A Mac can not run a version of the OS older than the latest and greatest version which was available when the Mac was announced. If it came with 10.7 then most likely 10.6 will not run on it.
iOS still requires a computer (with iTunes) to do some things. For example, if you want to add new music files to the library. So it's not an optimal solution if it's supposed to be the sole computing device.
In the long run I really hope that we can get out of this idea that general purpose computers marketed as "smartphones" by default should be locked down to running the operating system it shipped with.
What that means is that when future generations look at our culture all they will see is free/open source software and creative commons since everything else will either be long gone or happened to be good enough that it survived.
Copyright holders can of course always choose to do that. And if it turns out that none of us wants to distribute our work under such circomstances, then why are we doing this in the first place?
There's another side of the coin, since that means that software protected under GPL would loose its protection, which is obviously bad. So there is a good argument for unlimited copyright.
In my opinion it's much better if copyright holders voluntarily decides to contribute their work to the common good, rather than doing that by force.
Both iPad and Surface RT can run the same applications. Both are general purpose computers but are unfortuneately crippled in that they artificially restrict which operating system the user can run. Without this artificial restriction put in by the vendor the hardware would be fully capable of running GNU/Linux or any other operating system. This is a major problem since personal computing is moving toward what marketing people call ARM based tablets. They purposely avoid calling them computers so that consumers should believe that these tablets are not actually general purpose computers, and that they cannot run any operating system. They do this so that they can lock the user into proprietary systems built around what they call app stores, so that they can also control which application the user can use. And none of this is to the benefit of the user.
The end was when XP was no longer available on netbooks.
It's unfortuneate that Linux never really got much of a market on netbooks. Asus used to have it as an option on their models, however they happened to chose a really bad distribution (Xandros).
I bought a netbook because I wanted a really small laptop, and netbooks were the only ones I could find which had a nine inch screen. The problem was that everyone focused on making it as cheap as possible, and as a consequence used components with very low performance. I wouldn't mind a modern laptop with good performance at that size.
Slashdot Mirror
A Mac can not run a version of the OS older than the latest and greatest version which was available when the Mac was announced. If it came with 10.7 then most likely 10.6 will not run on it.
GNU recommends copyright assignment, but in the end it's up to the maintainer. Several GNU projects does not utilize copyright assignment.
iOS still requires a computer (with iTunes) to do some things. For example, if you want to add new music files to the library. So it's not an optimal solution if it's supposed to be the sole computing device.
Steam IS DRM.
Steam is a distribution system that uses DRM. They could choose to stop using it and still be a distribution system.
Games on Linux is good, but DRM is not. Hopefully Steam will stop using DRM one day.
Unlocked. You pick the carrier, if you want one.
In the long run I really hope that we can get out of this idea that general purpose computers marketed as "smartphones" by default should be locked down to running the operating system it shipped with.
Published copies will of course exist, you just won't have the right to do whatever you want with them.
If the authors of those works didn't wanted to contribute them to the society then we should respect that.
We already have those problems right now, even with the current copyright laws. But that has not stopped FLOSS and creative commons.
Patents are evil but copyright is not. You don't have to copy Mickey Mouse to make a cartoon.
Sure but you're not forced to use anyones work. Just let that fade out of history if the copyright holder didn't wanted it to survive.
So we loose that particular piece of work. No problem. Maybe we can replace that part of the history books with something under creative commons.
What that means is that when future generations look at our culture all they will see is free/open source software and creative commons since everything else will either be long gone or happened to be good enough that it survived.
Copyright holders can of course always choose to do that. And if it turns out that none of us wants to distribute our work under such circomstances, then why are we doing this in the first place?
There's another side of the coin, since that means that software protected under GPL would loose its protection, which is obviously bad. So there is a good argument for unlimited copyright.
In my opinion it's much better if copyright holders voluntarily decides to contribute their work to the common good, rather than doing that by force.
Or we could ask the copyright holder to release it under such license. No need to force anyone.
I spend most of the evening looking over a very scared dog.
It would be highly appreciated if those of you using fireworks waited until midnight.
Both iPad and Surface RT can run the same applications. Both are general purpose computers but are unfortuneately crippled in that they artificially restrict which operating system the user can run. Without this artificial restriction put in by the vendor the hardware would be fully capable of running GNU/Linux or any other operating system. This is a major problem since personal computing is moving toward what marketing people call ARM based tablets. They purposely avoid calling them computers so that consumers should believe that these tablets are not actually general purpose computers, and that they cannot run any operating system. They do this so that they can lock the user into proprietary systems built around what they call app stores, so that they can also control which application the user can use. And none of this is to the benefit of the user.
lenovo x131e...it's built like a tank too
I looked at it but decided to go with the Lenovo X220 instead. It's unfortuneately a bit larger, but I liked the keyboard better on that model.
There is plenty of 11.6" netbooks.
Yes but when netbooks came out all of them was in the 7-9 inch range, and the point was that they were that small. 10-11 came much later.
The end was when XP was no longer available on netbooks.
It's unfortuneate that Linux never really got much of a market on netbooks. Asus used to have it as an option on their models, however they happened to chose a really bad distribution (Xandros).
The netbook I got in 2008 had an SSD and ran Linux. It wasn't fast, but it really wasn't that slow.
Not really, netbooks used to be in the 7-9 inch range.
I bought a netbook because I wanted a really small laptop, and netbooks were the only ones I could find which had a nine inch screen. The problem was that everyone focused on making it as cheap as possible, and as a consequence used components with very low performance. I wouldn't mind a modern laptop with good performance at that size.