And this is why app-stores with single-sided and super-rigid rules are a BAD thing. They operate as a black box, with you having NO way of knowing why, how, if, when or what is going to happen. This is why Chrome store, Windows Store and the App store and all the others are just bad for business (in general). If they decide they don't like it, then you're fucked!
You just DON'T trust a single entity to handle all your sales and finances while they have ABSOLUTE power to terminate their service any time they want. Have a backup, sell it on your own web site.. oh no you can't because this is Apple...
"Portability" doesn't necessarily mean "runs on every system ever made". As pointed out by your parent, it runs on pretty much all UNIX flavors, even the ancient and obscure ones. If you want to blame anything for the abysmal git functionality on Windows, it should be Windows, not git.
IMHO, "being portable" is more about "being available to many users" than "being available to many systems". Focusing on ancient and obscure systems (used by who, exactly?) while ignoring systems used by a large potential users population doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And I don't see how you can blame that on these major systems either.
Willing to specifically support archaic but important systems who desperately needs git (idk, NASA supercomputers perhaps?) is fine, but that's kind of a niche strategy; it's not about portability anymore.
Making sure Git is portable across system architectures is quite important.
Also, portability in the "being available to many systems" thing is important for a lot of developers. I build stuff that currently has to deploy on SPARC/Solaris, but there are plans to make it so that in the not-so-distant future, all that stuff will be moving to virtualized clusters of x86_64 Linux. Portability in the narrow UNIX sense is pretty damn important to a lot of people.
I don't see how your example contradicts my point of view. When you move things from a fairly popular system to a widely popular system, you expect it to work as well as before. Now instead if you had chosen an obscure system nobody cared about, of course you would have loved your tools would be supported as well - but hey, you knew that choice was risky.
Of course portability is pretty damn important : it gives you the liberty to choose the system you want (depending on your needs) while keeping the same user experience everywhere. But x86_64 Linux systems (for instance) should not be supported because they run Linux : they should be supported because a whole bunch of people use them and need that support.
Where did people get the notion that WebSockets have anything to do with REST or http?? websockets are a simple tcp connection, you know... like the one that CARRIES http!
So when people say stuff like this:
> First and foremost, how do you represent a URI? Second, how do you represent the HTTP methods (GET, PUT, POST, …)? A
How do we represent HTTP? Well, how about using HTTP ?!?!
(is everybody taking crazy pills, or am I missing some HUGE part of this discussion?)
"Last I checked, “bandwidth” is an infinite resource..."
No it is not. There has to be infrastructure to carry that bandwidth, so there is a very real and physical limit on bandwidth. Also, in many countries, bandwidth costs money. Downloading costs money. I know that in America it is easy to find unlimited internet plans (or close to it), but in many countries every gigabyte you downloads costs money. My limit is 40 gigabytes, for which I pay about 40 dollars. After that, every 10 gigabytes I download is an additional 6 dollars.
Prices for "mobile broadband dongles with data" in the UK. Surprisingly expensive, and they have Fair Use policies. A big plan would be 1 GB per month.
You just DON'T trust a single entity to handle all your sales and finances while they have ABSOLUTE power to terminate their service any time they want. Have a backup, sell it on your own web site.. oh no you can't because this is Apple...