No announcement yet.

Richard Stallman Calls LLVM A "Terrible Setback"

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by mark45 View Post
    That's exactly what our ancestors fought - communism and socialism, this is deeply anti-American, anti capitalist and anti free market, it has a "sharing" agenda and forces you to do so. Given that Stallman regularly visits China to give speeches I think he secretly works for the Chinese government.
    Your ancestors fought for freedom against slavers, not against communism or socialism. Remind you, slavers were essentially making humans a property.
    Communism and socialism also started as a fight for freedom, to combat ... capitalists that converted workers into slaves working 22/7.

    Capitalism, communism and socialism are just methods to solve (economical) problems for the well-being of humans, nothing else.

    At certain level, both capitalism and communism strip freedoms from people. Freedoms do not relate to these methods.

    The problem is - communism is flawed without certain technological level, that is still not here. What claimed itself to be socialism till today - wasn't.
    Dalai Lama is socialist, these are his words.

    If you so hate China - stop buying China-made equipment. You will end up as a bum on the street, dying from cancer out of american-made genetically engineered sandwitch (that got allowed to production thanks to bribes and lobby from capitalist corporation).

    I only value freedom and fairness. Everything else is either a method or a brainwashing.

    Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
    Says you.

    The overwhelming majority of Microsoft / proprietary haters that want all such companies destroyed and eliminated says otherwise.

    Major disclaimer (for those who don't already know): I'm pro-Microsoft and pro-proprietary with concessions for varying degrees of opensource depending on the situation. And above all, pro-practicality / pragmatism.
    No need to introduce you, we all know you are microsoft mole that sticks FUD posts into any thread about opensource/free software just for the purpose of derailing it.


    • #62
      Originally posted by mark45 View Post
      Do you mean America either doesn't have a free market or isn't capitalist?
      As a norwegian, I do believe most western countries (including North America) think they come hand in hand. Personally I don't. I believe people have been deluded into such a notion.

      I don't oppose to what you said in general, it just came to me when you mentioned both in the same sentence.

      And for the record, I compare capitalism to communism, and I keep free markets out of the picture.
      Last edited by corebob; 24 January 2014, 03:52 PM.


      • #63
        Originally posted by corebob View Post
        It's needed if you want to prevent leaching of your work.
        It's also needed in order to prevent big brother from putting poison in your pudding behind your back.
        The NSA's spying is needed to protect America from terrorists.



        • #64
          Originally posted by Truth View Post
          The NSA's spying is needed to protect America from terrorists.

          NSA's backdoors and data collection can and is abused by anyone, including terrorists.

          The only thing I consider safe is hidden under my pillow encrypted with ecc.


          • #65
            Originally posted by corebob View Post
            NSA's backdoors and data collection can and is abused by anyone, including terrorists.
            [Citation needed]


            • #66
              Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
              Why? He doesn't claim it's a setback in technical grounds, he makes it very clear. It's an ethical setback, according to his ethics. If you don't share them, you don't need to care, and will not be a setback according to your ethics, but that doesn't change the fact it is according to his, plain and simple. He makes clear what he believes, and gives arguments to prove that assuming his set of ethics LLVM is a step back.
              If you believe GPL is too restrictive, success of a GPL licensed code base would be a setback, because it means the community got weakened in their right to choose what to do with their code. If you think practicality comes first, you will think that if Debian chooses a poorer but freer (according to some set of ethics) implementation is a setback.
              Yes, but, no.
              Because the GPL code can be used by everybody that is fine with GPL or need or want the GPL, and I'm glad for them, and it does not take anything from people not fine with the GPL: they had nothing before, they have nothing after, so it's cool. And if someone else decide to build a non-GPL project to fit their needs, good for them! They don't take anything from the guys using the GPL project, they even give them more choice. Not every one has the same needs, and that's the actual point of freedom if you think about it.

              If his ethics consider that something "good for some" that is not "bad for others" is a problem, well, his ethics suck, and I feel entitled to tell it
              Last edited by erendorn; 24 January 2014, 04:08 PM.


              • #67
                Originally posted by russofris View Post
                Re: "bickering and fighting"

                I assure you that the only bickering and fighting going on is in your imagination. Two distinct/disparate philosophies can and do coexist, and people are free to choose whichever suits them (or their company) the best. LLVM is a terrible setback to the promotion of the RS's notion of 'software freedom'. It is a step forward in the eyes of technologists like myself. That said, it is essential that GCC exists and continues to thrive. Not only does GCC provide the necessary compilation tools to anyone/everyone, it also serves as a public record of the state of compiler technology.

                GCC must exist for the same reason the Post Office and public Libraries must exist. LLVM/icc are just the FEDEX/UPS.... The JSTOR/PACER of the compiler world, and serves their customers better than the free alternatives.

                Having both is a good thing, as it fosters competition and innovation.
                Nicely put.

                The "bickering and fighting" starts if someone claims the words "freedom" for their own purposes, and herds of sheep are following them without thinking...


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Truth View Post
                  [Citation needed]


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by corebob View Post
                    Just as a side note: One of my later findings is that despite popular belief, a free market and capitalism seems to be mutually exclusive.
                    You probably have to choose one over the other at some point down the road.
                    That all depends upon how you define Capitalism.

                    If you define capitalism by the common perception of it to include corporatism (which is what most western nations actually run on, not capitalism) then yes the free market will be destroyed and you will result in a system of an oligopoly, because of government controls (most significantly the control of Intellectual Property).

                    If you define capitalism by it's proper definition which is in complete exclusion of government controls on the market (which means that monopoly creating concepts such as intellectual property don't exist, and you don't have abuse of the tax code or regulatory agencies being wielded against small-medium businesses by larger companies, and there's no such thing as a "public" company thus preventing hostile takeovers and other such fun games, as well as no government-backed parachutes for companies making bad choices (part of what led to the 2008 depression/recession)) then one insures the other. The usual complaints against the proper definition of capitalism (Child labour, and poor working conditions) are not actually the fault of capitalism but poverty, and a lack of appropriate technology respectively (let's be blunt factory and mine work will always be inhumane and horrible even in the best conditions, and this problem can only be solved by replacing humans with technology), and capitalism has a long term monopoly and oligopoly breaking effect if it's left to actually work, as seen by the breaking of the duBeers diamond monopoly, there's also prime examples in the game market (if we actually turn our eyes from the big 3 for a moment and take a look at the independent developers), and even the market for linux distributions (which range from crappy reskins to to independent distributions).


                    • #70
                      I found this remark from RMS to be hitting the real deal:
                      The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as much as it helps us.
                      If you think this is a problem, then you're on the FSF/GNU/GPLv3 side. But then you're dealing with politics and ideology; and not longer a neutral academical project.

                      The following remark seems to address this quite well:
                      Originally posted by shaurz View Post
                      LLVM came from academia (like the BSDs) and not created for the benefit of some political ideology.
                      So if you care only about academical concerns like code quality and speed of development, BSD/MIT/PublicDomain license would make more sense. You'll allow your creation to be used by all, which includes lots of good guys, and perhaps also some bad guys. But you will give your creation to humanity as a whole, not just the ones which agree with your ideology.

                      'Freedom by force' sounds more like a crusade to me. And the ones who will not partake in this warmongering, are punished by exclusion from their wealth (code contributions). Some even see the BSD/MIT folk as traitors, for collaborating with the enemy (i.e. the 'evil companies'). While i can understand you may feel uneasy when your creation is being used for 'bad purposes', it goes with making your creation publically accessible. In the same sense, people can use Firefox to conduct fraud or Transmission bittorrent to download child pornography. The moral of the story: if you create something for humanity, you must also accept it can be used for things you don't like.