Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

C++11 & The Long-Term Viability Of GCC Is Questioned

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by -MacNuke- View Post
    ...because Linux uses many non-standard GNU/GCC-Extensions...

    But Clang wants to implement the standards first. And here clang is far far ahead... C++11 for example.
    Really?

    http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html

    http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html

    I didn't count but I'd say just at a quick glance, your notion of 'far far ahead' seems like pure fantasy.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
      Really?
      I didn't count but I'd say just at a quick glance, your notion of 'far far ahead' seems like pure fantasy.
      Try to use it...

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
        Compared to GPL projects it's nothing.
        Do you have any numbers to share?

        Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
        People who are working on BSD for free aren't sane.
        Only because they give away their code "for free"? Why? It is their decision. I could call GPL users also not sane, because other people have to write the same stuff again and then you get two incompatible libraries. Happens alot nowadays. And maybe the "not GPL" project gets more users (maybe companies) then (maybe) your GPL project is dead because nobody uses it anymore. Then all your work was useless...

        Sure, you have to choose your way but this does not mean that your way is the only right one...

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
          While I agree with your sentiment that having a BSD licence does not mean that you wont get source code contributions from companies, WebKit is mainly LGPL, like the project it forked from (KHTML).
          Webkit is in the process of being relicensed BSD. All code contributions are BSD-licensed and Apple's Webkit2 is entirely BSD-licensed.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
            It can't even compile Linux, so it's nearly meaningless.
            The reason it cant compile the kernel is because the kernel doesnt follow the standards. The kernel developers had to specifically ask the gcc developers to write non-standard extensions ontop of the compiler in order to get the speed / take the shortcuts they wanted. So don't be getting the impression that clang cannot compile it because its not stanards-compliant or anything like that.

            For the record, a non-mainline clang CAN compile a non-mainline kernel. And by that i mean, both pieces had to be patched in some way, Clang is working on writing the necessary extensions needed so that it can eventually compile the kernel as is.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by -MacNuke- View Post
              Do you have any numbers to share?
              Be sane and face the reality. Just compare Linux to BSD and tell me which one has superior support from dozens of companies?

              Only because they give away their code "for free"?
              No, GPL developers also give the code away for free.

              Why? It is their decision. I could call GPL users also not sane, because other people have to write the same stuff again and then you get two incompatible libraries.
              It's a straw man argument. GPL is compatible with GPL. Dot.

              Happens alot nowadays. And maybe the "not GPL" project gets more users (maybe companies) then (maybe) your GPL project is dead because nobody uses it anymore. Then all your work was useless...
              Same is true for BSD, but worse - some can use your code, distribute and you have nothing.

              Sure, you have to choose your way but this does not mean that your way is the only right one...
              It's a hard fact GPL is better than BSD when you compete against other projects.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by -MacNuke- View Post
                Ah i see, thats why projects like WebKit, LLVM and PostgreSQL gets no code from companies back... oh wait...
                Webkit is the textbook example of LGPL protecting your freedom.

                If KHTML had been BSD instead of LGPL, Safari would be the new Internet Explorer and Chrome would be based on Gecko.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by ryao View Post
                  Webkit is in the process of being relicensed BSD. All code contributions are BSD-licensed and Apple's Webkit2 is entirely BSD-licensed.
                  This is called a re-write, not relicensing.

                  You can't relicense KHTML parts, only get rid of them. Which Apple is happy to do, being anti-GPL haters they are.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
                    It's a straw man argument. GPL is compatible with GPL. Dot.
                    GPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                      What advancements have apple incorporated back to FreeBSD? They open sourced Grand Dispatch which the FreeBSD devs ported, same goes for Clang. Meanwhile Apple released Darwin under a copyleft-style licence (GPL incompatible of course) which therefore is of no real use for the BSD's. Are there any other?
                      A few years ago, they gave the FreeBSD project a new audit system, a joint work by McAffee and Apple.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSM

                      But stuff like this should be expected ... you know who is charge of UNIX technology at Apple right? None other than the founder of the FreeBSD project himself ...

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                        GPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2.
                        I was talking about same versions.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by BeardedGNUFreak View Post
                          It shouldn't surprise anyone that the viral GPL license us is dying and free BSD style licenses are rapidly on the rise.

                          The GPL has become synonymous with failure:

                          * GPL Mozilla Firefox got taken out by BSD licensed Chrome

                          * GPL licensed Linux cellphone OSes got take out by BSD licensed Android
                          Chrome is a proprietrary browser based on the LGPL WebKit.

                          Android is a Linux (aka GPL) cellphone OS.

                          Are you being sarcastic or retarded? I can't tell!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by ryao View Post
                            Webkit is in the process of being relicensed BSD. All code contributions are BSD-licensed and Apple's Webkit2 is entirely BSD-licensed.
                            No, no and no.

                            Maybe I am biased being an actualWebKit developer, but there is no such process happening at any level, and you obviously have misunderstood what WebKit2 is since it is simply a new API for WebCore, not a new project or replacement for any code except interface code.

                            KHTML -> WebCore
                            WebKit(1) old API for WebCore, used by Chromium, Qt and iOS
                            WebKit2 new API for WebCore, used by Safari and Qt.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Real Talk:

                              If you guys want an example of a huge failure of permissive licenses, take a look at Android.
                              Android would be all right today if Google licensed everything under the GPLv3. No locked bootloaders, no unremovable bloatware, no carrier-enforced fragmentation. Just free code and customizability.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by blinxwang View Post
                                If you guys want an example of a huge failure of permissive licenses, take a look at Android.
                                Android would be all right today if Google licensed everything under the GPLv3. No locked bootloaders, no unremovable bloatware, no carrier-enforced fragmentation. Just free code and customizability.
                                I doubt GPLv3 Android would prevent that since the real meat is the Linux kernel underneath.

                                If Linux was GPLv3, Google may have picked something else to drive their Android software ... sad to say, but I don't think network operators and phone/tablet vendors really want to give us the same freedoms we enjoy and expect on the PC.

                                I think a GPLv3 Linux could still run on most, if not all, phones/tablets since a locked bootloader isn't really the same as Tivoization (am I wrong?). If you did get an engineering bootloader, you could hypothetically boot any Linux version, modified or not.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X