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

[duby229]

This is exactly why I don't like the term "Free Software". It's because free software isn't really free. And it shouldn't be. If you guys look at any of my posts I always say OSS. Open Source Software. Not FLOSS, or FOSS, only OSS.

In principle I absolutely agree with GPLv2s implementation of a copyleft. It makes it so your product can be used they way you want your product to be used, but still forces you to contribute back upstream. That's not free. But it is OSS.

EDIT: GPLv3 isn't "free" either. It makes it so your product may not be possible to use the way you want it to be used, plus it still forces you to contribute back upstream.

[Luke_Wolf]

In what way is extending the freedom you enjoy to make one choice to another person to make a different choice, anarchy?

The very essence of freedom is predicated on choice. To have the ability to choose differently and even actively disagree with the status quo is how you measure what freedom you have. But 'Freedom' on its own is merely a principle, a design pattern, if you will. It has to be placed in a context before it takes on concrete meaning; "the freedom to ...", "Freedom from ...", "Freedom of ..."

RMS doesn't really want freedom in principle, he wants freedom from proprietary software. He would prefers work in which no proprietary software exists, which by definition limits the individual choice of users. This doesn't make you less dependant on its own, it makes you dependant upon a different kind of entity -- GPL3 was a good example of what unintended consequences look like under the GNU entity.

Now, RMS and his views are far from unprincipled, but too many people equate GNU/GPL freedom from proprietary software with a more democratic ideal of freedom, when it is not that. It might even be closer to that, on the average, than a proprietary world would be, but still they are not the same ends. At the end of the day, RMS thinks he knows better than you what's good for you, and would prefer you to use GPL3 software over any other proprietary or competing open-source licensed software -- he doesn't really want you to have the full benefit of choice. He believes, as any benevolent dictator does, that a self-sustaining utopia will spontaneously spring up around his platform, and that it will serve all needs. I admire the man for much of what he's accomplished, but this is where he is disconnected from reality, IMO.

Actually GNU is about freedom, but it's not freedom from proprietary software, it's freedom from anyone being able to tell another person what they can do on a computer, regardless of whether that person owns the computer system or not. Proprietary software is just one means that one person can tell another person what they can do on a computer that GNU opposes.

When Stallman opposes things like filters on porn at schools, it's not about censorship, it's about his ideal that any user on any computer system should be able to do as they please. When Stallman talks about his MIT days where he fought against passwords and against the admins having control, this isn't some battle over proprietary software but over the ideal that any user should be able to do anything, consequences be damned.

In essence in Stallman's world there is no place for anyone actually owning computers as opposed to them being public goods, because for there to be ownership requires control, and Stallman considers such control a moral wrong.

[opensource]

Erics S. Raymond is a well known proprietary corps footpad . So that's what I would expect from him for sure.

Is that so? I didn't know. Then: Stallman > Raymond.

gcc does eat some code it shouldn't (by the standard), and might even produce weird stuff in result. I found clang to be more strict and reporting such violations in a concise manner.

I noticed this with my c++ (template) code too, annoying (any way to disable it?) -- and I don't want the more free GCC to loose too much against LLVM.

[ihatemichael]

Finally somebody who has the balls to tell RMS to go fuck himself! RMS is now a cornered little bitch. His stupid theories are holding the Linux world back from mass adoption. It's time for him and his minions to go to the trash can of history.

People like choice, they can choose proprietary if it works better for them or they can choose open source if that is what they consider better.

Time to bend over RMS and take it. Lube your asshole up! It's time to choose: who will fuck you first? Apple, Microsoft, Oracle???

You've had your time. The future is our place, the future is our time now!

Bit by bit every one of his stupid technologies are replaced by better tools made by corporations. The guy is completely fucked. When everything that is better will not be GPL'ed he should probably kill himself and spare us a bullet. GPL is a second class citizen behind which people hide the inferiority of their software claiming that it is somehow free thus better... Even if it's obvious that is a hack job done by amateurs compared to the real product made by a company.

Fuck off fascist.

GCC will never go away, keep dreaming.

[jophos]

These arguments about the semantics of the word freedom are pointless when the vast majority of those on this forum understand the meaning of the terms used in this particular context. "Free Software" is primarily concerned with ensuring that derivatives of the code are fed back, whilst "Open Source" is a more general term that includes free software, but also any other licenses that grant access to the source. Open source was AFAIK created not only to avoid the confusion of the term "free software", but to actively distance the community from RMS.

What is the point of the fanboyism that is rampant throughout this forum? The proponents of both sides of this (and other debates here) regularly stoop to vacuous tribalism that only acts to take away from their arguments. Conspiratorial thinking is also commonplace, with plenty of schizophrenic rambling that would be expected at a rense.com

I am a regular lurker here, but the endless infantile behaviour does nothing to inspire intelligent debate. This is as bad as 4chan.

[Luke_Wolf]

consequences be damned? The faster we get rid of this guy the better the world will be. Of course admins must have control. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE ADMINS AND YOU ARE NOT! You are not free to do as you please. You are there to do what the boss tells you to do and if you do it up to his standards you get paid. That is it! You should not have the same access as the boss. Boss > employee. Simple. Even RMS must understand that. Some people have more rights than others. Make more money, gain more power, and you will join those who have more rights than others.

The problem is RMS does not understand that. To whit:
from http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutil...x-fascism-2365

23.6.1 Why GNU su does not support the ?wheel? group

(This section is by Richard Stallman.)

Sometimes a few of the users try to hold total power over all the rest. For example, in 1984, a few users at the MIT AI lab decided to seize power by changing the operator password on the Twenex system and keeping it secret from everyone else. (I was able to thwart this coup and give power back to the users by patching the kernel, but I wouldn't know how to do that in Unix.)

However, occasionally the rulers do tell someone. Under the usual su mechanism, once someone learns the root password who sympathizes with the ordinary users, he or she can tell the rest. The ?wheel group? feature would make this impossible, and thus cement the power of the rulers.

I'm on the side of the masses, not that of the rulers. If you are used to supporting the bosses and sysadmins in whatever they do, you might find this idea strange at first.

[blackiwid]

consequences be damned? The faster we get rid of this guy the better the world will be. Of course admins must have control. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE ADMINS AND YOU ARE NOT! You are not free to do as you please. You are there to do what the boss tells you to do and if you do it up to his standards you get paid. That is it! You should not have the same access as the boss. Boss > employee. Simple. Even RMS must understand that. Some people have more rights than others. Make more money, gain more power, and you will join those who have more rights than others.

get rid of him, is that a attempt on his live? He will say always the stuff that he does in his mindset and I and many others will applaud him. I and others will use gplv3 and other lisensens that protect freedom. And as long as there are 20-80% (dont have numbers) that belive in free software over OSS he will stay relevant except you really go to "get rid of him" and murder him. But still his idea will live over his live you cant get rid of his ideas/ideology. And I cant get rid of bsd like "freedom" mindset. But I dont want to get rid of people. OMG

[Luke_Wolf]

So the guy is just an anarchist moron. Noted!

To be perfectly correct: Communist, not Anarchist. It's rather clear he doesn't think of computers as property that can be owned, as opposed to a public resources that can be used. Hence also the idea of all users being equal, the class warfare style argumentation and so on.

[blackiwid]

To be perfectly correct: Communist, not Anarchist. It's rather clear he doesn't think of computers as property that can be owned, as opposed to a public resources that can be used. Hence also the idea of all users being equal, the class warfare style argumentation and so on.

no he just thhinks that the user should own and have control over HIS PC not developers over him/his pc.

[Luke_Wolf]

no he just thhinks that the user should own and have control over HIS PC not developers over him/his pc.

Did you read the same section of that manpage that I did? here it is for you again:

23.6.1 Why GNU su does not support the ?wheel? group

(This section is by Richard Stallman.)

Sometimes a few of the users try to hold total power over all the rest. For example, in 1984, a few users at the MIT AI lab decided to seize power by changing the operator password on the Twenex system and keeping it secret from everyone else. (I was able to thwart this coup and give power back to the users by patching the kernel, but I wouldn't know how to do that in Unix.)

However, occasionally the rulers do tell someone. Under the usual su mechanism, once someone learns the root password who sympathizes with the ordinary users, he or she can tell the rest. The ?wheel group? feature would make this impossible, and thus cement the power of the rulers.

I'm on the side of the masses, not that of the rulers. If you are used to supporting the bosses and sysadmins in whatever they do, you might find this idea strange at first.

(Bolded for emphasis)

Tell me... what does that have to do with developers, as opposed to the owners of the system not having control over it?