The evidence that they didn't review it, is that a million line rewrite was merged 8 days after it began being written. It's simply not possible for a team that size to review that much code in that little time.
As far as testing - yes, they do have a test suite that it was checked against during the rewrite, but that still means that any behaviour that wasn't strictly tested for by that suite could have changed and it would still pass.
Same reasons that IE versions only support certain versions of Windows:
- they want to be able to switch to newer APIs when the underlying OS adds them (though in Edge's case it's more likely it was written from the ground up using newer APIs)
- they quite possibly want to use "you can get the new browser only if you upgrade" as a carrot for OS upgrades (they explicitly did with IE, I haven't seen anything explicit for Edge but it wouldn't surprise me if they're still taking that approach)
The lack of subscription and signup, combined with the pricing, suggest that this is aiming at people who almost never send a fax, and would spend significantly more buying and maintaining a fax machine, compared to a couple dollars on this service.
I do hope you find a service that fits your need, but this is very likely not intending to be it.
Right, but is it a viable business if the average customer spends $1-2/year or less?
A business phone line ($100/month or less -- crap tier VOIP lines work fine for faxes) and a PCI fax/modem (<$50) should let you send hundreds of pages an hour with no paper or other consumables. It certainly seems like a send-only service that charges $0.01/page is more than viable. Even averaging only a page a minute would be $15/day in revenue, a huge profit margin.
It is worse, actually, because it uses GTK, and is only available on Linux and Windows (not macOS, although there have been attempts).
Most of the "big names" who provide modern and contemporary desktop IM apps deliver on the 3 platforms (Linux, macOS, and Windows), and use mostly web "technologies" (sometimes "pure browser", and sometimes with electron-like desktop "packaging")... so as a consequence, it is very native, indeed, but it is a generally consistent and continuous UX (user experience) between mobile/tablet and desktop/laptop.
it's US english, they're referring to Lego the product as a whole, rather than individual Lego pieces (the meaning ends up basically the same, but the distinction does change the grammar)
I see. My impression is that in US film and television "legos" is used almost exclusively. But it's not like I've been taking notes or anything, and I could well be wrong.
Exactly so. It's not strictly correct modern English as far as I know, but it's quite a common slip amongst French speakers (from their names I would strongly suspect at least one of the core Pijul folks fits that category) for whom the native word is indeed "edition".
I've never really gotten into absolute line numbers, but relative ones are a godsend for me since I use <num>j, <num>d, et al a lot but can't really eyeball how many lines away something is once it gets to be more than 2 or 3.
The crucial distinction as far as the OP is using the term seems to be that such a datastore does not require the user's hosting provider to give them an instance of any of the common DB servers, which typically needs a more expensive plan than the usual baseline of "disk space and an httpd [that supports calling out to one or two scripting languages]".
(Basically it should run on anything more complex than a static site host. Though it's also true that sqlite would probably be a cleaner choice for the datastore without losing any of that benefit.)
As far as testing - yes, they do have a test suite that it was checked against during the rewrite, but that still means that any behaviour that wasn't strictly tested for by that suite could have changed and it would still pass.