permacomputing

commit 14e1436f8553ebedf534799a8787086ba49f299a
parent 66ee4cf8a7eacab5f9f8491c0eb4a3bc6ed04c3e
Author: viznut_web <viznut_web@web>
Date:   Mon, 20 Jun 2022 14:34:10 +0200

empty web commit

Diffstat:
M
retro.mdwn
 | 
2
+-

1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/retro.mdwn b/retro.mdwn
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Retro
 
 The concept is problematic from the permacomputing point of view because:
 
-  * It affirms the industrial definition of "platform death" and that there can be no genuinely new uses for a platform when it is "dead" (i.e. not officially supported by the original manufacturer).
+  * It affirms the industrial definition of "platform death" and that there can be no genuinely new uses for a platform when it is "dead".
   * It separates the current time period from the "old times", thus creating an artificial mental boundary.
   * While historical re-enactment and time capsules have their definite places and hardware [[lifespan maximization]] is an essential element of permacomputing, labelling all uses of old hardware or time-proven techniques as "retro" may actually discourage people from using them for new purposes. We need sustainable continuity rather than a culture where hardware may become "time-locked".