Those toxins are biochemically unrelated to peanuts, and their toxicity stands on its own and there's no desensitization for it. So I really don't know what aflatoxins have to do with peanut allergies.
He's just being a bit obfuscatory, that's all. Homogenization done on peanut butter is not done well enough for this purpose. Peanut butter that's homogenized enough for accurate dosing in such an allergy treatment has texture quite unlike peanut butter. Even the basic taste seems very different.
I've tasted it myself, but it had nothing to do with allergies, it was merely a demonstration that homogenization is like purification. It isn't parameter-less.
As far as I'm concerned, LLVM's design-for-backend- and frontend-portability was much better since day one than GCC's ever was, or will be, unless GCC adopts a design similar to LLVM.
I don't know how much have things improved since 4.4.0, but when talking about ports to new machine architectures, porting llvm today is really a walk in the park compared to porting gcc back then. It may be simply because the C++ idioms are much higher level and steer my understanding better than the lower level C idioms. But well, given that a lot of LLVM backend-specific stuff is under documented, and a lot of gcc backend-specific stuff is not documented at all, one had to read and understand the code. LLVM code reads much easier, I think.
A lot of gcc has been reworked over the years, and recent code is nothing like gcc from 10 years ago. But, it's still written mostly in C, and that's just a very royal pain to deal with, after a while. If you use C++ properly, going back to C feels like having a 5 year old for a coworker. Suddenly, there's a lot of handholding required.
Now, however, we are going to fall into the 'distributor' category by letting the contractor use our software.
Only because you're going about it full-retard.
Your contractor can use your software without your software actually leaving your door, in the meaning of "distribution" as it applies to GPL. There are multiple ways of doing it. Machines owned by your company but placed on contractor premises, or SaaS, are just two ways of dealing with it You need a better lawyer/advisor/consultant, that's all.
It is just using a data entity framework in php that you can't link to.
If you're a software-as-a-service provider, then this doesn't matter at all, and most people who do php-this-or-that just run it on their servers. Putting GPL code on servers you control is not distribution, so GPL doesn't apply to it at all.
I think that demonstrably you're just an astronomical troll since what you say is provably untrue. It only takes one counterexample. Qt is a big, cross-platorm framework available under GPL, LGPL and a commercial license.
I don't know if you're just trolling, but having to freely give out the source code is not the same as being prohibited from making money on the software. I'd hope it's obvious. RedHat does just fine.
Complicated? How? Internally you simply compile your code into an.a/.lib, then link statically with the LGPLd libraries, as you please. The customer must be able to get the.lib from you, and the build script used to build the LGPL library and link it with the.lib. That's all. It's really simple.
LLVM was started as an academic project. I don't recall if the clang frontend was started by Apple or not, but the whole thing cannot be dissected like you do. No, Apple is not the upstream, and clang is just a frontend.
I can only speak from experience, and porting LLVM backend to a new architecture seems to be downright easy compared with gcc - at least last time I took a stab at a gcc port, it was right as 4.4.0 got out.
$850 a year - the heck? For our cat, we pay about $110 for yearly checkup/vaccination, and that's it. An occasional infection/irritation with steroids+antiobiotic was another $80 or so. That's in a US city of more than a million, BTW.
If your dog was healthy, it wouldn't need that much attention either. Worms in dogs and cats is a very common thing. If you did what dogs do, you'd have worms too.
Hell no, why would anyone want it open sourced? Then it'd be impossible to make any money on it, seriously, unless there was a big benevolent backer like Google is to Firefox. I would gladly pay USD45 for a home license for Opera as long as it would be maintained and I'd feel like the users have input into the development. By home license I mean a license for all members of the household, on all their supported desktop platforms.
It's not about the inability to promote anything, it's about not having, you know, an actual desktop product that people pay money for. Desktop Opera should have been killed long ago. It was a waste of money for the company, I have no idea why they still offer it. It makes zero financial sense. If I was their shareholder/owner I'd have been royally pissed long ago. I would absolutely love to have a spin-off company offer paid-for version that uses the Presto engine. Ideally, that company should only work on this one product and nothing else.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is that nobody knew those kids were allergic to peanuts. They just died from unexplained causes.
Not any honey. Raw honey. You can cook it to make it safe.
Those toxins are biochemically unrelated to peanuts, and their toxicity stands on its own and there's no desensitization for it. So I really don't know what aflatoxins have to do with peanut allergies.
He's just being a bit obfuscatory, that's all. Homogenization done on peanut butter is not done well enough for this purpose. Peanut butter that's homogenized enough for accurate dosing in such an allergy treatment has texture quite unlike peanut butter. Even the basic taste seems very different.
I've tasted it myself, but it had nothing to do with allergies, it was merely a demonstration that homogenization is like purification. It isn't parameter-less.
Homogenization and emulsification are the words you're looking for. There be, like, machines that do it, man.
As far as I'm concerned, LLVM's design-for-backend- and frontend-portability was much better since day one than GCC's ever was, or will be, unless GCC adopts a design similar to LLVM.
I don't know how much have things improved since 4.4.0, but when talking about ports to new machine architectures, porting llvm today is really a walk in the park compared to porting gcc back then. It may be simply because the C++ idioms are much higher level and steer my understanding better than the lower level C idioms. But well, given that a lot of LLVM backend-specific stuff is under documented, and a lot of gcc backend-specific stuff is not documented at all, one had to read and understand the code. LLVM code reads much easier, I think.
A lot of gcc has been reworked over the years, and recent code is nothing like gcc from 10 years ago. But, it's still written mostly in C, and that's just a very royal pain to deal with, after a while. If you use C++ properly, going back to C feels like having a 5 year old for a coworker. Suddenly, there's a lot of handholding required.
Now, however, we are going to fall into the 'distributor' category by letting the contractor use our software.
Only because you're going about it full-retard.
Your contractor can use your software without your software actually leaving your door, in the meaning of "distribution" as it applies to GPL. There are multiple ways of doing it. Machines owned by your company but placed on contractor premises, or SaaS, are just two ways of dealing with it You need a better lawyer/advisor/consultant, that's all.
It is just using a data entity framework in php that you can't link to.
If you're a software-as-a-service provider, then this doesn't matter at all, and most people who do php-this-or-that just run it on their servers. Putting GPL code on servers you control is not distribution, so GPL doesn't apply to it at all.
I think that demonstrably you're just an astronomical troll since what you say is provably untrue. It only takes one counterexample. Qt is a big, cross-platorm framework available under GPL, LGPL and a commercial license.
I don't know if you're just trolling, but having to freely give out the source code is not the same as being prohibited from making money on the software. I'd hope it's obvious. RedHat does just fine.
It only has to do with distribution. As an end user, you can do whatever you wish.
Complicated? How? Internally you simply compile your code into an .a/.lib, then link statically with the LGPLd libraries, as you please. The customer must be able to get the .lib from you, and the build script used to build the LGPL library and link it with the .lib. That's all. It's really simple.
LLVM was started as an academic project. I don't recall if the clang frontend was started by Apple or not, but the whole thing cannot be dissected like you do. No, Apple is not the upstream, and clang is just a frontend.
I can only speak from experience, and porting LLVM backend to a new architecture seems to be downright easy compared with gcc - at least last time I took a stab at a gcc port, it was right as 4.4.0 got out.
$850 a year - the heck? For our cat, we pay about $110 for yearly checkup/vaccination, and that's it. An occasional infection/irritation with steroids+antiobiotic was another $80 or so. That's in a US city of more than a million, BTW.
That's one of the most informative posts for today. Thank you!
If your dog was healthy, it wouldn't need that much attention either. Worms in dogs and cats is a very common thing. If you did what dogs do, you'd have worms too.
The interesting thing is: I have seriously not noticed the rendering engine switch!
I really liked the browser, but man, their Mail seems to have royally sucked when I was using it for a couple of years between 2001 and 2005.
Hell no, why would anyone want it open sourced? Then it'd be impossible to make any money on it, seriously, unless there was a big benevolent backer like Google is to Firefox. I would gladly pay USD45 for a home license for Opera as long as it would be maintained and I'd feel like the users have input into the development. By home license I mean a license for all members of the household, on all their supported desktop platforms.
It's not about the inability to promote anything, it's about not having, you know, an actual desktop product that people pay money for. Desktop Opera should have been killed long ago. It was a waste of money for the company, I have no idea why they still offer it. It makes zero financial sense. If I was their shareholder/owner I'd have been royally pissed long ago. I would absolutely love to have a spin-off company offer paid-for version that uses the Presto engine. Ideally, that company should only work on this one product and nothing else.
A web rendering engine in source code form is pretty much cross-platform by definition, so I don't see what's so Linuxy about gecko or webkit.
Interestingly enough, it's quite usable and doesn't seem to be any slower than whatever passes for native Opera under Linux.