Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51

Thread: Eric S. Raymond Calls Out The FSF/GCC On Clang

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rudregues View Post
    I see this as a slow attempt to turn things proprietary and earn money by lock-in.
    More like a lazy attempt at getting some free publicity. Mission accomplished, BTW. Thank you, Phoronix. /golfclap

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    13

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    68

    Default

    I would rather listen to what RMS has to say about the subject.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    412

    Default

    GCC has already lost on technical merits and mind share where it counts: investment.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Are politics news? Even if Eric S. Raymond writes it doesn't make always a problem of Clang or GCC. Given this still should be read in context.
    Ian Taylor, an important GCC developer writes:
    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00181.html

    I'm sympathetic to our comments regarding GCC vs. clang. But I'm not
    sure I grasp your proposed solution. GCC does support plugins, and
    has supported them for a few releases now.

    GCC plugins have what turns out to be a significant defect: the plugin
    interface simply exposes GCC internals, and as such is not stable
    across releases. I pushed for plugins in GCC, and I thought this
    unstable interface would be OK, but I was wrong. For general plugins
    to be useful, we need a more stable interface.

    But that is a technical issue, not a licensing issue. You are talking
    about licensing issues. Do you think the licensing requirements on
    plugins are too onerous?

    Because of the non-standard interface, the most effective way for
    people to write plugins for GCC today is to use something like MELT
    (http://gcc-melt.org) or the GCC Python plugin
    (https://fedorahosted.org/gcc-python-plugin/). These provide a
    somewhat more standard interface across releases.

    Ideally we would develop a standard interface for C as well. There
    have been some efforts along those lines but as far as I know none of
    them have been committed to the tree.

    Ian
    And even Eric responded as:
    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00182.html

    Then I don't understand why David Kastrup's question was even controversial.

    If I have failed to understand the background facts, I apologize and welcome
    being corrected.


    I hope you (and others) understand that I welcome chances to help the FSF's
    projects when I believe doing so serves the hacker community as a whole
    . The
    fact that I am currently working full-time on cleaning up the Emacs repoaitory
    for full git conversion is only one instance of this.
    --
    <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
    (emphasis mine)

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Michael, in light of the information that's been presented in this thread, I'm very disappointed in the sensationalist spin-like nature of the main article.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    596

    Default

    Eric S. Raymond should go to proprietary vendors and tell them to free their code under GPL. I don't understand why he attacks FSF which is the best example of giving users freedom. Sounds like a troll to me.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
    GCC has already lost on technical merits and mind share where it counts: investment.
    That's funny, because it's used probably in every Linux distribution. Clang can't even compile Linux kernel yet and GCC is faster and more feature rich. I'd like to hear about those "technical" merits you're talking about. Clang is nice, but it's still behind GCC.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlerson View Post
    Eric S. Raymond should go to proprietary vendors and tell them to free their code under GPL. I don't understand why he attacks FSF which is the best example of giving users freedom. Sounds like a troll to me.
    So making an objection and trying to improve things is now attacking the FSF? May be you have the right to call him a troll when you have contributed as much to the FSF as he did.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    So making an objection and trying to improve things is now attacking the FSF? May be you have the right to call him a troll when you have contributed as much to the FSF as he did.
    I don't have to contribute at all to have such right. Icaza started gnome, but it's obvious he betrayed FLOSS and he trolled many times about Linux. In this case it could be the same. However, I didn't call Eric a troll, but I just said it sounds like that to me. He's aware of FSF goals and codex, so his objection could be considered as an attack.

Posting Permissions

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