Isn't being able to self host it on your company network a big important feature? Like for all the non-public branches and projects you keep internal. Gives you the same UX for everything.
Oh nice that $21 includes self hosting. The point we were talking about before was the difference between the two and gitlab can let companies host it for free.
Gitlab Enterprise is not free (it costs more than Gitlab Premium, cloud, which is $29/user/month), and companies that would want to self-host something like Github Enterprise are not hosting the free version of Gitlab - so these are not comparable. For example, SAML SSO and audit streaming (SIEM support) requires paying.
As best as I can tell, your argument is "Github costs money which is bad" and I don't find it particularly convincing. Companies need to make money in order to continue producing products. That's why Gitlab sells their product too.
What makes those two features so important when using gitlab internally? Would Roku really need those features for its devs? To me they don't seem like things you worry about with normal Gitlab / Github anyways and all kinds of teams use it fine.
I'm sorry but if you don't think SSO and audit logging are important to companies, I'm inclined to believe you haven't been working long. These are typically table stakes for compliance reasons. Auditability and security of your code is incredibly important (this is your supply chain!) Yes, Roku would care. And yes, GitHub (and Gitlab!) offers these things.
The solution was simple and always possible. It is to make it only work for same-origin content. Aka it can't work for ads or closed source external web content.
The new responsively-sized iframes standard is an exciting one for me not mentioned. It's finally a step beyond the original frames and framesets. It will let us design sites out of iframes as building blocks instead of needing to use web components. Websites made out of websites.
I'm glad it failed to trademark. Autodesk is one of the worst corpo's around when it comes to being corpo. How un self-aware for them to make that 'street' joke. They were like a 100+ million company back then.
Really? The CYBERSPACE trademark application wasn't rejected. It was abandoned in 1991 after the VR project was cancelled and we developers left Autodesk to start Sense8. The recorded disposition was "abandoned—failure to respond or late response."
And yeah, Autodesk was hardly a tiny startup. Its market cap at the end of 1989 was about $945 million.
But the "street" line was a deliberately smartass quotation from Gibson in a letter I wrote, not some corporate attempt to pass itself off as counterculture. Gibson subsequently had the better rejoinder: "Autodesk is not the street."
Judging the Autodesk Research Lab of 1989 by the reputation of the company Autodesk later became seems rather ahistorical. Even founder John Walker had already declared himself "Bored (sic) of Directors" by 1988:
The street is like nameless individuals. A corpo by contrast is the giant vertical sky-scrapers next to it. Total exact opposites. I don't see it as a clever joke when attached to a hostile trade-mark message. By using it in the opposite way from its actual meaning you embodied the entire antagonist cyberpunk corpo ethos in real life.
Fair enough, but Adobe was an upstart at some point in its life .. I remember the days when the Photoshop set were considered rebellious monkeys who didn't play well with the rest of the print industry .. until they came along and ate the print industry's lunch.
I'd go one step further on Gibsons' statement that the street find its own uses for things, and state that everything starts on the street before it becomes corporate, and then it returns to the street, eventually ...
Plus, Autodesk trademarking the term is partly to prevent others finding use for it ("Cyberspace (TM) refers to a software product of Autodesk, Inc. Were any other software vendor to employ the term for one of their products, Autodesk would justifiable be upset.")
Autodesk tried to trademark a phrase recently invented by an author. They would have had to defend it too. Would they have sued Gibson? Ahistorical my ass
Honestly I don't understand how it was accepted? Obviously Gibson invented it?
I agree with your anger. It sounds like they are actually proud of what they did yet it was 100% bad. They were stealing and threatening someone else's work without any justification and nothing about their story was an apology.
This sounds pretty annoying though: https://docs.gitlab.com/administration/license_usage/
reply