For you two: The IBM PC was the first PC and had a 8088 CPU. OS/2 and Xenix were for the 286 and up.
If you make virtual memory a necessary attribute to qualify as OS, there were no OS for the original IBM PC as the 8088 had no support for virtual memory. That's why my (tricky) question.
No. Xenix through at least version 2.1 ran on the original IBM PC (and early Xenix was ported to the 68000 (e.g. Tandy model 16), which also lacked hardware VM support).[1] You could also run IBM PC Unix in the form of Venix from Venturecom (Version 7 with some BSD things) and PC/IX from ISC (System III). Both were 'official' licensed Unix ports. In the Unix-ish camp, there was Coherent and Minix, as well as various MMU-less Linux projects (e.g. ELKS). And there are many interesting oddballs like iRMX.
Yes, OS/2 did require a 286 until it required a 386.
If you make virtual memory a necessary attribute to qualify as OS
That would be pedantic and historically inaccurate and we shouldn't engage in that.
If we are being pedantic then what you’re describing are called IBM-compatible PCs. Ie they weren’t made by IBM but were designed to support most other of the same software.
If what you're referring to as the "IBM PC" is the classic model 5150 and we follow your arbitrary designation of a "real OS", than no. But, by that same logic, I can say ducks aren't birds "if we consider birds only those with non-webbed feet".
Yep, you need a new battery. Getting one from Dell is harder than actually replacing it.
USB-C as a power connector work great when the proprietary power supply die as you are waiting to get a replacement battery. (true story) (I have a 9360 model, which doesn't like the batteries for the 9350)
Why would that be on the list? Isn't there already a solution? It doesn't need to be GPL licensed for getting FSF recognition - a non copyleft but Libre license is fine.
How could they? They can't just disable autoplay but make an exception for YouTube, that would be wrong in so many ways. You can't make that into a web standard, so it would promote browser fragmentation, for example.
So how about a whitelist/blacklist? Well, since users can't even agree among themselves on which websites belong on which side of the fence, such a list would quickly become a nightmare to maintain, still be based on someone's personal bias, and would still leave small websites at a disadvantage.
Pretty much the only thing that would work is a permissions question to the user, like there is currently for e.g. location access. "Do you want to allow videosite.example.com to automatically play video content? \Allow, \Allow and remember, \*Deny"
There is a disable autoplay in Firefox as a hidden pref. Enabling it break YouTube (offender number 1) and Vimeo.
Vimeo's take is that it is a bug in the browser hence it should be fixed. But then Vimeo are the same that told use to use Safari on Linux because Firefox "didn't support HTML5" (it did, just not encumbered H264 codec, but when you are lying, do the extra mile).
Whenever i interact with Vimeo i find it coming across as "hipster Youtube" if that makes any sense. Even when used for tech demo videos, everything from the lighting to the presenters scream "we are artists, not techies".
