It looks as if they are just removing all the connections to Google services and making the chromebooks developer friendly with things such as git and npm preinstalled.
On Chromium OS derivatives, there is a "guest" mode, which is not linked to any Google account and is like a browser "Private Browsing" (Firefox) or "Incognito mode" (Chrom*).
We want to use it daily, and are doing this and by using/developing JavaScript applications, and by adding our favorite packages to NayuOS.
There is no way to add custom packages on Chrome OS (and we don't want to use Chrome OS because of privacy issue anyway).
We also share the binary images for some Chromebooks (not all right now, sorry). This is not the case for Chromium OS, that you have to build yourself.
I'd have to say your best option would be the Parrot AR Drone. It's probably will be higher than your price range but it's definitely worth it. I personally have one and have even programmed it to dance to music. It's extremely easy to work with and there are numerous libraries out there for most languages. I highly recommended it, you don't even need to modify the drone to start developing for it. I've built my own quadcopter and would have to say I still prefer the AR Drone when it comes to development.
What? Sure, you can program them with javascript, but that's not required (just popular). There are libraries for clojure (clj-drone), ruby (argus or artoo), and I'm sure other languages.
Okay explain to how forking would work with this license. Forking a project is a huge part of creating a OSS community. Would licensing have to go to both parties? I don't see any explanation of how it would work for this license.
Sourcegraph CEO here. Fair Source is not an open-source license. It is intended to be an improvement over closed source (GitHub, Bitbucket, etc.) and open core (where many important bits are closed source). Fair Source is not intended to support forking and independent redistribution.
AFAIK this is similar to how Microsoft licenses Windows: you get the product, and source is available on request (and an NDA [and perhaps only to select customers]). In this case the fee for source access is waived, and in place of an NDA is the spectre of patent and copyright lawsuits. But essentially the licence is similar, the pricing is different?
Makes me a bit sad in the wake of MS liberating a lot of stuff lately, like Visual Studio.
Of course not many other companies have the benefit of collecting an OS tax on hardware - I still think I'd prefer eg the AGPL to this.
This doesn't sound like an improvement to me. It actually takes (just another) SaaS product, and makes it feel like it intentionally does a disservice to it's users.
I just wanted to show everyone the project that myself and two friends cranked out in the 24 hour hacking session at HackRPI this weekend. It's a central website the contains quick code reference for 8 langugages currently. The idea was that if you know a programming language already, then you more or less know how to code in all of them. All that you're missing is the syntax for that language. So this site is suppose to solve that. It's targeted towards those that already know how to code and just need to learn a new language in a quick and dirty fashion. I'd love to hear what you guys think.
Also it is far from done. The project is open source and hosted on Github pages. So the good news is that you can help us out with a pull request. We're hoping this can become community driven and mantained site that can can help everyone.
