There also exists an in-between possibility, that is, if you get 128GB of vram (there are now multiple options in the market to get that amount with a unified memory architecture) you can run DeepSeek V4 flash at good speed via DwarfStar. I'm not going to spend money on this, but my gut feeling is that this would be the right compromise for a lot of people.
This is what I assumed as well, but online I found people who were able to update a ~2015 MacBook Pro to a version of macOS more recent than the latest supported one, and it still worked.
They still have people working on FOSS, right? I didn't know about what your saying,but if this is the problem, then what if I gave Canonical as an example?
It is fair if you compare Apple with other manufacturers, but it is still unfair in absolute terms. The hardware still works, and the work they're doing to support other models would let macOS work on that laptop as well, as proven by tools that let you do the upgrade unofficially.
> slows or blocks new types of ports from being designed and tested
No
> If the device only has that type of port, people must use it and provide feedback by choosing to keep buying the product (maybe they'll also make it explicit that they like the new port)
When getting something out on the market, they woudn't take this risk and still have a commonly used port on the side. The consumers as well would prefer to not take the risk of buing a device forcing them to use a port no other device is using.
> So the company won't have the same strong feedback
For the above reason, in the situation you describe, the feedback wouldn't be worth much, or at most it would be as worth as the situation with a more common port on the side. In one case, customers may refrain from buying the device with only the new port, because there isn't a wide market of accessories using that port yet (and not because they don't like it). In the other, the signal could be weak as consumers could just ignore the new port and keep buying the device due to the old port still being there.
I apologize, but I only skimmed the rest of your comment, because I believe it rests on a flawed premise in the first line.
How would you fit Red Hat in this picture? I think the situation could be different, if it is about improving some software the company is using for its business. Not that this happens often, but I think the possibility to persuade managment that improving a piece of software crucial for the company's business is there.
Depends on the point of view, as it is Apple not supporting that MacBook anymore, and Microsoft could have a point in not supporting macOS versions that Apple doesn't want to support anymore. You could even argue that he forced the update on himself, since the web version still worked. The point remains that somehow without upgrading the hardware some software he uses everyday doesn't work anymore.
My father purchased a new MacBook just in time to avoid the recent price increase. It wasn't because his old one didn't work anymore; it was because Apple wouldn't support it on more recent macOS versions, and some applications he runs daily (like Teams) don't work anymore on the latest supported macOS for that MacBook. Apple is an hardware company, and forcing you to upgrade your hardware gives them revenue. Admittedly, his MacBook lasted longer than many other laptops would have. But, if it wasn't for the outdated OS, he would have been happy to keep using it because the hardware was still fine for office use.
Indeed. The configuration isn't your responsibility, but it becomes so if you try to circumvent it and something goes wrong. What would the manager say during the calibration call if a ransomware infection started from this employee's laptop, after they disabled the company-mandated security software? They probably wouldn't even care to figure it out if the security product in question would've been able to stop that specific ransomware.
I'm used to turning off my laptop at the end of the day. I can hibernate it if I'm working on something and I don't want to close the applications, but if I'm done, what's the point? Same for using standby. I would save some seconds at boot, but my laptop's boot time is fast anyway.
Put like this, could sound like malicious compliance. But, if you disable whatever security product your company mandates on your company laptop and then you somehow get a malware, they will point the finger at you. Saying "I wouldn't have been able to work otherwise" will probably not work. Reboot your company laptop, let it install any patches it likes to, then complain to your manager. It is their resposibility to figure this out. If you work around this, you risk getting in trouble.
---meet.hn/city/47.0708678,15.4382786/Graz
Socials: - github.com/GTP95
Interests: Books, Cybersecurity, Hacking, Hardware, Privacy, Programming, Science, Social Impact, Technology
---