SFW, as long as you aren't drinking anything you wouldn't want to spit up on your keyboard when you're reading it, otherwise your employer's IT department might not be happy about having to deal with the results of your spit-take.
I thought that Qt is available under a BSD license as well
I learned today why no sane company uses linux
Given that this is a desktop environment for FreeBSD, atop which PC-BSD is based, not Linux (it might also work on Linux, but I presume that's not the primary goal), that's not relevant to this article (and also involves labeling a large number of significant and successful companies "insane", but that's probably your intent).
The PC-BSD project is developing a new open source (BSD license) desktop environment from scratch. The name of the project is Lumina and it will be based around the Qt toolkit
OK, so they're developing a BSD-licensed desktop environment atop a GPL v3/LGPL v2.1-licensed toolkit, right?
Unless there's a surfing spot at Yosmite that I'm not aware of, I doubt it.
Who at Apple said that the new naming convention is "California surfing sites" rather than "California locations"? We only have one data point so far, and that's insufficient to conclude that the locations will all be surfing sites (or named after dogs or located in San Mateo or Santa Clara county or...).
With open-source software, a monoculture isn't that bad a thing, as the Heartbleed exploit has shown. When something bad is discovered, people jump on it immediately and come up with a fix, which is deployed very very quickly (and free of charge, I might add). How fast was a fix available for Heartbleed? Further, people will go to greater lengths to make sure it doesn't happen again. Look at the recent efforts to rewrite OpenSSL, and the fork that was created from it.
"It" in "it doesn't happen again" being "a monoculture"? If you have a monoculture, a fork destroys it unless a new monoculture forms from the fork (i.e., if the forked-from project loses most of its market share).
Now that aside, notice you are talking about explicitly tagging your text, which I am not doing.
And which I always do. Different strokes for different folks.
The TLDR is I chose the 'code' option after testing the available options and finding it sucks less.
I use <code> too, if I'm posting code. Well, actually, I use <ecode>, because <code> appears not to honor line breaks and <ecode> appears not to honor indentation, and, for code, the latter sucks less than the former. Neither of them appear to provide me with any advantages if I'm just posting text.
The grandparent's signature line suggests he or she is making some sort of point about Javascript.
(Any objections containing the letters "e", "c", "m", and "a", regardless of capitalization, in sequence must be accompanied by an indication of why Javascript is different from ECMAscript in this context.)
Um, you pretty much described EXACTLY what Barnes and Noble tried to do, and it didn't really work out all that well for them(the execution may have left something to be desired but).
Other big-box book retailers haven't succeeded at that, either.
But TFA seems to be talking more about independent bookstores than the "brick-and-mortar" chain bookstores that gave the independent bookstores trouble a while ago.
they need to build in an x86 emulation layer to make these more attractive to gp programmers
You're programming your drone in assembler language?
My second computer was a 360. I began life coding Fortran IV on one of the 360's immediate predecessors, the IBM 1410. At the time, mainframes occupied two distinct categories: "business" machines like the 1410, which organized data as individual 6-bit bytes, and "scientific" mainframes like the 7090 series, which saw data as 32-bit integers and floats.
36-bit. There was also the 1620, which organized data as 4-bit decimal digits (with an extra flag bit and a parity bit); a character took two digits.
Over twenty years ago there were computers that hardware and software that were designed to work together. At least two of these systems had extra tag bits in memory that defined the memory contents. Specifically I am talking about Symbolics Lisp Machines and Burroughs Large Systems that natively ran Algol.
Or, rather, ran an instruction set with some features oriented towards ALGOL. Other languages could also be, and were, translated to that instruction set.
But what about those of us who want to rip Betamax, Casettes, Grammerphone Records and VHS?
Hell, what about Edison Cylinders?
Srsly, the late '90's called, they want their "Windows is still a hack on top of DOS" meme back.
You're right. Windows X is a hack on top of Windows 1
OK, if "Windows NT 3.1" is Windows X, what's Windows X - 1?
Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. - Paul Tillich, German theologian and historian
