Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 104

Thread: LLVM Replaces libstdc++ Library With libc++

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    Paid devs writing open source code was one of Stallman's priorities in coming up with a business plan that works with it.

    Anyone claiming that Stallman failed or is wrong because paid devs are the major contributors doesn't actually have the slightest idea what he's talking about.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Without Stallman, these developers would still be working on Solaris, AIX, NetWare and the like and you'd be paying 1000$ per licence to run it on your $20,000 box.

    There would be no Linux as we know it.
    I'm aware, but you missed my point.

    I'll give him credit for starting Linux off, but my point was that his views on communism are flawed because Linux can be copied on demand, but physical items cannot.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoEffex View Post
    I'm aware, but you missed my point.

    I'll give him credit for starting Linux off, but my point was that his views on communism are flawed because Linux can be copied on demand, but physical items cannot.
    Without some citations, nobody knows what you're talking about.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3

    Default

    If you ever find the need to make modifications to GCC to do custom compilation or anything of the sort, you'll very quickly become a fan of Clang. GCC is an amazing product, but internally it's a huge mess.

    Clang is not there yet and LLVM is still playing catch up a little, but at this stage both projects are very promising. In 2 years I hope we're at the point where GCC can be ditched altogether and serve only as a relic of a time when it was OK to develop software that's extremely hard to maintain.

  5. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoEffex View Post
    GCC is awefully bloated. Any changes that want to happen tend to be rejected. Same with the Linux kernel. All good things must come to an end..
    This is a total and idiotic bull when comes to Linux. You want to dictate what shouldn't be rejected? You can cut off whatever part you want at any time and devs can do the same. You can consider it's bloated as a whole package, so every architecture, file system etc. etc. makes a big package with a lot of code, but till there are enough devs, maintainers everything is fine and under control. There will be problem if Linux would be indivisible, but it's not. GCC is bloated (as I read even at lkml), but it's much more mature, it's faster, it supports far more architectures then llvm, so it's not going to die very soon (if ever, if it will also stay under control).

  6. #96

    Default

    @NoEffex

    TBH with modern hardware I think a microkernel or a hybrid kernel would help keep things not so bloated, but that's just me (There's a LOT of room for improvising with micro/hybrid kernels).
    I heard microkernel makes things even harder to do, more bloated and it works slower... Know a single, good microkernel?

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,440

    Default

    How about QNX ?

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    @NoEffex



    I heard microkernel makes things even harder to do, more bloated and it works slower... Know a single, good microkernel?
    It should make things easier to manage, because everything is strictly modularized. Performance has historically been an issue, but there are no recent benchmarks. Performance is not always a deciding factor. A microkernel is particularly useful for environments where reliability matters. It's difficult to bring down a microkernel system, because a crash / infinite loop is localized to its module, which is then restarted. Plus, it's really small. If you have limited resources, it's a good fit, too.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Remco View Post
    It should make things easier to manage, because everything is strictly modularized. Performance has historically been an issue, but there are no recent benchmarks. Performance is not always a deciding factor. A microkernel is particularly useful for environments where reliability matters. It's difficult to bring down a microkernel system, because a crash / infinite loop is localized to its module, which is then restarted. Plus, it's really small. If you have limited resources, it's a good fit, too.
    Good for a real time OS as well, since it's much easier to make guarantees.

    However, realistically, it would be a huge amount of work to replace everything the Linux kernel does with another one. And the result would be slower. So without a good reason (like scalability in the hundreds of cores cpus that may be coming soon) I don't see it happening for a mainstream desktop OS.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theoddone33
    Clang is not there yet and LLVM is still playing catch up a little, but at this stage both projects are very promising. In 2 years I hope we're at the point where GCC can be ditched altogether and serve only as a relic of a time when it was OK to develop software that's extremely hard to maintain.
    You expect Clang to support (and be stable) on 20 architectures in 2 years?

    Or maybe you misunderstand the whole point of GCC?

    Though I do agree that code maintainability is an issue, and one that is not easily addressed.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoEffex
    I'm aware, but you missed my point.

    I'll give him credit for starting Linux off, but my point was that his views on communism are flawed because Linux can be copied on demand, but physical items cannot.
    Your point is that RMS is a crackpot, and you refuse to use his stuff because you are waging a holy war on communism?

    Well, good for you, I guess. He showed that the Free Software model works very well for software, and it's not something that Novell or IBM or Intel or Microsoft would have done. Although they are paying developers today.

    RMS forced them to pay developers to create Free Software (through the GPL). And that's quite an achievement.

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
  •