That would defeat the entire purpose of keeping that machine alive.

You are welcome to continue development on support for the 486 if you need continued support for it. The kernel is open source and you can easily clone yourself a local repo and continue 486 support maintenance while merging in new features as time goes on.

My very first linux box, which I still have and is still running today, is still on RedHat 3.0.3 that I got on a CD in a book from the Media Play in Poughkeepsie NY in 1996. Granted it is completely useless except as a samba server sharing the 1.6GB hard disk that is still in it (and still works). But, I keep it for posterity, and because I like having a monitor with xearth on it.

I could probably put a newer distribution on it but with only 24MB of RAM, the newer stuff would choke out on it.

I didn't really use Works, but I supported enough PCs that had it that I had a lot of exposure to it. I didn't use it because the file formats for it were annoying when I had access to Office.

It was pretty common OE software on new computers too.

If I didn't have access to Office, I tended to use WordPad. It was nearly always good enough honestly.

That's plausible.

I still hate it though. My first version of Office was 4.3, which included Word 6.0 and was ostensibly for Windows 3.1. I'd previously used Clarisworks on Macintoshes in school and before that I used a ghetto cheap program that called itself a word processor but was more of a glorified text editor in MS-DOS that worked well with an Epson dot matrix printer's formatting, so for me Word was great. I felt like the bumpers from Clarisworks had been removed, I had a lot more control over what I could do to a document.

Ribbon feels like they decided that power users didn't matter, and also corresponds with the end of the free Wordpad light-duty word processor and long after Microsoft Works was killed off.

They seem to have forgotten why some of their most popular applications became most popular in their respective categories, and that wasn't just leveraging their OS marketshare OEM install dominance. It was a combination of reasonably good UI design that had a degree of intuitiveness along with fairly easy access to more advanced features, with an added dash of the ability to use data from one application in another without major headaches. Arguably MS Office in the days before Ribbon and Metro UIs exemplify this.

Unfortunately they chose to change the UI for change's sake, ie, because users wouldn't recognize that they now had a shiny new version of the product if they didn't flagrantly change the UI, and they chose UI designs that frankly sucked. They also seem to have harmed that interoperability by trying to push too much of it when it doesn't fully work right.

Obviously there have been software companies that had products that for the professionals constantly using them were better, like WordPerfect to Word, but those didn't generally work well for both the power user and the casual user. Originally Microsoft had managed to bridge that gap. But Ribbon and Metro interfaces have harmed the power user, it's now harder to do things than it should be, and power users have incentive to look for software that gives them the features without the bloat.

I doubt that Microsoft is going to understand this in this revamp. They're going to try to cram some UI change solely for the purpose of making it different than the prior version, and even if it's now "native" it's still going to suck. And they're going to try to force any remaining users on prior versions of Windows off of those and onto Windows 11.

s'okay. Biology is the only scientific discipline where division and multiplication are the same thing.

uh, no. You didn't win.

Places like Bell Labs were more like university research centers than corporate dressing on mandatory-overtime grind. They were not expected to directly turn a profit as business units of the company, because what they did was to lay the groundwork for technology that the other business units could then adapt into products. The return on the investment paid into running them took years or even decades to realize. Without the pressures of needing to turn quarterly or even annual profits they weren't working their researchers to the bone and they were fostering a culture of internship for college students into joining their ranks as researchers to perpetuate the institutional knowledge.

*ow!*

uh, found it...

Not only have I seen that, but I have experienced it.

My socket set and ratchet isn't trying to convince me to be in a relationship with it, to be in love with it, to be something of an equal to it.

Even our pets as living beings capable of expressing themselves are not able to communicate at our level.

Large language model AI is attempting to spoof being human, to mimic being us. There are already examples of people becoming very, VERY upset when their AI-boyfriend or AI-girlfriend is taken away by companies revising the AI standards and interaction rules. This is unhealthy. The relationship needs to remain that of tool user and tool, because anything more than that is one-sided and subject to terrible abuse by anyone that managed to co-opt that system.

The Butlerian Jihad cannot come soon enough. Machines should be useful tools serving us, where our emotional connections to them are still based on tool-user and tool.

That would be nice, since YouTube's copyright system exists solely to keep YouTube from getting sued by big media companies. It goes way above and beyond any legal requirements of copyright purely so YT can appease the big rightsholders. If they get legal shielding from those suits, then maybe they can dial the creator-screwification back a few notches.

I think the copyright term should be 25 years for free. That's basically exclusivity for a generation. After that, you can renew annually, starting for $10,000 the first year and doubling every year after, up to a maximum of 25 renewals. So you can keep something in copyright for 50 years if you really want to spend $600 billion on it. Realistically most valuable IP would fall out within 35-40 years, which still would be within the lifetimes of most people that were part of the culture from which it emerged.

I might agree with this argument if not for
1) libraries exist, where you can get movies, music (and even books!) for free
2) people with disposable income steal stuff all the time. There's no guarantee that having the means to purchase something means people won't just take it if they can