Why FreeBSD Is Liking LLDB For Debugging

[Guest]

Wow... so much bull shit...

So much truth. Give me another reason, then.

[Guest]

Yup.



Which randomly breaks everything, yes.

This is great example how brilliant GPL is! You said this like the code staying free and open is something wrong. However, what do I expect from proprietary fanboy who loves proprietary friendly licenses like bsd?

Oh, wait, no, they can't. They can't, for example, close their source code.

I was talking about authors who own the code. It's actually a big advantage some third party member can't close the code, so you're mistaken straw man.

[Guest]

Seriously, stop trolling please. All that whining.

dee. has now been successfully added to your ignore list.

Sergio, please stop feeding him too. He won't understand.

Nice one, but it seems it is you that should be putted on the ignore list. Everything was explained to you, but you still don't understand simple things. I always thought there's some relation ship between bsd and stupidity. Smart people use GPL and have no problems with understanding obvious things.

[Guest]

The most funny part is some bsd fanboys are crying, because they can't steal the GPL code and use it with their projects. Why don't you respect freedom to release the code under GPL? Do you have any problems with this freedom? Why do you cry when developers take your bsd code and use it in GPL and proprietary projects? Didn't you know what bsd allows others to do? This just makes you ignorant and stupid. You release under bsd and I can wash my car with your code. I release under GPL and you can't touch it (unless your smart enough to use GPL as well), because it's exactly the way I want. Understood? It's damn stupid to release under bsd and beg others to give his changes back. It won't happen.

[XorEaxEax]

"dee." and "XorEaxEax", I understand your points and appreciate the time you have invested in responding. Is not that I can't reply to your latest points, but really we could go on forever; we clearly have divergent thoughts.

No problem, I can go along with that.

Sorry for using the word 'vulnered'; I am not an english native speaker (I think this was obvious).

No need to be sorry, I'm not an english native speaker either, I repeated your misspelled word just to make it clear to what part of your statement I was referring to. I typically have many misspelled words in every post I make.

I invite you to check out my project: http://sourceforge.net/projects/realboy/.

Seems like a cool project, I particularly like the focus on accuracy as I'm not interested in HLE type emulation but rather in how the systems being emulated actually work, my favourite console/computer emulator is M.E.S.S for this very reason.

[Vim_User]

The most funny part is some bsd fanboys are crying, because they can't steal the GPL code and use it with their projects. Why don't you respect freedom to release the code under GPL? Do you have any problems with this freedom? Why do you cry when developers take your bsd code and use it in GPL and proprietary projects? Didn't you know what bsd allows others to do? This just makes you ignorant and stupid. You release under bsd and I can wash my car with your code. I release under GPL and you can't touch it (unless your smart enough to use GPL as well), because it's exactly the way I want. Understood? It's damn stupid to release under bsd and beg others to give his changes back. It won't happen.

So you are calling the Xorg and Wayland developers stupid for not releasing under GPL, but using the MIT license instead? Or this just a stupid fanboy rant?
Your GPL fanboyism is as stupid as other people's BSD fanboyism, the truth is, as is very often the case, somewhere in the middle, both licenses have advantages and disadvantages, both licenses have their place. You calling BSD stupid and GPL smart does nothing but pointing out your own stupidity and fanboyism.
Go home.

[wizard69]

You shouldn't. You're free to use whatever you want. No one cares if you want to use BSD, but that's not what this was about. You started trolling about how BSD is superior and Linux sucks. I told you it isn't, because licensing -> low popularity -> less developers -> poor hardware support.

BSD got side tracked by legal issues around UNIX. Frankly it is a good OS in the same way that Linux is.

Well, you can take a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink...



No, you miss the point about how that doesn't matter. Why does Apple not release their modifications to BSD openly? Because if they did, someone could just take it, make their own proprietary MacOS, do improvements to the code, and start competing with Apple with an improved MacOS where all the improvements would be closed to Apple. The same thing for Sony - they will never openly release their BSD improvements that they made for Playstation.

Which is pretty smart of Apple right?

However that doesn't mean that Apple doesn't release code, they infact do release code to the open source community. Actually a lot of code gets released by Apple.

On Linux and GPL, it's different. Many corporations can work together, release their improvements openly, so that they benefit us all, because they know that that situation can not happen - the GPL ensures that everything stays open, no one can take the code and hide it to gain an advantage to others, and this enables corporations - even ones that are in competition with each other - to collaborate and share code openly.

GPL3 is a horrific license, as such I keep my distance from it as much as possible. It is no surprise that many open source and commercial projects reject it completely and won't even touch software so licensed. If the alternative license like BSD don't allow for collaboration then why has the LLVM?CLang project been so successful? In fact it looks like more people and corporations are now working on LLVM and Clang than GCC. I just don't think you are being objective here.

And that's the main point which makes Linux superior, the GPL licensing.

GPL has nothing to do with it. If GPL was such an overriding positive quality, GNU Hurd would be getting a lot of attention. It isn't so explain that.

It facilitates collaboration accross many developers from many backgrounds and many corporations, and does it in a way that lets all of us benefit from the code. I say superior in the sense that Linux attracts much more developers, which means better support, newer features etc. If a BSD works better for your personal needs that's fine for you.

You obviously have issue evaluating what is going on with LLVM/Clang and all the associated projects The interest in this project is massive compared to anything else out there. Collaboration has moved he suite ahead at a rate unprecedented in the industry.

[mrugiero]

GPL3 is a horrific license, as such I keep my distance from it as much as possible. It is no surprise that many open source and commercial projects reject it completely and won't even touch software so licensed. If the alternative license like BSD don't allow for collaboration then why has the LLVM?CLang project been so successful? In fact it looks like more people and corporations are now working on LLVM and Clang than GCC. I just don't think you are being objective here.

First, you are taking the two extremes of the spectrum, which is pretty much nonsense. BSD and liberal licenses aren't the only alternative to GPLv3 (I am not saying they are not valid alternatives, but they aren't the only ones). The latter is very invasive for companies, because of some new clauses. GPLv2 is not. GCC started having less attention from companies mostly because it switched to the GPLv3, IMO. You see, one thing is contributing code to a free compiler, and another very different thing is contributing lots and lots of licenses for your patents because you did so, or even worse (from a company perspective, I think it is great in some contexts, like, to avoid patent trolling like with S3TC) just for using the software and distributing it. That might be a great reason LLVM/Clang gets so much attention. Also, being more modular by design makes it easier to work with the code base, so it might even be only based on the technical advantage and have nothing to do with licenses at all.

On the Linux versus GNU Hurd situation, I don't remember why Linux got so popular in the beginning compared to Hurd, but right now, there is the GPLv3 versus GPLv2 situation. Again, GPLv2 (and v3 too) promotes collaboration in a more direct way: they enforce the derivatives to remain open. As long as it is GPLv2 (Linux is GPLv2), it is fine for most open source friendly companies, as their contributions will remain open (i.e., they are not giving a gift to their software competitors to just close). IIRC, on the early times, Hurd just went through redesign after redesign, while Linux provided a working kernel, and that was the only thing that really made a difference. Hurd tried to innovate too much, and got into a seemingly (at the time) eternal planning phase.