Wasn't there an 80186? That literally nobody built anything with? Like, it was almost a proof of concept?

Just today I noted that GIMP 3.2.2 (an application, not an OS) has dropped support for 32-bit x86.

What's more, you really have to know what you're doing to coax it into re-using code, rather than rewriting the same functionality with each prompt.

I completely agree with this. My state was all about banning ICE vehicles and gas stoves and furnaces in about a decade...but had very few plans to handle the terawatt capacity requirements...and this was *before* datacenters got a seat at the table.

I'm...not quite sure I agree with this one as much...

This...I think, has some wiggle room. Sure, training new models requires greater amounts of compute power, and as newer models and services develop, there will be a need to increase compute power. However, that doesn't mean that older models are useless. They may not be front-and-center, but they can still be used in lesser capacities. ChatGPT 3.5 isn't quite as awesome as v5, but if it's what is used to serve up ads in ChatGPT sessions, the hardware is still perfectly fit-for-purpose. Same goes for Google or Microsoft - older boards may not be front-and-center, but they can still do boring, smaller-scope tasks that are still useful.

...we can only hope.......

Look, they JUST finished their migration away from Lotus Notes...

Agreed; Stalwart isn't a bad mail solution...but Nextcloud isn't a mail solution. The GP's unsubstantiated statement was that Nextcloud was not viable for a business of any meaningful size. Since the claim was unsubstantiated, however, it was unclear what the recommended alternative would be. GP hasn't indicated why Nextcloud isn't viable, or what would be viable for a company with a need for browser-based file access and syncing.

In fairness to the GP, a large-enough company is going to prefer Google or Microsoft simply due to a desire to pass the buck to someone...but here on Slashdot, it's a default understanding that monolithic tech companies tend to have their own problems, starting with data sovereignty and continuing with the lack of customizability. So, while they're probably right that a big enough company would prefer to problem solve via litigation rather than through technological means, business priorities neither validate or negate the merits of Nextcloud, or any other available solution, hence the question.

While Cloudflare is certainly free to release their own alternative...it's not like Wordpress lacks competition - there's Ghost and WriteFreely for blogging. There's Drupal and Joomla for website building. There's Plone, Concrete, Hugo, Silverstripe, and Ametys (if you hate yourself) for niche requirements. ClassicPress and WPDistrib are direct forks of Wordpress. All of these are free-as-in-beer. Most have some form of OSS license.

So...while I'd certainly agree that Wordpress sucks in its own way, its massive ecosystem makes it attractive to users who value the ecosystem rather than custom code development...and while EmDash might make some inroads due to Cloudflare integration, I'm not sure that the massive plugin/theme/custom code stacks will be drop-in replacements overnight...and until EmDash gives a compelling reason to move off Wordpress (or if the WP/WPE crap flares up again), EmDash is going to have an uphill battle ahead of it to accomplish what a dozen incumbents haven't.

Well, if we operate under your assessment, what would be your recommended alternative for an open source (any license) file sync / collaboration suite? Owncloud? Pydio? Seafile?

Or are you suggesting OneDrive or Google Drive or Dropbox?

No seriously, I'm aware that Nextcloud has its faults and shortcomings...but if you can "hardly believe any sizeable establishment would use [it]", I'm interested in what you'd recommend as your preferred alternative.

JavaScript is actually a pretty interesting, powerful language, but one with quite a few problems. (I recommend the book JavaScript: The Good Parts by Douglas Crockford if you want to learn more about that.) TypeScript solves some, but by no means all, of those problems. From what I've heard, it's increasingly popular.

No, Unreal Tournament (2014).

It's pretty depressing what happened, actually, because on paper, it was awesome. The base game was free, and it even had a new game mode called Blitz. The amount of maps it shipped with was pretty meager, but the goal was to have modders sell their maps/mods/skins/etc as IAPs within the game and then they got a cut. The game still allowed for private/dedicated servers, and while it lacked some of the polish of UT3, the framework was there and it really worked well as a de facto tech demo for UE4, and was surprisingly stable for an alpha release.

The problem, of course, was that Fortnite quickly became their money printer, limiting how much effort they put into developing the base game, before they finally canned it.

I'm still really bummed about it; I really liked the pre-alpha version I got to play with some friends for a bit.

The request isn't to "gimp" the product features, it's to GIVE USERS THE ABILITY TO OPT-OUT. Users should have the ability to say "no thanks", and Microsoft should allow Windows to behave accordingly. If the argument is that an opt-out control is "gimping product features", then it implies that Microsoft believes users MUST have them, which is a faulty premise that should be corrected...because a $599 Macbook doesn't require iCloud.

I don't think there is much in the way of misunderstanding.

Still a long wait...and while I could perhaps understand a 15-minute wait (long enough for someone to realize it's a unique request), it's unnecessarily long and disproportionately punishes people who don't kiss the Google ring. Microsoft got called into court for doing FAR less to Netscape.

...which also requires photo ID and a bunch of other hoops, which is a whole headache for FOSS apps. Besides, "verified" means that it's up to Google to bless the developer...which means that Google can decide not to bless a legitimate dev, or can bless an illegitimate dev, or the means of signing an APK can be stolen or leaked...or Google can change the process to require "re-verification" every 30 days at $25 a pop...the process is so ripe for Google to use it for their benefit.

In isolation, perhaps...but it's not like Google is adding this in some sort of broader context that allows for rooting and modding, it's part of an overall trend to make Android just like iOS.

True...but I think there's a bigger problem with balance between safeguards and personal responsibility. Will the next version of Android require a pop-up confirmation after 30 days, or automatically disable the ability to add new sideloaded APKs at intervals? Google isn't stopping here.

This isn't a given; lots of phones don't allow this, or if it's possible, one blows an eFuse...Google isn't adding this delay but also requiring bootloader unlocking from licensees...

Same...but it requires a LOT of research, AND one would have to effectively backup and restore their phone because unlocking the bootloader wipes the phone in the process.

Well, there's also the issue of having a "throat to choke." A large part of using SaaS is that when it doesn't work, it's somebody else's problem to solve.

What a load of contorted nonsense.

What is "OpenSource" anyway? Is that a word?

The problem in this case has less to do with what Musi was doing, and more to do with the means of enforcement.

Honestly, I'd agree that the app itself was problematic in what it was doing. I might even agree that there should have been an injunction against Musi.

That, however, isn't the problem.

The problem is that Youtube went to Apple and said "de-list this app for us because it violates *our* TOS"...and Apple said "sure thing". Apple didn't say "give us a court order and we will comply with the court order", which Youtube would only have gotten as a result of winning an actual-trial in actual-court with an actual-judge granting an injunction.

The court system allows for really inconvenient things like "knowing that someone is seeking to compel an outcome against someone", "allowing the defendant to tell their side of the story", "ensuring that the defendant has access to the evidence being used against them", "enabling a (hopefully) neutral third party to hear both sides", and giving the benefit of "government enforcement of the ruling"...those sorts of pesky details that allow for a fair society to exist. Youtube sidestepped all of those things and just asked Apple to do them a solid.

Ultimately, I do think Musi is in the wrong here (if they're not using their own infrastructure or licensing agreements and using Youtube's instead, they should be doing it with an above-board agreement rather than technical loopholes), but the problem isn't the outcome, it's on the very-problematic level of control that allowed Youtube to sidestep due process, enabled by Apple's repeated unwillingness to legitimately allow sideloading on iOS, that the court just legitimized.