their competition that had a head start is hosting Linux on either Linux or Xen and MS needs to invest to have their solution be competitive.
6) They will enthusiastically take your money for anything. Again, they got blindsided by Amazon getting ahead and Linux being the gold standard in the market. Note that from the inception, the internet services market has never gone Microsoft's way.
7) Apple is so focused on their phones they are not even giving a crap about the desktop/laptop market. Besides, mostly I see 'innovative' desktops from MS partners, not so much from MS themselves (hardware wise). Desktop wise, I'm not sure I'd call Windows more innovative than OSX at this point.
8) Evidence of the claim? Other than a brief period where they did 'Windows with Bing' on Tablet form factor devices under 10" in screen size, I have seen no sign of a change of direction on that front.
The only place where MS did try to actually genuinely compete with OEM license was back in the days of Windows 8 tablets, when people assumed that tablets would be a thing but it wasn't clear that MS would even have a role.
That was a pretty brief time and very narrow market (devices with an integrated screen and that screen had to be no larger than 10"). Otherwise as far as I know, they still treat their vendors about the same as they always have.
One, most people don't think too much on Netscape, that was one of the *least* insidious ways they attacked the market. Of course the more insidious technical examples are even older (intentionally making popular microsoft software fail to work correctly with competing DOS implementations). Business wise it has been consistent and pervasive throughout. They have recently been better for those who care about the technology and espouse open source values, but business wise they continue to do things that aren't the healthiest for the industry.
Note that MS is not alone here, all the big tech companies with billions in profits didn't get there by being nice and doing the right thing by the industry.
Between gitlab and atlassian, there are at least healthy alternatives that have easy issue tracking/git commit integration and continuous integration packages for those who don't feel ilke understanding how to set it up themselves (which as you suggest isn't too hard either).