Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Clang, Chromium, ZFS Improve On FreeBSD

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,625

    Default Clang, Chromium, ZFS Improve On FreeBSD

    Phoronix: Clang, Chromium, ZFS Improve On FreeBSD

    Daniel Gerzo with the FreeBSD project has issued a status report concerning work going on within FreeBSD and related projects for the first quarter of this year. Catching our interest in particular were the updates surrounding LLVM/Clang as the compiler for FreeBSD's base, the Chromium web browser porting efforts to FreeBSD, and ZFS file-system enhancements...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODE3NQ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Why can't FreeBSD implement an UVC kernel driver like all the others BSDs?

  3. #3

    Default

    Why are they keeping the Chromium patches to themselves for a year? Would that not render them useless when they are finally open sourced because the Chromium project is moving so quickly and waste the Chrmoium project's developer resources because of the duplicated effort?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    Why are they keeping the Chromium patches to themselves for a year? Would that not render them useless when they are finally open sourced because the Chromium project is moving so quickly and waste the Chrmoium project's developer resources because of the duplicated effort?
    Well, they are wasting their efforts in switching to LLVM/Clang in the first place. GCC is a great, mature and very well supported piece of software, there is, as of now, virtually no reason to switch. (Unless you don't like the license, which is just stupid.)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kiputnik View Post
    Well, they are wasting their efforts in switching to LLVM/Clang in the first place. GCC is a great, mature and very well supported piece of software, there is, as of now, virtually no reason to switch. (Unless you don't like the license, which is just stupid.)
    check http://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html
    as to the license why dosent linux use the icc its faster and produces better binaries. Its the same for bsd and gcc

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rwhite View Post
    check http://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html
    as to the license why dosent linux use the icc its faster and produces better binaries. Its the same for bsd and gcc
    As I said, there is no reason, besides the license, to switch the system's compiler to LLVM. If you want to write a compiler/virtual machine/whatever yourself, then LLVM is what you should use, but, as a system compiler, switching to it (besides the license difference) is pointless.

    And no, its not the same - ICC is not free software

    They don't like gpl3 - that's why FreeBSD still uses gpl2 gcc and I think the main reason they are working on clang/llvm. FreeBSD likes the BSD licence - what's wrong with not using a restrictive licence like GPL3?
    What's wrong with the BSD license? Nothing, really, except it allows everyone to plagiarize your work without giving anything back. Cedega, remember how it got created? That made WINE change its license to LGPL. I'm a developer myself, and if I release something as open/free software I don't want any proprietary company to steal my work, and GPL helps me with that. The only thing it restricts is the theft of my work.

    Many commercial contributors find BSD much more attractive than Linux for this reason.
    'Contibutors'? I think you've used the wrong word. Linux has way more contributors than BSD ever had. (You read Phoronix, right? So you should know that BSD is lagging behind Linux in many aspects.)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2

    Default

    As I said, there is no reason, besides the license, to switch the system's compiler to LLVM. If you want to write a compiler/virtual machine/whatever yourself, then LLVM is what you should use, but, as a system compiler, switching to it (besides the license difference) is pointless.
    The reason is that llvm will be a better compiler it is allready faster and better designd then gcc and its c performance is getting close to gcc (c++ is still in alpha stage) as to replacing gcc it wont llcm and clang are targeted at c, c++ and obj-c only unlike gcc which supports a bunch of other languages.

    What's wrong with the BSD license? Nothing, really, except it allows everyone to plagiarize your work without giving anything back. Cedega, remember how it got created? That made WINE change its license to LGPL. I'm a developer myself, and if I release something as open/free software I don't want any proprietary company to steal my work, and GPL helps me with that. The only thing it restricts is the theft of my work.
    many would argue thats what is right with the bsd license. The people that use it dont care who uses there software and dont mind if they dont give anything back because in most cases people would choose the free software which the software you buy is based off of. And theft of your work? its gpl'ed is free so its not possible to steal any more than its possible to steal bsd licensed software.

    And no, its not the same - ICC is not free software
    ps. it is free http://software.intel.com/en-us/arti...e-development/

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kiputnik View Post
    As I said, there is no reason, besides the license, to switch the system's compiler to LLVM. If you want to write a compiler/virtual machine/whatever yourself, then LLVM is what you should use, but, as a system compiler, switching to it (besides the license difference) is pointless.

    And no, its not the same - ICC is not free software


    What's wrong with the BSD license? Nothing, really, except it allows everyone to plagiarize your work without giving anything back. Cedega, remember how it got created? That made WINE change its license to LGPL. I'm a developer myself, and if I release something as open/free software I don't want any proprietary company to steal my work, and GPL helps me with that. The only thing it restricts is the theft of my work.


    'Contibutors'? I think you've used the wrong word. Linux has way more contributors than BSD ever had. (You read Phoronix, right? So you should know that BSD is lagging behind Linux in many aspects.)
    I hadn't seen this when it was posted, but I would like to say that it is really hypocritical to open source your code and then talk about people stealing it when you don't like what they do with it. If everyone felt the same as you, no one would have ever "stolen" the BSD TCP/IP stack and the internet would not exist as it does today.

    By the way, the latest reports on the LLVM/Clang effort in FreeBSD indicate that most people can use it to compile world without a problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sprewell View Post
    I'm the guy behind that subscription model for Chromium on FreeBSD: please try reading the actual report, rather than responding to a brief summary. The patches are continually made available to Chromium devs and the report even links to a useful subscriber-funded fix that was already pushed back upstream and committed. Duplicated effort? You think they would support BSD at all if not for the work us BSD enthusiasts have put in? As for why the patches are kept closed, that should be clear: it's to raise money for development. I tried donations before and all of 4 people donated. If open source had to rely only on donations of time and money, it wouldn't run a toaster, let alone all the things it does today.
    Have you tried opening a bug report asking the chromium developers to support FreeBSD?
    Last edited by Shining Arcanine; 10-26-2011 at 04:25 AM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kiputnik View Post
    Well, they are wasting their efforts in switching to LLVM/Clang in the first place. GCC is a great, mature and very well supported piece of software, there is, as of now, virtually no reason to switch. (Unless you don't like the license, which is just stupid.)
    They don't like gpl3 - that's why FreeBSD still uses gpl2 gcc and I think the main reason they are working on clang/llvm. FreeBSD likes the BSD licence - what's wrong with not using a restrictive licence like GPL3? Many commercial contributors find BSD much more attractive than Linux for this reason.


    Anyway I think users are able to install whatever they like from Ports, and GPL3 GCC is available in there if you want to use it.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    Why are they keeping the Chromium patches to themselves for a year? Would that not render them useless when they are finally open sourced because the Chromium project is moving so quickly and waste the Chrmoium project's developer resources because of the duplicated effort?
    I'm the guy behind that subscription model for Chromium on FreeBSD: please try reading the actual report, rather than responding to a brief summary. The patches are continually made available to Chromium devs and the report even links to a useful subscriber-funded fix that was already pushed back upstream and committed. Duplicated effort? You think they would support BSD at all if not for the work us BSD enthusiasts have put in? As for why the patches are kept closed, that should be clear: it's to raise money for development. I tried donations before and all of 4 people donated. If open source had to rely only on donations of time and money, it wouldn't run a toaster, let alone all the things it does today.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •