I highly doubt that. It's giant market and with these custom small sites made by third parties you actually want to have client owned hosting and third parties who deploy to that hosting. Clients have learned to separate these otherwise the third party can have huge leverage (your business and all data is ours).
There's still a very big market of people for whom being given a VPS with ssh access and a command line is beyond their technical capability or comfort level.
Ever seen the upsell offers in the check-out workflow for hosting packages that come when you buy a new .com domain from any major registrar? All those are shared hosting packages where everything is done through some sort of web gui.
I'm especially curious how much small-scale shared hosting is left. The big companies like EIG are certainly still around, but the little one-off hosting companies are much less common.
Cardiac hypertrophy is not necessarily a bad thing, it can be the result of positive adaptation, such as exercising.
Eccentric hypertrophy (athlete's heart) is the positive adaptation resulting from training the heart. The heart has a lower resting rate and is more efficient at pumping blood. It returns to normal size if training stops.
You'll never reach a state of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (the bad kind of hypertrophy) with exercise. Its cause is usually genetic.
Static linking of LGPL content (thus making it derivative work) only requires that it must allow "modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications".
Making your own code public is not the only way to achieve this.
You can also make available to customer object files and build instructions to recreate your software with the (modified) statically linked LGPL content. (if it's LGPL > 2.1 you have extra requirements: you need to provide all toolchains/dependencies and it must be actually possible to install a modified version on the hardware)
Granted, this is not commonly used but I've used this on some projects where dynamic linking was not available/desired by client.
This looks interesting.
Most embedded project I know use ICU/libicu for their unicode needs. As a potential customer I would like to know how does it compare against ICU for performance and code size. Why should I switch?
> I would like to know how does it compare against ICU
ICU is a large library, typically around ~40 MB depending on the platform, whereas Unicorn, with all features enabled, is only about 600 KB.
ICU has a broader scope: it's not just a Unicode library, but also an internationalization library. Unicorn, on the other hand, is specifically focused on Unicode algorithms.
ICU wasn't designed to be customized. It's also non-MISRA compliant and written in C++11. In contrast, Unicorn is written in C99, fully customizable, MISRA compliant, and only requires a few features from libc [1]. It's far more portable.
The most important difference to me, which is a deal-breaker, is that Unicorn is non-commercial.
Note that I am not interested in actually using Unicorn commercially, but my understanding is that this restriction makes the library incompatible with FOSS licenses such as GPL.
However, considering you have to build your own custom Arduino board or be on the waiting list to buy one, it's a bit more complicated than "Just buy a simple USB floppy drive for 15 bucks online".
I'm currently in the process of dumping all my old Amiga floppies too.
If your basement was relatively not too humid or hot, the disks should all still be readable.
There are two popular USB floppy drive controllers for archiving Amiga disks: KryoFlux and Greaseweazle. You need a standard disk reader to use along (not a USB one).
The KryoFlux is a bit more expensive but can create complete archival level images (called KryoFlux stream). Otherwise both devices will produce floppy images (ADF) that can be used in any Amiga emulator or written back to floppy to use on a real Amiga.
Here's an overview of the available tools, some of them are pretty old, you can't go wrong with the two I listed above: https://www.amigaforever.com/kb/13-118
The Greaseweazle can directly read/write KyroFlux stream files as well. The KryoFlux files are my preferred "archival grade" backup format because they also store multiple reads of the disk tracks in each file to get a consensus on a "good" read.
You can easily convert to other formats with the HxC Floppy Software.
Do you mean "it shouldn't be illegal" as in you wish it was not illegal or as in "it is probably not illegal"? Because in most jurisdictions (including the USA) it is illegal to download a backup ROM of something you own. Regarding making a personal backup, some jurisdictions are more permissive but some do not even allow it.
In by far most jurisdictions it is illegal to share the ROM, it is legal to download it.
You are in the clear if you download it from a ROM site (and own the corresponding cartridge). You are not in the clear if you use filesharing, unless you freeload.
> Because in most jurisdictions (including the USA) it is illegal to download a backup ROM of something you own.
Not a lawyer but I'm suspicious about that: first of all, I don't think downloading is actually illegal, it's either sharing stuff without license or keeping stuff without license that are generally illegal (which is why viewing movies from an illegal streaming website is legal in most places even though the website owner is clearly doing illegal stuff).
Then, if you have a license and the law in your jurisdiction allows personal backup, I think you'd have the right to actually store the thing, so I don't think you'd be breaking the law here.
As "it is probably not illegal", people always say "use the ROM of games you physically own" when talking about emulators, so I have imagine it would be simply legal.
I think that’s largely meant as some combination of a joke and an indemnification of the person saying it. I think it’s common knowledge that everyone who does this is using a file they downloaded from a site they found through Google.
> people always say "use the ROM of games you physically own”
People also say “No copyright infringement intended” while uploading full movies to YouTube. People, especially when it comes to matters of copyright, typically have very poor understandings of law...
So what would be the correct understanding of the law in this case? That using an emulator is illegal because you cannot own a copy of the games you own?
It varies based on country and jurisdiction, but from an American / European perspective - some parts of the emulation scene are “definitely not legal” (eg, distributing copyrighted ROMs), and most parts of the scene are “It is complicated. Well-informed people have different predictions, but it hasn’t been tested in court, so we don’t know for sure”.
Moon Channel (an actual lawyer) has a fairly clear and concise summary with particular relation to the Dolphin emulator’s attempt to get itself on Steam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wROQUZDCIMI
