Eric S. Raymond Calls LLVM The "Superior Compiler" To GCC

[silix]

Well I compare to what software used to be, which was software + sources.

things cange, accept it
what doesnt change is the right for an individual to set price and terms under which to let others receive and / or exploit the result of his/her work

keeping one's code closed or opening it up for others to see and extend is a (sometimes ideological sometimes pragmatical but anyway) free choice on the author's part - in fact, if you have any gpl'd software at all, you have to thank authors for that, as there's [B]no entitlement[B] to get software in source form

or do you think that the particular freedom above shall be denied? worse, to programmers alone, while lawyers, architects, bioresearchers and whatnot apparently are exempt from this discussion, as i dont see crusades to force them to open their projects "cooperatively", gpl-style... but then, what's with this disparity between programmers and everyone else?

EDIT

No amount of proprietary software will keep you from learning programming, so this is just bullshit. And the very basic right of anyone producing something, be it software or physical products, is to dictate the conditions under which he will give it away. So, the real question is: Why do you think your right to get source to software produced by someone else (which actually is non-existent, you don't have such a right) would trump the rights of developers actually doing the work?

*

[erendorn]

Also, digital devices are complex things and they could be used to cause harm.
If you think that manufacturer/sw author should have unlimited power ... just some things to think on:
- Should it be valid for mfr to conduct attacks on other computer systems using their device as base?
- Should it be valid to declare that device could spy and actually spy on device's owner?
- Should it be valid to steal all user files and maybe even try to declare them property of device mfr/malware author?
- Should it be valid for mfr to disable device or certain functions at their will?
- Should it be valid if mfr decides to do some real bitching and updates device so it starts making loud beeping at 3AM, without options to disable such "feature"?
- Should it be allowed for mfr to remotely put user's device to unsafe operation modes? What about intentionally exploding device by abusing LiIon cell?

So I do not think program authors and device manufacturers should have each and every right to do absolutely anything they want to. Their freedoms should end right where other's freedom starts. Somehow GPL is also about this and it seems to have fairly balanced view, unlike some other licenses.

Almost everything in this list is valid if you consented to it:
- Pwn Plug does exactly that
- gmail, facebook, etc..
- steal implies absence of consent, so of course not.
- cars disable locks upon accident. Drones are expected to refuse to enter no fly zones. Such behaviour is completely expected if safety mandates it
- Cannot find an example, because cannot find why someone would buy such a device, but sure.
- You cannot really consent to self harm in most countries, so no, not allowed.

But again, you are confusing things. Either you are happy with the conditions of a trade, and you enter it, and you have no basis to whine, or you are not happy, and your right is to not enter the trade.
If you don't want a manufacturer or any third party to do any thing on your list, don't buy from them. Nobody forces you to, and if you do, you are not entitled to anything more than what was sold to you. That's how the world works, for good reasons.

[MoonMoon]

First of all I think every buyer should have rights to know what he/she buys and who is really in charge. Something treacherous proprietary fucks do not dare to tell honestly most the time, pretending one who buys device or evne program is real owner.

That is funny. Any proprietary software I came across so far ask you to read and accept (or not accept) the license it is released under. Yet you claim they would be treachery or something, when they actually present you the license even before you install? How can that even be?

Then, I think it is really harmful when one uses their rights to increase number of dumb. talentless, unskilled consumers rather than makers.

I have to ask that, though I don't expect to get a proper answer: How does the existence of projects under a closed source license prevent you from learning programming?

If you think that manufacturer/sw author should have unlimited power ... just some things to think on:

Really, do I think that? Where again have I said that? Quote, please.

- Should it be valid for mfr to conduct attacks on other computer systems using their device as base?

This is forbidden by law already, no amount of discussing copyleft vs permissive vs proprietary changes that, so this point is mood.

- Should it be valid to declare that device could spy and actually spy on device's owner?

Of course, if it is declared in the license it is valid. You can see this for example in the EULA of the Windows 10 Tech Preview, where it is explicitly stated that it spies on you. Funnily, Canonical did not explicitly state that for their Amazon search thingy, though they release most of their software under GPL.

- Should it be valid to steal all user files and maybe even try to declare them property of device mfr/malware author?

If it is declared in the license and does not violate your local laws then of course it should be valid. In that case however, it wouldn't be stealing, since you gave your OK with accepting the license.

- Should it be valid for mfr to disable device or certain functions at their will?

It depends on the circumstances. If it is for example stated in the license that a device may not be used for a certain activity and you use that device for exactly that activity then the developers have any right to revoke your license, just as your license is revoked when you violate the GPL.

- Should it be valid if mfr decides to do some real bitching and updates device so it starts making loud beeping at 3AM, without options to disable such "feature"?

If the license explicitly states that this is allowed, then yes, that is valid. Not that this would make any sense from an economical point of view.

- Should it be allowed for mfr to remotely put user's device to unsafe operation modes? What about intentionally exploding device by abusing LiIon cell?

Doing this intentionally is forbidden by law, at least where I live, so this point is also mood.

Basically, all of your points come down to "but what about those dumbfucks that don't care to read the license before accepting them?". The problem is, if you don't read the license to make sure that there are restrictions in place that you don't like that is entirely your fault and seems to me to be a kind of double standard from you. Would you take "I don't have read the license" as a valid excuse from someone who violates the GPL?

It is as simple as that: read the fucking license, then decide if it is acceptable for you. If it is not acceptable then don't fucking accept it. No one is forcing you to do so.

[SystemCrasher]

That is funny. Any proprietary software I came across so far ask you to read and accept (or not accept) the license it is released under. Yet you claim they would be treachery or something, when they actually present you the license even before you install? How can that even be?

For example, many devices supply proprietary software which would do undesired actions. Yet neither terms are clearly described, nor there are warnings about potential for misbehave, dependency on services, no real privacy policy, no info on locked bootloaders, venor locks, etc. Nothing. Generally mfr would pretend you own device, but detailed reseach will show it is not a case. And then proprietary fucks dare to ask what we dislike in their software, etc. Its so funny to fool and cheat your customers and then wonder why there is so much demand for something better than that. One of major reasons why there is so much demand of opensource software is because proprietary vendors proven self to be real assholes most of times.

I have to ask that, though I don't expect to get a proper answer: How does the existence of projects under a closed source license prevent you from learning programming?

Back in 80s-90s most SW has been proprietary and it has been really daunting to learn anything without violating license or spending impressive amounts of $$$ and time to get all licenses. To my taste, these were grim times and it is really nice to see Mr. Stallman managed to had his payback on proprietary faggots. Making world fundamentally better place to live. Seriously, world where you can't even unarchive file without buying license suxx beyound repar.

Really, do I think that? Where again have I said that? Quote, please.

It appears like if you think software (and HW) authors should have infinite freedoms and absolute power over users. I think it's not a case as it could lead to many really harmful scenarios. GPL seems to be more or less like modern laws: it makes certain restrictions ... just to grant everyone same set of rights, without options to deny these rights. Looks fair and balanced for me.

Of course, if it is declared in the license it is valid. You can see this for example in the EULA of the Windows 10 Tech Preview,

One of reasons I would never deal with windows again is that I'm aware of this fact. So I would stay miles away from microsoft crap. Therefore I would lack chance to read their stinky EULA, sorry . Btw, I do not get why it should be legal to distribute spyware if you write it is spyware in its EULA. Most of hackers are jailed for doing so, regardless if they wrote EULA or not. Microsoft fucks are not jailed? Sounds pretty much like double standards in law enforcement.

where it is explicitly stated that it spies on you. Funnily, Canonical did not explicitly state that for their Amazon search thingy, though they release most of their software under GPL.

Well, somehow I do use Xubuntu so I do not care about this thingy . And if I remember it well, Canonical is well aware of uproar and about to remove this "feature". They also provide more or less user-visible ways to disable this attitude. Not that MS known for such things. But in fact it makes community-driven projects like Debian more trustworthy. Because these projects lack reasons to pwn their users at all. You see, its all about trust. And community-based projects have less reasons to pwn their users. Commercial projects could be more poisonous, and if they also proprietary, this is fairly reliable indication you're about to be pwned here and there if you use this crap.

Basically, all of your points come down to "but what about those dumbfucks that don't care to read the license before accepting them?".

And half of time there is no proper description of what this piece of crap will do, even if you do not want to be dumb fuck. On devices it could be daunting to fully get idea about terms, etc. And even if dumb fucks aren't good at reading EULAs, I think it should be illegal to gain advantage this way at such scale as it happens now. It looks like massive fraud scheme at the moment. But okay, that's why proprietary software becomes something shameful. One can expect absolutely worst attitude it program is proprietary and proprietary authors contributed a lot to this state of things.

The problem is, if you don't read the license to make sure that there are restrictions in place that you don't like that is entirely your fault

For example, I do not know where I can read if particular device comes with locked boot loader. Or if it going to send my data to external servers. Or how much it depends on 3rd party services to operate. Most of tmie there is no information. And user doomed for unpleasant discoveries.

It is as simple as that: read the fucking license, then decide if it is acceptable for you.

Somehow, that's what makes opensource software popular. People are starting to get idea you can expect absolutely worst treatment if its proprietary thing. So yeah, let's learn people to read licenses. This will reduce amount of proprietary software in use for sure.

[erendorn]

Somehow, that's what makes opensource software popular. People are starting to get idea you can expect absolutely worst treatment if its proprietary thing. So yeah, let's learn people to read licenses. This will reduce amount of proprietary software in use for sure.

Life tip: people like OSS because it's cheaper. The vast majority of users makes no difference between OSS and freeware.

[MoonMoon]

Back in 80s-90s most SW has been proprietary and it has been really daunting to learn anything without violating license or spending impressive amounts of $$$ and time to get all licenses. To my taste, these were grim times and it is really nice to see Mr. Stallman managed to had his payback on proprietary faggots. Making world fundamentally better place to live. Seriously, world where you can't even unarchive file without buying license suxx beyound repar.

I will just answer to this, I don't think the rest of your rambling deserves an answer. Back in the 80s I learned programming on a Commodore C64, starting with the inbuilt Basic interpreter (you got that for free and you may be shocked that it was Microsoft Basic), later with freely available Assembler. You could do the same on other machines that were wide spread at that time, like the Amstrad CPC, Commodore C16, +4 and all the others, TI 99/4A and what not. Guess what, all these machines had a proprietary OS, all of them came with a proprietary programming language, Even DOS came with QBasic (or was it gwBasic?), none of them required you to pay a fee or look out for license violations. I call bullshit on you, seriously.

[blackiwid]

Just because my country offers low-cost healthcare ( read: its not free for everyone ) doesn't make it communist. I don't know where you're from, but by your definition, many countries in the EU are more communist than the US. But I hate this country, so its moot. But I said Marxist, not communist. the ideologies aren't fully interchangeable. I'd compare RMS to Marx, versus Stalin or Mao any day. RMS and the FSF don't incite violence, but they're actively trying to stomp out proprietary software, which is as effective as pissing in the wind, and gives the open software community a bad name. I believe FOSS and proprietary can coexist. For example: My computer I'm using right now runs FreeBSD with the proprietary Nvidia driver. And no, I don't own a single Apple product.

You just got this point completly 180 degree wrong. In the US I guessed your country, the law for a somewhat social health care system that maybe everybody could get (dont know the details) got attacked and not by only a few nutjobs, around 50% of americans agreed to that, that this is the start of communism. you even hunted down and killed them socialy made them unemployed etc with calling them socialist, you searched for people that dont wanted to drink water with fluor in it because that who dont think that its healty were all communists too.

So its a thought-terminating clich?, you use it, to not argue anymore or defame something.

[blackiwid]

That is funny. Any proprietary software I came across so far ask you to read and accept (or not accept) the license it is released under. Yet you claim they would be treachery or something, when they actually present you the license even before you install? How can that even be?

They dont tell you what antifeatures they give you. the hole point on proprietary code is to hide anti features, and make it impossible even if they seldom are known or to a small group of people is known to remove them.

[duby229]

You just got this point completly 180 degree wrong. In the US I guessed your country, the law for a somewhat social health care system that maybe everybody could get (dont know the details) got attacked and not by only a few nutjobs, around 50% of americans agreed to that, that this is the start of communism. you even hunted down and killed them socialy made them unemployed etc with calling them socialist, you searched for people that dont wanted to drink water with fluor in it because that who dont think that its healty were all communists too.

So its a thought-terminating clich?, you use it, to not argue anymore or defame something.

Fluoride in the water supply is what makes it drinkable. Plus people who drink tap water tend to have healthier teeth and bones.

Without fluoride we'd be exposed to a bunch of harmful diseases that flourish in clean tap water. Without fluoride our modern water supply would be impossible. So yeah, I would say that imposing your ideals on everyone for the sake of the lesser community is in fact communism.

[duby229]

EDIT: Removing fluoride would make millions of people sick, and would kill tens of thousands of people. That sounds just like something Lenin would do.