If Apple develops it's own implementation of Vulkan, they have to rely on . . . Vulkan. They have to rely on the Khronos Group which controls the standard.
There are two meanings of "free software". Free software as in the open source movement and generic meaning. But perhaps you missed the part where up until 2011 and XCode 4.1, gcc was the compiler seems to counter your point that Apple didn't use gcc because of the GPL. I don't recall the GNU Project sending Apple a cease and desist.
That's the way everybody wants it except Apple, who wants a dumbed down API that doesn't excel at anything and instantly shoves Apple to the back of the crossport list. If you can see the point of that then you have more imagination than me.
And your evidence for that is what? You seem to assert that you know exactly what Apple wants. Unless you work in the upper echelons of Apple, you're merely asserting what you think Apple wants based on your own bias.
That's not what he said. Read it again moving your lips this time of necessary. There was no business case for Apple to get into the 3D API business.
Do you know how many games use Metal? That alone says that there is a business case for Apple to get into the 3D API business; however, their API is only for them and they don't want to release it for every one. Other software they have released like OpenCL when it suited them.
Yet they did, and now they expect everyone else to jump through the resulting flaming hoop of dogshit.
No they don't. Apple doesn't expect "everyone" to jump through hoops. Certainly Apple isn't expecting Linux and Microsoft user to do anything.
They were not talking about Apple's implementation of OpenGL. They were talking about OpenGL in general. What major changes have happened to OpenGL in years? From what I can tell, not a lot. They've made some optimizations in recent years but they haven't really advanced it. That's why Vulkan was developed. I think Khronos knew that they couldn't advance OpenGL without fundamental changes so that it would be OpenGL in name only.
I never agreed or disagreed about Tim Cook so don't use a strawman tactic. But to be clear you don't think the graphics API is important enough for Apple to develop on it's own?
Apple failed at controlling Webkit because Google got fed up with Apple's governance and forked it (Blink)
Reading that statement it seems you don't understand what open source is. Apple developed WebKit from a fork of KHTML. As open source, Google wanted to fork it and make Blink. So when you said Apple "failed" to control WebKit, that sentence is nonsensical.
rapidly made Webkit irrelevant, now used by Safari and nobody else
That is rather factually untrue in two regards. First, there are browsers that use WebKit still and second, what proof do you have that WebKit was "rapidly made" irrelevant.
Apple will eventually give up backporting Blink improvements and repurpose their engineers officially as Blink contributors,
Do you have proof of that or that your assertion without evidence?
Apple has to play nice with LLVM or that history will play out again the same way.
Again your assertion or do you have evidence?
Unlike HTML and Compiler tech, Apple has no credible business case for a bespoke 3D library. In fact there is a strong case to the contrary, as proved by the Autodesk pullout.
You mean beside Metal? Autodesk doesn't want to code in Metal, that's their choice, but it's factually untrue that Apple has no 3D library.
No they don't but the developers who write software for them care. Have you talked to any of them? My conversations with them lead me to the following conclusions. The good thing about OpenGL is that it's not going anywhere (stable). The bad thing about OpenGL is that it's not going anywhere (stagnant). The good thing about Metal is that it is what Vulkan should be in terms of ease of use and function. The bad thing about Metal is that it is only macOS/iOS. The good thing about Vulkan is that it is cross-platform. The bad thing is that it's very finicky to use.
You mean the touchbar that allows you the user a variable number of keys but doesn't permanently remove the Escape key. I take it that if you didn't know that, you've probably not used a touchbar.
The reason they abandoned gcc is because of the GPL. Intellisense-like features required the code parser from the compiler to be integrated into the IDE, the GPL didn't allow that without making XCode free software which Apple didn't want to do so having a modern closed-source IDE required a compatible (licensed) compiler.
Considering that until 2011 (XCode 4.1), gcc was the compiler, I find that hard to believe. Also before 4.1, XCode cost $4.99 to the general public and free for paid Apple Developers ($99 yearly). After 4.1, XCode was free to the general public. That seems to go against your narrative because Apple made XCode free after it dropped gcc.
Basically Apple has shown over and over that they only care about 30 percent of the market, and everyone else can go fuck themselves. Here they are doing it again.
No, Apple in this exact example has shown they want to control their own ecosystem. It's the exact same reason they developed WebKit and switched to LLVM. You want to proscribe more to their intentions, then that's your call.
I'm glad I'm not locked into that crap platform
So if I understand you correctly, you're not remotely affected by this decision yet you feel extremely slighted by it?
that doesn't even have an escape key (if only there were another company that made such durable laptop frames).
And when was the last time you actually looked at a Mac keyboard because all the ones I see have Escape keys.
No, now they use LLVM/CLANG, which they also don't develop, though they contribute quite a bit to it's development.
No Apple didn't initially develop LLVM but they have contributed significantly to it as you've noted. The main reason Apple doesn't use gcc anymore is that they felt there were not getting enough support from the GNU Project. Since Objective-C has much smaller base than C or C++, many of the changes and optimizations Apple wanted for their languages wasn't being done as quickly as they wanted. I suspect also that making those kinds of changes would have broken many things for other languages. So Apple went with another compiler. Same story with WebKit.
From what I understand about OpenGL, I don't think Khronos is really advancing it either. They are mainly focused in developing Vulkan. From what I can see OpenGL has been getting minor tweaks for years. I would say it is telling Khronos could have made OpenGL more advanced but opted to write an entire API from scratch instead. So why didn't Apple use Vulkan instead? The main reason I think was that Apple couldn't wait for Vulkan as Metal was released 18 months before Khronos released the Vulkan spec much less a working implementation.
Apple simply doesn't have the market share to push Metal other than as afterthoughts. Industry moves ot Vulkan because it runs everywhere.... except Apple.
Except that's not exactly what Apple is doing. Apple has never said that everyone else should use Metal. What they've said is they are going to use Metal.
If Apple wants a gaming scene on Macs going forward it's got to (1) preserve OpenGL support which still has the majority of games and (2) offer native Vulkan, which has got the industry momentum.
And how long has Apple been pushing Macs to be a gaming machine. Almost never. With iOS, if you're not developing on Metal, you're not going to be doing much graphics.
The most logical reason is that Apple doesn't want to put the development of a crucial part of their OS in someone else's hands. It's why they don't use gcc anymore. And why they developed their own web browser.
Fuck Metal, anyway. It's like DirectX but nobody worth a damn fucking uses it.
Because I wasn't presented with that as a sensible option. At best I can say no to reboot right now but it will force reboot if it thinks I'm "away". You say there's a way to turn that off. Great, I only need admin rights to make those changes which I don't have on my work computer.
With Windows it seems like they are creating more and more patch points just to annoy people. Previously you would see the patches loading. Then installing. This gave users some decent guideline of how long a computer would be down.
Now you might not have any idea that patch is downloading in the background. Until Windows halts everything to force a reboot. After abruptly saving your work, you wait till they install. After the install, it should be a quick reboot.
Oh no. After you've been logged out, some patches still need to be applied before the reboot. But you may not have any idea of how long as the handy timer is gone and replaced with a percentage that seems stuck at 38% for 10 minutes. Then it reboots.
But wait! You're not done. There are patches after the reboot that you have to wait on. So after what may be an unexpected hour down, you can finally login to your machine. Only to have Windows prompt you to reboot again because one patch has to be applied after another patch. Screw you, Microsoft.
That's the issue and the question is whether brick and mortar versions vary mostly towards a poor cost/benefit to the community.
That's a silly premise. That's like asking do roads provide an ample cost benefit to the community.
In this day and age libraries primary function needs to shift from housing permanent physical collections of books/media to other activities. Maybe the nostalgic need to maintain libraries as "libraries" is holding them back.
Where in your world can you get access to thousands of books for free? Other than pirating them off the internet you can't. You of course can pay for them but I don't have tens of thousands of dollars to pay books. That's only one benefit to having physical collections.
Libaries will vary. Often I find the quality of library varies with how much the community values them willing to spend on them. The library in my former town was basic and sparse and often empty. The library in my current town has modern faculties, computers, etc. They were almost the same size towns.
Sure let's use the worst examples of what might happen in a library as 100% representative of what actually happens in a library. By your logic, all males named Justin are talentless Canadian douchebags. All hotels are crawling with roaches. Etc.
Slashdot Mirror
That you don't have a point other to insult people.
If Apple develops it's own implementation of Vulkan, they have to rely on . . . Vulkan. They have to rely on the Khronos Group which controls the standard.
So Apple should be beholden to someone else for a crucial part of their OS according to you. That's a terrible idea.
So you have no evidence other than your silly and somewhat juvenile insults? In others words, you don't have a point.
There are two meanings of "free software". Free software as in the open source movement and generic meaning. But perhaps you missed the part where up until 2011 and XCode 4.1, gcc was the compiler seems to counter your point that Apple didn't use gcc because of the GPL. I don't recall the GNU Project sending Apple a cease and desist.
That's the way everybody wants it except Apple, who wants a dumbed down API that doesn't excel at anything and instantly shoves Apple to the back of the crossport list. If you can see the point of that then you have more imagination than me.
And your evidence for that is what? You seem to assert that you know exactly what Apple wants. Unless you work in the upper echelons of Apple, you're merely asserting what you think Apple wants based on your own bias.
That's not what he said. Read it again moving your lips this time of necessary. There was no business case for Apple to get into the 3D API business.
Do you know how many games use Metal? That alone says that there is a business case for Apple to get into the 3D API business; however, their API is only for them and they don't want to release it for every one. Other software they have released like OpenCL when it suited them.
Yet they did, and now they expect everyone else to jump through the resulting flaming hoop of dogshit.
No they don't. Apple doesn't expect "everyone" to jump through hoops. Certainly Apple isn't expecting Linux and Microsoft user to do anything.
They were not talking about Apple's implementation of OpenGL. They were talking about OpenGL in general. What major changes have happened to OpenGL in years? From what I can tell, not a lot. They've made some optimizations in recent years but they haven't really advanced it. That's why Vulkan was developed. I think Khronos knew that they couldn't advance OpenGL without fundamental changes so that it would be OpenGL in name only.
I never agreed or disagreed about Tim Cook so don't use a strawman tactic. But to be clear you don't think the graphics API is important enough for Apple to develop on it's own?
Apple failed at controlling Webkit because Google got fed up with Apple's governance and forked it (Blink)
Reading that statement it seems you don't understand what open source is. Apple developed WebKit from a fork of KHTML. As open source, Google wanted to fork it and make Blink. So when you said Apple "failed" to control WebKit, that sentence is nonsensical.
rapidly made Webkit irrelevant, now used by Safari and nobody else
That is rather factually untrue in two regards. First, there are browsers that use WebKit still and second, what proof do you have that WebKit was "rapidly made" irrelevant.
Apple will eventually give up backporting Blink improvements and repurpose their engineers officially as Blink contributors,
Do you have proof of that or that your assertion without evidence?
Apple has to play nice with LLVM or that history will play out again the same way.
Again your assertion or do you have evidence?
Unlike HTML and Compiler tech, Apple has no credible business case for a bespoke 3D library. In fact there is a strong case to the contrary, as proved by the Autodesk pullout.
You mean beside Metal? Autodesk doesn't want to code in Metal, that's their choice, but it's factually untrue that Apple has no 3D library.
No they don't but the developers who write software for them care. Have you talked to any of them? My conversations with them lead me to the following conclusions. The good thing about OpenGL is that it's not going anywhere (stable). The bad thing about OpenGL is that it's not going anywhere (stagnant). The good thing about Metal is that it is what Vulkan should be in terms of ease of use and function. The bad thing about Metal is that it is only macOS/iOS. The good thing about Vulkan is that it is cross-platform. The bad thing is that it's very finicky to use.
So you're going to ignore millions of users because . . .
It's not a crucial part of Apple's OS, it's just a library. The most logical reason is that Tim Cook is a crack addict.
Maybe we have different definitions of crucial but I consider the graphics API a crucial part of the OS.
You mean the touchbar that allows you the user a variable number of keys but doesn't permanently remove the Escape key. I take it that if you didn't know that, you've probably not used a touchbar.
The reason they abandoned gcc is because of the GPL. Intellisense-like features required the code parser from the compiler to be integrated into the IDE, the GPL didn't allow that without making XCode free software which Apple didn't want to do so having a modern closed-source IDE required a compatible (licensed) compiler.
Considering that until 2011 (XCode 4.1), gcc was the compiler, I find that hard to believe. Also before 4.1, XCode cost $4.99 to the general public and free for paid Apple Developers ($99 yearly). After 4.1, XCode was free to the general public. That seems to go against your narrative because Apple made XCode free after it dropped gcc.
Basically Apple has shown over and over that they only care about 30 percent of the market, and everyone else can go fuck themselves. Here they are doing it again.
No, Apple in this exact example has shown they want to control their own ecosystem. It's the exact same reason they developed WebKit and switched to LLVM. You want to proscribe more to their intentions, then that's your call.
I'm glad I'm not locked into that crap platform
So if I understand you correctly, you're not remotely affected by this decision yet you feel extremely slighted by it?
that doesn't even have an escape key (if only there were another company that made such durable laptop frames).
And when was the last time you actually looked at a Mac keyboard because all the ones I see have Escape keys.
No, now they use LLVM/CLANG, which they also don't develop, though they contribute quite a bit to it's development.
No Apple didn't initially develop LLVM but they have contributed significantly to it as you've noted. The main reason Apple doesn't use gcc anymore is that they felt there were not getting enough support from the GNU Project. Since Objective-C has much smaller base than C or C++, many of the changes and optimizations Apple wanted for their languages wasn't being done as quickly as they wanted. I suspect also that making those kinds of changes would have broken many things for other languages. So Apple went with another compiler. Same story with WebKit.
From what I understand about OpenGL, I don't think Khronos is really advancing it either. They are mainly focused in developing Vulkan. From what I can see OpenGL has been getting minor tweaks for years. I would say it is telling Khronos could have made OpenGL more advanced but opted to write an entire API from scratch instead. So why didn't Apple use Vulkan instead? The main reason I think was that Apple couldn't wait for Vulkan as Metal was released 18 months before Khronos released the Vulkan spec much less a working implementation.
Apple simply doesn't have the market share to push Metal other than as afterthoughts. Industry moves ot Vulkan because it runs everywhere.... except Apple.
Except that's not exactly what Apple is doing. Apple has never said that everyone else should use Metal. What they've said is they are going to use Metal.
If Apple wants a gaming scene on Macs going forward it's got to (1) preserve OpenGL support which still has the majority of games and (2) offer native Vulkan, which has got the industry momentum.
And how long has Apple been pushing Macs to be a gaming machine. Almost never. With iOS, if you're not developing on Metal, you're not going to be doing much graphics.
Can't they just use Vulkan?
The most logical reason is that Apple doesn't want to put the development of a crucial part of their OS in someone else's hands. It's why they don't use gcc anymore. And why they developed their own web browser.
Fuck Metal, anyway. It's like DirectX but nobody worth a damn fucking uses it.
Nobody but the millions of Mac and iOS users.
Because I wasn't presented with that as a sensible option. At best I can say no to reboot right now but it will force reboot if it thinks I'm "away". You say there's a way to turn that off. Great, I only need admin rights to make those changes which I don't have on my work computer.
With Windows it seems like they are creating more and more patch points just to annoy people. Previously you would see the patches loading. Then installing. This gave users some decent guideline of how long a computer would be down.
Now you might not have any idea that patch is downloading in the background. Until Windows halts everything to force a reboot. After abruptly saving your work, you wait till they install. After the install, it should be a quick reboot.
Oh no. After you've been logged out, some patches still need to be applied before the reboot. But you may not have any idea of how long as the handy timer is gone and replaced with a percentage that seems stuck at 38% for 10 minutes. Then it reboots.
But wait! You're not done. There are patches after the reboot that you have to wait on. So after what may be an unexpected hour down, you can finally login to your machine. Only to have Windows prompt you to reboot again because one patch has to be applied after another patch. Screw you, Microsoft.
That's the issue and the question is whether brick and mortar versions vary mostly towards a poor cost/benefit to the community.
That's a silly premise. That's like asking do roads provide an ample cost benefit to the community.
In this day and age libraries primary function needs to shift from housing permanent physical collections of books/media to other activities. Maybe the nostalgic need to maintain libraries as "libraries" is holding them back.
Where in your world can you get access to thousands of books for free? Other than pirating them off the internet you can't. You of course can pay for them but I don't have tens of thousands of dollars to pay books. That's only one benefit to having physical collections.
Libaries will vary. Often I find the quality of library varies with how much the community values them willing to spend on them. The library in my former town was basic and sparse and often empty. The library in my current town has modern faculties, computers, etc. They were almost the same size towns.
Sure let's use the worst examples of what might happen in a library as 100% representative of what actually happens in a library. By your logic, all males named Justin are talentless Canadian douchebags. All hotels are crawling with roaches. Etc.