On that note, considering the original engines are similar I wonder if OpenRCT2 and OpenLoco have any big similarities in the code base as well…

Probably! From the About OpenLoco page:

The OpenLoco project started in early 2018 by the same group of people behind OpenRCT2.

They have a fairly new version called Edge that ships with a newer kernel (currently 6.5).

What packages are broken? I haven’t run into any.

P.S. I think Snaps are now the fuss, so I still think Mint is Ubuntu with the fuss.

I’m generally in the same boat. I don’t think of Mint’s packages as “old”, but “stable”. I’ve had a few cases where I want the latest features, and there are easy ways to get new versions. Dialing down instability isn’t so easy.

this is a notebook with an Intel Core i5-4278U @ 2.60GHz (2 cores, 4 threads) with 8 GB RAM and installing and upgrading on xubuntu 23.10 was already really, painfully slow.

Have you put an SSD in there, or are you still running on spinning rust? In my experience, even a cheap SSD will make a huge difference.

I wouldn’t recommend installing a distro just to install a different DE. IMHO, you should be fine with cinnamon. I’m using Linux Mint 21.3 with cinnamon on an x201 (Thinkpad released in 2010), though I did up the RAM to the 8GB max. However, if you want XFCE, is there a reason you don’t want to use Linux Mint 21.3 with XFCE? If that’s no good for you, I’d recommend finding a distro that fits most of your needs right out of the box, maybe Peppermint Linux or MX Linux?

So, if you don’t have an Apple/Android device (and the app installed), you just can’t use web-banking? That’s pretty crazy!

I think I’d still prefer to use a 3rd-Party TOTP app but at least Steam’s app adds some value by pushing a notification when you login.

I think it’d be helpful to understand why you want a lightweight distro. I’m running Linux Mint (Cinnamon) on a x201 (~13 years old) and am happy with it’s performance. I doubt you’re going to have any issues with any distro with your laptop (as others have pointed out, mainstream Thinkpads are well supported by Linux).

I know I have friends who run beasts of machines but refuse to “waste” resources on niceties like animations and whatnot. If you’re into that, I assume you want to optimize and tinker, that’s different that lightweight.

I suspect from that wording, “unofficial versions” will probably be licenced code.

Indeed, but as I’ve been saying in other comments, that doesn’t mean the license will be FOSS. The press release is vague, and I think that’s likely to be intentional ambiguity.

Note that it speaks of the “official version” in the next sentence, which seems to me like there will be inofficial versions which requires a more permissive license

It doesn’t necessarily require a permissive license. For example, Winamp could be willing to license the code for non-official versions or for integration into other projects, but at a fee and with limitations set by Winamp. As I’ve said in other comments, the press release is vague, and I think that’s likely to be intentional ambiguity.

The article’s text said, “Winamp will remain the owner of the software.” That does not, in fact, preclude giving it a FOSS license, nor does retaining a related trademark. GP was correct. They can make it FOSS and keep the trademark and copyright. I don’t see any reason to think it unlikely.

It’s possible. However, at no point in the post is that discussed, so it’s pretty wild speculation.

Forking someone’s copyrighted work does not change ownership of the rights in any jurisdiction that I know of. If you meant “ownership” in a difference sense, like maybe control over a derivative project’s direction, then I think choosing a different word would have made your meaning more clear.

AFAIK, it doesn’t “change” ownership, but it creates a new property with new ownership. That new ownership may be bound by he terms of the original license, but the original owner has no further control.

The open-source licenses that I’ve used don’t require surrendering copyright.

The creator doesn’t “surrender” their copyright, but someone can fork it and then have ownership of their version. “Winamp will remain the owner of the software” indicates you won’t have ownership of a fork.

Again, it doesn’t clearly state whether it will be “FOSS” or “Source Available”, but if they were planning to go FOSS, you’d expect them to say something to make that clear. Leaving it vague seems like a strategy to get attention while not actually lying.

It also doesn’t include any wording that would indicate it’s FOSS. It doesn’t say anything about being able to fork, instead using phrases like, “participate in its development”, “allowing its users to contribute directly to improving the product”, and “will benefit from thousands of developers’ experience and creativity”.

Sure, but that’s unlikely, given the wording. “Owner of the software” is fairly clear and trademark and software are very different.

IMHO, it sounds like it’ll be “Source Available.” Especially

Winamp will remain the owner of the software and will decide on the innovations made in the official version.

The release doesn’t say it’s going FOSS. It doesn’t specify, but it hints that it’ll be “Source Available”. Stuff like:

Winamp will remain the owner of the software and will decide on the innovations made in the official version.

What does this have to do with FOSS?

Also why. The. Hell. Are. People. Still. Using. Virtualbox? What is this? 2005? You’re already running a kernel with built in world tier type 1 virtualization.

Honestly, for me, it’s probably just momentum at this point. I’ve been using Virtualbox for at least 15, maybe 20 years now. I don’t use it much anymore with how good docker, etc. have become. Any recommendation on what I should be using instead?