All of these companies get "direct access to the Blender team for strategical discussions. Roadmaps and priorities will be aligned with your requirements as good as possible."
I don't see how they're going to "extinguish" blender. With this kind of reasoning, OpenBSD was also "extinguished" in 2019.
It's certainly possible that Microsoft (or any other company with the $$$) can influence the strategic direction of Blender in ways the harm competitors and/or other Blender users. I'm not sure why that's such a controversial concern to have, that kind of thing happens all the time. There are likely mechanisms in place to protect against it, but what are they and are they good enough? I don't think "just trust me" is a good approach to take.
Either Blender is so big that it can’t be maintained without the financial support of big businesses, or the financial support of big businesses are a negative influence on OSS projects. Which one is it?
It can be both. That’s what my original point was. I’m not criticizing Microsoft or disagreeing with this arrangement. Other commenters are assuming this false dichotomy as well, which I think is invalid. A company can certainly support an OSS project financially, while influencing it in ways that harm competitors and users.
I have no opinion on Microsoft’s motivation, but users and competitors would be wise to consider what mechanisms are in place to protect their interests as well.
Donating my meager highschool pocket money to help buy the source code ended up being the most impactful thing I've done in life so far.
SGI made plenty of suicidal moves by itself, but I remember the Softimage thing was a big blow.
Softimage|3D survived for a while after Microsoft sold it off, its eventual obsolescence seemed to came about from the drive to more extensible platforms, hence the new platform Softimage|XSI put out to compete with Maya.
Its also somewhat perfect irony that the company known for its Windows NT based 3D animation software (3DS MAX), Autodesk, would eventually end up owning the products which brought the big players over to that platform.
SGI also helped contribute to IRIX's obsolescence by producing NT based systems for this new Softimage|3D on NT move.
That's what I meant. In isolation, the business meant no sense. It was a PR move to validate NT as a graphics platform. With that goal accomplished, I got the impression the product languished without significant development.
> SGI also helped contribute to IRIX's obsolescence by producing NT based systems for this new Softimage|3D on NT move.
Indeed. Microsoft assisted SGI in its suicide.
Call me a language snob but this writing is so poor.
"As good as possible"
Can I submit pull requests to that page?
So this text copy is most likely in their CMS database.
1) The ability to extinguish
2) Or the business model of the embraced company is seen as a threat.
It's funny when Microsoft launches WSL and "loves Linux" how quick people are to use EEE. But MS has not the capability to kill Linux (1) (that sail shipped long ago) and it's not aligned with it's current business model (2)
About Blender... How is supposed Blender to challenge or threat MS?
Now I'm saying it will be a net negative in this case, but the possibility is there.
1. Microsoft in the 90s (and IBM in the 60s, 70s, 80s. Oracle at any point in its history).
2. Microsoft right now.
Microsoft right now it not obviously worse than Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, etc. They shouldn't getting as much flak as they still do. It's not rational, it's IMHO resentment for events from 10-20 years ago.
That's pretty low bar.
> They shouldn't getting as much flak as they still do.
Why not? They should be getting all the flak they deserve. Together with Google, Apple, Amazon, etc.
They are not your friend. They will abuse you if it makes business sense to them.
Seriously now, you wouldn't believe the kind of things people say to my colleagues and myself, even though a) I work mostly with OSS tech and b) it is always completely out of context.
It sometimes feels as if we're stormtroopers or something, branded as evil at first glance.
Real world though, this is the bad side of branding. When you taint a brand with these kind of actions then you can expect it to stick for a while.
I mean, I can't think of Coca Cola without thinking they used to sell it with cocaine. Different times of course.
but it serves me well to keep in mind they want people addicted to their drink - even if it doesn't strictly contain cocaine anymore.
With MS, it serves me well to keep in mind that just because your company is not "one of the worst" now, that doesn't mean it is out for the common good. It is out for money, like all of them. And so suspicion is warranted.
Back when I did customer presentations on site, it was the first thing up on screen when I hooked my laptop to a projector, and it did cut down on the disparaging anti-MS commentary I got from some people (had a grand moment when that kicked in in an auditorium, everyone went quiet for a few seconds).
That and seldom leaving the terminal (except for opening some things in Firefox) were the two main drivers for zealots to stop sneering at what I presented.
So if you want to be able to recognizes poses or hand gestures from video or image stills, you need data to train your network.
The bottleneck is often high quality 'labelled' data - real data that requires people to laboriously label each frame and region with the 'ground truth'.
However, if you automatically generate the poses using something like Blender, you can also automatically label, and also generate a huge variety of systematic variations in camera angles, lighting, levels of noise etc.
Obviously there might be a worry that the Blender generated images may somehow inject their own bias, but they claim it's working really well.
The goal is to predict depth maps from single-view pictures using CNNs. But how to gather input, output pairs to train them?
I'm using a mod for Minecraft I wrote to generate such labeled data, e.g. input: https://i.imgur.com/JRtmCeG.png output: https://i.imgur.com/q4KocXn.png.
I'm not done yet so I can't tell you the results, but it's a fun project.
2) Offtopic but i wish megacorps collaborate to create FLOSS alternative to Adobe Suit like Photoshop/Other Graphic Design programs. This would super benefit everybody on all platforms.
What's wrong with Krita, GIMP, Inkscape, etc.?
If GIMP prioritized matching Photoshop's UX to make it easy to switch over (shortcuts, UI similarity, etc.), it'd be much more successful at converting Photoshop users. Serious Photoshop users at this point have spent more than a decade (!) committing these things to muscle memory.
GIMP hasn't made replicating Photoshop's UX a priority, so it isn't a replacement for someone more comfortable using the industry standard tool.
If I used Vim for a decade, then you said,
"Notepad++ also edits text, why don't you switch over?" Well, I'm not as productive in Notepad++, and I don't think I'll ever be. Same for GIMP.
That's an extra factor that, at least for me, made it worth switching and investing some hours into adjusting for hotkeys/shortcuts/etc. To be fair to your point though, I don't have a decade of full-time work invested into Photoshop so perhaps my muscle memory was more malleable.
If any software is going to become a successful FLOSS Photoshop replacement it's either Krita (if they decide to go that route instead of just painting) in a few years, a new open source project with an impressive MVP (like Olive the video editor, to Adobe Premiere), or some kind of miracle like one of their commercial competitors deciding to open source it.
I just want to understand what they delivered since June, 2019. Could you name a couple of examples?
There's plenty of other weird awkward UI and mental model decisions (e.g. GIMP makes the user select the width and height of each layer up-front, when Photoshop just assumes an infinite canvas and computes an AABB for each layer, leading).
A good portion of the work I do in Photoshop is vector editing (e.g. any real composition has dozens of shapes and even purely pixel work is going to use a lot of vector masks), GIMP lacks any vector tools and the team has been opposed to adding it, because it thinks Inkscape is better suited to vector art. Which, I mean sure, but it misses the point! Vector masks are incredibly valuable for compositing work, and we shouldn't have to switch between two radically different apps to have a usable workflow.
I don't know what other analogy to make but it's a hugely powerful feature and arguably essential feature which basically puts Photoshop in a separate category from gIMP, at least until they add it to gIMP
That's pretty hyperbolic. It's not like GIMP doesn't have basic layers, blend modes, etc. And Krita seems to have better non-destructive editing than GIMP.
I don't think GIMP is going to blow Photoshop out of the water anytime soon, or is even too close to as competitive in its area as Blender is in 3D, but I've used Photoshop and Illustrator for maybe 50 hours and Photoshop wasn't drastically better than GIMP for basic stuff, composing a simple photoreal scene from individual photos, simple graphic design, etc.
I don't have a good easy analogy to make but the two pieces of software, Photoshop and gIMP are not remotely in the same league.
Can you get hired at a large studio with Blender on your resume? Absolutely. And Krita is slowly heading down a similar path.
GIMP, on the other hand, is dead-set on being relegated to a corner for FLOSS purists. It still doesn't have a complete CMYK workflow. It can't compete with Photoshop, and its authors have stated they don't want to compete. And until something comes along that can, people will continue to learn and use the proprietary option first and foremost.
1) Megacorps creating and popularizing means greater adoption. Greater adoption is good thing.
2) FLOSS Graphic Design SUITE is good. Ideally, it can be made to run on every platform.
This tells me you may not have been keeping as close tabs on industry practices. I can tell you personally, this has been rapidly changing over the past few years, and it's taken a lot of people by surprise. I can't say it's supplanted Maya yet by any means, but that software's quickly being seen as old-hat by each new wave of gamedevs. It's fascinating to see.
and I've been around long enough and been stung hard enough and enough times by MS to say that not expecting negatives in this risks naivety.
 I've just wasted 12 hours trying to install visual studio and that's their own bloody product!
Apparently LunarG SDK was the best they could make, which is quite telling.
Love how Vulkan extension count keeps rising every couple of weeks, not long to catch up with OpenGL 4.6 extension jungle.
Is the assumption that beyond that you would just hire your own developer to work on blender?
Many that still bash Microsoft for EEE practices, are the first in the line killing GPL based stacks, pushing BSD and MIT licenses, which most of the time end up with selected updates in upstream and gold features only on the commercial products.
Which kind of makes sense, supermarkets don't take PR, but it is a kind of two weight two measures.
1. Build WSL2 and incorporate Linux kernel into Windows with great integration.
2. Add DirectX and GPU acceleration support for Linux that works in WSL2 only and not in regular Linux: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-GU....
These two steps could certainly be looked at as Embrace and Extend, although I admittedly fail to see how they could take an Extinguish step from here.
nVidia gets away with this garbage on Linux because (as I understand it) they have strong-armed enough vendors into bending over backwards to support their driver model. The result is that nVidia can tell end users to either put up with constant breakage or to use of several not-really-upstream-kernel-based distros to get something stable enough to support the driver properly. Sadly, nVidia has the market power to pull this off.
I would love to see a big enough consortium (e.g. Red Hat, SuSE, Citrix, Oracle AMD Canonical) tell nVidia to buzz off. If all of those vendors dropped support for out-of-tree kernel GPU drivers and instead tracked upstream more closely for improved in-tree support, AMD and Intel would get a boost and nVidia might have to change its tune. And the vendors could stop wasting engineering resources to keep nVidia working. Users get easier-to-work-with systems. Everyone except nVidia wins.
dxgkrnl is by far the heaviest NT module afaik.
Of course, that's how collaboration works. Instead of going the harder but "improving the entire ecosystem" way, Microsoft chose the easiest + the one where they can extend stuff in a non-compatible way.
Extinguish is the only purely negative part, people seem to forget that...
Over time we may see MS playing nice, but there really is no value to FLOSS developers in having a closed source graphics API on Linux.
It's hard to tell whether those who continue to fixate on this 20-year-old trope are cranky senior citizens who'd otherwise be yelling at people to stay off their lawns or young zealots pining for the days of a long-past battle they were born too late to actually participate in.
The rest of us disposed of our fax machines and rotary dial telephones and moved on as the tech landscape, including 100% of the leadership at Microsoft, continued to turn over as happens with time.
Those examples don't count as extinguished.
The idea is that they would start by interoperating with an open standard, then they would make their version of the standard that has features they are not sharing, then they would convince companies/users to only use their version of the standard.
This is why we had so many websites designed specifically for IE6, and why many people are currently wary of that trend in Google/Chrome.
Github was already in the middle of their own version of EEE before Microsoft took over, so I don't know if you could blame them for that.
The thing is that quite a few of us were personally inconvenienced by Microsoft not supporting standards properly. When someone comes along and tells us that the stove hasn't burned anyones hand in over a decade, it doesn't mean that we're suddenly going feel comfortable touching it.
The summary is Microsoft didn't copy anything; The app is trivial and the dev got a lot of free exposure for his startup. 
They updated the Linux .net profiling tools and are committed to a cross platform UI solution.
Maybe in a decade or so, when they think they could create a profit model from their integration, they would become Microsoft LinkedIn and Microsoft OneHub something.
This seems like quite a bold statement. From the outside, both LinkedIn and Github use plenty of their own products / 3rd party solutions.
@kuldeepdhaka the aliases have been removed from PowerShell Core 6.0 for awhile now
They are trying hard to extinguish Google Chrome on Windows too. That's your embrace, extend and extinguish.
It's only practical from business perspective to extinguish competitors. Imo, when their open source software have monopoly they would update license slowly. Let's face it, even if you fork the code afterwards there wouldn't be users and contributors to maintain it unless it's revolutionary. You could take example from Cloud9 IDE, BitTorrent etc.
I hope they keep the team smallish as always!
The kinds of things that work better on a full Windows 10 machine.
Blender is competing against Maya, not Renderman.
Am I in the minority where all I see in this synthetic human stuff is surveillance and propaganda usage?
What other benefits are there?
Neither of these use cases seem very useful for surveillance. I'm not convinced that facial recognition algorithms would benefit that much from synthetic faces, but I very well may be wrong about that.
Won't be surprised if one day Microsoft pulls off a product that combines Hololens and Minecraft, i.e. a much better version of Minecraft Earth.
They've also improved .NET with .NET Core and embraced (heh) the community built package manager for .NET as their platform to publish official packages and their updates making the expansion of the already rich ecosystem for .NET easy from Microsoft's standpoint instead of updating things every major release.
Microsoft is a big company, so I'm sure there's still some legacy styled management, but there's plenty of good now. Compared to Google, they're doing a lot better contributing to open source.
Edit: Another funny thing is some software still works despite them ditching support for it I think despite them saying they no longer would support VB6 you can still install it on Windows 10 if you really wanted to. My advise is dont click anything while the installer UI runs... Its very sensitive.