Originally posted by Marc Driftmeyer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Building Linux With LLVM/Clang Excites The Embedded World
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by elanthis View PostA lot of people hate and despise Clang simply because some engineers at Apple prototyped the original implementation (which Apple released as Open Source, though they were hardly required to do so; what was that about nothing being contributed back under permissive licenses?), Apple engineers continue to do much (not all) work on it, and Apple hired some of the lead LLVM folks, or because it has a reasonable-for-everyone license instead of the GPLv3. Never mind that Mesa uses it, Google uses it internally, and so on.
Comment
-
Originally posted by schmalzler View PostThe sanest OS is windows which is proven, because it's the most popular one.
I hope I don't have to say more...
gpl has been chosen totally on own decision for new projects. they could have been going bsd license or anything else.
but i agree that talking about "is better and proven" on that matter is quite useless.
though, i do not like bsd-like licenses. they are and will be the fall of all free software. they are the license allowing to take and to not give back anything.
but being "better" is a matter of point of view and nothing proveable.
Comment
-
Originally posted by schmalzler View PostThe sanest OS is windows which is proven, because it's the most popular one.
Originally posted by schmalzler View PostI hope I don't have to say more...
Originally posted by schmalzler View PostAnd talking of LLVM being the holy CRAP - I hope you are aware of gallium using llvm. Open source graphics drivers (besides intel ones) would not be where they are if there wasn't LLVM.
Originally posted by schmalzler View Post// edit:
and my ignore list grows and grows...
Originally posted by a user View Postwindows is chosen without freedom but due to software dependencies.
First, research the case of Gary Kildall, perhaps on youtube. Better if you read interview directly from his daughter, because IBM and Microsucks will BS you.
Second, read about MS agreements with OEM hardware vendors.
Third, read about MS requirements with OEM sellers (either sell MS-only preinstalled and have discount from ms, or pay full price for windows copy).
Fourth, the famous "Linux=cancer", and walmart BSing.
Fifth, read letters about "Embrace, extend, extinguish" directly from MS, essentially how they wanted to destroy Java, but failed. So they reinvented .Net and MONO - its herald-infiltrator for non-ms platforms.
MS is not choosen due to software dependencies. Its choosen, because its force-preinstalled since first MS-DOS, which in turn was a clone of CP/M, original developer of which was silenced by NDA, Bullsh'd and killed once he decided to talk despite NDA.
And once they got the monopoly market position by criminal activity, they used other criminal methods to form a dependency knot.
Which is now falling apart, because and only due to Google. Even destroying Nokia didn't help them, and they stop at nothing for ability to tax the world for their stupid useless blob.Last edited by brosis; 10 March 2013, 09:08 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by a user View Postthe analogy does not fit. windows is chosen without freedom but due to software dependencies.
gpl has been chosen totally on own decision for new projects. they could have been going bsd license or anything else.
but i agree that talking about "is better and proven" on that matter is quite useless.
And - as we know - GPL has different versions; just think of the recent problems (incompatibilities!) with GPLv2 vs GPLv3. So no freedom: if you want to make software that actually can get used by other projects you need to go GPLv3.
though, i do not like bsd-like licenses. they are and will be the fall of all free software. they are the license allowing to take and to not give back anything.
Comment
-
Fun with crusader's GPLv3 ...
Isn't that funny: First, the GNU and Linux community start to push everything INTO GPLv3 and further and now several projects are pushing towards a BSD-/MIT-style licensing model used by the *BSD UNIX community now for a long time? It sound a bit like a paradoxon - or anachronism. The Kindergarten seems to get mature and now many people realize, that it isn't a good idea to push EVERYTHING they want to earn money with out into the public. It is always the healthy balance which makes the essence of life.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View PostFurthermore, Vadim Girlin has seriously quistioned attempts to use LLVM in opensource Radeon driver. He has made some neat patches which are drastically improve Unigine-based demos. He credited ability to make them to simplicity of existing code generator and expressed serious doubt if he could do same optimization for LLVM which requires much more learning on how things are working in this monster, etc. In fact this dev admitted that dealing with LLVM took a lot of efforts while result was not great. As far as I understood, LLVM isn't really great when it comes to handling VLIWs and it not just sucks at optimizing VLIW code, it sucks so much that in fact it hardly makes things anyhow better at all. It's whole a crapload of work to make it generate just VALID code, not to mention optimizing it. I.e. it looks like it's easier to tweak existing code generator to adequate state than get LLVM here.
In fact AMD guys seems to perform very suboptimal strategies in futile attempts to save dev's efforts or so.
- AMD guys chosen Gallium (to save some dev efforts?). So their driver is a real CPU hog. Intel chosen their own custom implementation. And their driver is *much* better when it comes to CPU usage.
- AMD guys chosen LLVM (to save some dev efforts again?). And got incredibly slow performance while wasting awfully lot of time to get things running, communicate upstream, fix LLVM for their uncommon arch, push changes here, etc. Without *any* user-visible improvements at all!!! In fact, LLVM backend seems to perform very poorly. It's slow and bugged. And so many time wasted on that crap. Intel on other hand created their own driver. And it performs really well. And they don't have wait for LLVM guys to accept stuff upstream, release new version, blah-blah-blah. It's f....ly amazing how AMD devs could waste such a crapload of time without virtually any user-visible results. So I think Vadim haves a point when he questions why the hell all this LLVM idiocy goes on.
Maybe AMD guys should really learn some lessons from their competitor? Competitor seems to perform project management much better at this point.Hi
Comment
-
Originally posted by a user View Postthe analogy does not fit. windows is chosen without freedom but due to software dependencies.
gpl has been chosen totally on own decision for new projects. they could have been going bsd license or anything else.
2.b) "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
This is same as software dependencies.
Comment
-
Originally posted by a user View Postthe analogy does not fit. windows is chosen without freedom but due to software dependencies.
gpl has been chosen totally on own decision for new projects. they could have been going bsd license or anything else.
I though that GPL was about being "viral", and forcing "freedom" onto people?
Comment
Comment