Why Google Chrome Switched To The Clang Compiler On Linux

[Michael_S]

GPL products are usually of much lower quality than BSD code. Compare gnu libc and musl. Musl wins. Compare LLVM and GCC. Much less code in LLVM. tmux vs gnu screen? The BSD always wins. BSD cares about code quality and professional coders use it. Even companies use it. GPL otoh is closer to communism and they believe that everyone should be able to tinker with bad quality code. RMS himself said the top priority is preventing companies from using the tools. Having technical merits is not important for GNU. So it's kind of easy to see why people favor BSD software. For example LLVM has a simple goal to be technically superior to GCC and let companies use it. GCC wants to enforce GPLv3 down your throat and stop Apple from using it.

1. You are making broad statements that are impossible to prove. There are thousands of GPL-licensed software products. Some are awesome. Most are awful. But that's also true of many BSD, MIT, MPL, EPL, and Apache licensed software - there are a few gems, and lots of buggy trash.

2. In the particular case of GNU libc and GNU screen, development had stagnated so alternatives were started by people who wanted something better. The superiority of those products has nothing to do with the license choice.

3. In the particular case of LLVM, Apple has a lot of resources to throw at the problem, and again they didn't have twenty years of legacy code to manage. Those two things make a colossal edge.

4. RMS doesn't want to stop companies from using the tools. He wants to stop companies from using the tools to take away user freedoms, impose digital rights management, and create walled gardens. Microsoft and Apple are free to use any of it, they just have to honor the licenses.

There are plenty of high quality GPL license projects. GCC is still an excellent compiler. Qt. ZeroMQ. Blender. FileZilla. Notepad++. Wireshark. Drupal. CLISP.
GPL does not automatically mean 'suck'.

And GPL is not about communism. If anything, it's about better market competition. Proprietary software stifles competition and inflates software prices. Free software - GPL or BSD - promotes competition and lowers software prices. That's better for everyone except the shareholders getting rich from abusing proprietary software.

[anemusek]

GPL products are usually of much lower quality than BSD code. Compare gnu libc and musl. Musl wins. Compare LLVM and GCC. Much less code in LLVM. tmux vs gnu screen? The BSD always wins. BSD cares about code quality and professional coders use it. Even companies use it. GPL otoh is closer to communism and they believe that everyone should be able to tinker with bad quality code. RMS himself said the top priority is preventing companies from using the tools. Having technical merits is not important for GNU. So it's kind of easy to see why people favor BSD software. For example LLVM has a simple goal to be technically superior to GCC and let companies use it. GCC wants to enforce GPLv3 down your throat and stop Apple from using it.

Hmm... Contoversial statment... Using musl I have 80% performance in my work... Same with GCC vs LLVM (with llvm somethink about 75-89% gcc performance). Screen is extremaly stable oposit to tmux...
As you see you can prove what you want, but you only have tried to fit evidences to your thesis.

[Guest]

I release software under permissive license, and I am very happy when it's reused by any project, be it permissive, closed, or copylefted. Each time it is reused, some valuable programmer's time is save, and the society output is improved, which is good.
The issue I have with GPL is that it is voluntarily less reusable by the biggest consumers of code and producer of software of our modern societies: companies. Of course, it is still better than closed source, which is not reusable at all. But closed source at least has the decency of not calling itself "free".

That's fine when you don't care about competing with other projects. Otherwise, you're just giving your code for free to your competitors and this isn't too smart. This is what big companies never do. If you don't care use BSD, but if you care the GPL is an only option.

[Guest]

GPL products are usually of much lower quality than BSD code. Compare gnu libc and musl. Musl wins. Compare LLVM and GCC. Much less code in LLVM. tmux vs gnu screen? The BSD always wins. BSD cares about code quality and professional coders use it. Even companies use it. GPL otoh is closer to communism and they believe that everyone should be able to tinker with bad quality code. RMS himself said the top priority is preventing companies from using the tools. Having technical merits is not important for GNU. So it's kind of easy to see why people favor BSD software. For example LLVM has a simple goal to be technically superior to GCC and let companies use it. GCC wants to enforce GPLv3 down your throat and stop Apple from using it.

Very biased examples. I have something better: compare Linux to *BSD, compare Linux desktop environments to BSD licensed ones (if their exist), compare GCC to LLVM (you have to be kidding if LLVM is better in your opinion). Other part of your comment is nothing more, but a wishfull thinking. It's not BSD code used in the most serious computing by most serious companies (Oracle, Red Hat, Novell, IBM, Intel etc.). Just compare Linux to *BSD marketshare. If BSD code quality is better, then why it looses with GPL projects? Furthermore, GPL based projects get the most support from big companies (Linux for example) and according to coverity the GPL (Linux) projects code quality is very good. I don't see any proves that would backup your claims. I can parafraze your trolly post, but it will have bigger meritorical merit, because it will be truth:

BSD products are usually of much lower quality than GPL code. Compare gnu libc and musl. gnu libc wins. Compare LLVM and GCC. Much less code in LLVM - thus LLVM sucks. Linux kernel vs BSD*? No kidding. The GPL always wins. GPL cares about code quality and professional coders use it. Even companies use it. BSD otoh is closer to communism and they believe that everyone should be able to tinker with bad quality code. RMS himself said the top priority is preventing proprietary companies from using the tools and this is a good thing. Having technical merits is not important for BSD. So it's kind of easy to see why people favor GPL software. For example GCC has a simple goal to compile faster code than LLVM and let Open Source friendly companies use it. LLVM wants to steal your work for free and give your advantages to Apple, so they can make them proprietary.

[brad0]

My job is actually to support Chromium on multiple platforms that among other compiler also include both clang and all gcc version from 4.6 to 4.9, which is what I base my comments on.

That doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

[erendorn]

BSD license: this thing is free for you to do whatever you want with it
GPL license: this thing is free for everyone, and you can do whatever you want with it, as long as you don't restrict everyone else's freedom to use it in the future

You cannot "restrict everyone else's freedom to use it in the future". That's not possible, neither in public domain, nor permissive, nor copyleft code. You cannot unlicense someone else code magically.
The only thing you can restrict when using BSD code is your own additional developments, made with your own resources.
And the "you can do what you want with it as long as you don't do that", sorry, that's nothing like freedom.

GPL is a fine license, sensible to use in many case. But associating it with terms like free or freedom is complete bullshit. And this is the reason I dislike fundamental GPL zealots.

[brad0]

4. RMS doesn't want to stop companies from using the tools. He wants to stop companies from using the tools to take away user freedoms, impose digital rights management, and create walled gardens. Microsoft and Apple are free to use any of it, they just have to honor the licenses.

Except that is exactly what RMS is doing. Strings attached and limitations is not freedom. Very twisted.

[Guest]

GPL is a fine license, sensible to use in many case. But associating it with terms like free or freedom is complete bullshit. And this is the reason I dislike fundamental GPL zealots.

It seems you're mixing true Freedom with anarchy. Freedom demands rules and this is GPL. Anarchy means do what you want and this is BSD. Why there's no anarchy in States? Because it's a total bullshit.

[Michael_S]

It seems you're mixing true Freedom with anarchy. Freedom demands rules and this is GPL. Anarchy means do what you want and this is BSD. Why there's no anarchy in States? Because it's a total bullshit.

Good post.

You cannot "restrict everyone else's freedom to use it in the future". That's not possible, neither in public domain, nor permissive, nor copyleft code. You cannot unlicense someone else code magically.
The only thing you can restrict when using BSD code is your own additional developments, made with your own resources.
And the "you can do what you want with it as long as you don't do that", sorry, that's nothing like freedom.

So by that logic Creative Commons is not freedom either, right?

Sorry, wrong.

[erendorn]

It seems you're mixing true Freedom with anarchy. Freedom demands rules and this is GPL. Anarchy means do what you want and this is BSD. Why there's no anarchy in States? Because it's a total bullshit.

Comparing licenses and political systems is completely useless.
Development and governance in permissively licensed projects is no more anarchic than in closed or GPL licensed ones.
There are already rules governing BSD code, it's called IP laws.

"True Freedom?" is simply not freedom, no matter how you try to put it. It's just some awful newspeak.