Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FreeBSD 10 To Use Clang Compiler, Deprecate GCC

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • dnebdal
    replied
    Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
    So there will be even more hassle with software compilation and problems... good luck to FBSD guys. Shooting self into the leg just to prove they're proprietary corporations footpads is a very incredible way to die, sure.
    Keep in mind that this is just the system compiler; it's not like new versions of gcc will stop running on FreeBSD.

    They did also change the default ports compiler to clang (which makes sense, since it's the one compiler that'll typically be installed on a fresh FreeBSD 10 system), but only after trialing it for a while. It has caused remarkably few issues, though that might be because all the possibly problematic ports have been made to depend on and use gcc. Effectively, everything still works fine.

    Leave a comment:


  • 0xBADCODE
    replied
    So there will be even more hassle with software compilation and problems... good luck to FBSD guys. Shooting self into the leg just to prove they're proprietary corporations footpads is a very incredible way to die, sure.

    Leave a comment:


  • jrch2k8
    replied
    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    Well it was a while back so my memory could be failing me, but I read that NeXT OpenStep contained a Mach kernel based off an early version which was not in practice a micro-kernel (iirc Mach development was long and problematic and relied on a monolithic design for much of it's functionality during most of it's development cycle) together with parts from FreeBSD and NetBSD from which then emerged OSX.

    The story I read was an article series which was a rebuttal of people assuming that OSX was slow due to having a micro-kernel, which the author (while also providing technical insight which seemed to back him up) claimed it did not. I'll see if I can find it again, it was quite some time ago I read it.

    edit: I think I found the article series about Next/Mach: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/0506.mk1.html
    Here's hoping I remembered it correctly, else I feel confident Awesomness will be there to 'correct' me
    very nice reading thanks, i had the doubt if the mach core was used as kernel or micro kernel

    Leave a comment:


  • LightBit
    replied
    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    If it spreads it's only because people choose to licence their code under it and other people wants to use that code.
    It is like adware that come with some freeware programs. People want to use code, not license.
    Last edited by LightBit; 17 May 2012, 11:53 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • jrch2k8
    replied
    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Who says that Stallman has a problem with the (modified) BSD license? The FSF clearly recommends it as one of many Free licenses on its website.

    The FSF has created the GPL as a way to ensure that users of software have access to the source code, and people who care about this tend to choose the GPL. This doesn't mean that Stallman hates the BSD.

    Who's funding this character assassination FFS?
    jajajaj i just mean it in the sense that stallman tends to have mixed views of the bsd license and the lack of copyleft when he does his reccomendations(like openbsd case) and i just don't care if you choose bsd or gpl or mit or XXX is your problem so deal with it kinda position

    Leave a comment:


  • XorEaxEax
    replied
    Originally posted by LightBit View Post
    No, I don't think releasing code under GPL is selfish, but GPL itself. It spreads like "virus".
    If it spreads it's only because people choose to licence their code under it and other people wants to use that code.

    Leave a comment:


  • XorEaxEax
    replied
    Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
    1.) i readed somewhere that NeXT included originally Mach 2.0 and later for the first OS X was upgraded to 3.0 and the freebsd chunks were put inside the NeXT code but i doubt too that much of the NeXT original code remains in the latests OS X tho
    Well it was a while back so my memory could be failing me, but I read that NeXT OpenStep contained a Mach kernel based off an early version which was not in practice a micro-kernel (iirc Mach development was long and problematic and relied on a monolithic design for much of it's functionality during most of it's development cycle) together with parts from FreeBSD and NetBSD from which then emerged OSX.

    The story I read was an article series which was a rebuttal of people assuming that OSX was slow due to having a micro-kernel, which the author (while also providing technical insight which seemed to back him up) claimed it did not. I'll see if I can find it again, it was quite some time ago I read it.

    edit: I think I found the article series about Next/Mach: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/0506.mk1.html
    Here's hoping I remembered it correctly, else I feel confident Awesomness will be there to 'correct' me
    Last edited by XorEaxEax; 17 May 2012, 11:44 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • LightBit
    replied
    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    Well, a licence is just that, a licence. It has no impact unless someone uses it for _their_ code. So what you are really saying is that you think those who choose to licence their code as GPL are selfish. I don't, I see nothing wrong with someone saying 'hey, here's code I've written, you can use it under the follwing terms as long as you allow other people the same terms for any code in which you include mine'.
    No, I don't think releasing code under GPL is selfish, but GPL itself. It spreads like "virus".

    Leave a comment:


  • XorEaxEax
    replied
    Originally posted by LightBit View Post
    That is true for any license, even proprietary.
    I only explained why I think GPL itself is selfish.
    Well, a licence is just that, a licence. It has no impact unless someone uses it for _their_ code. So what you are really saying is that you think those who choose to licence their code as GPL are selfish. I don't, I see nothing wrong with someone saying 'hey, here's code I've written, you can use it under the follwing terms as long as you allow other people the same terms for any code in which you include mine'.

    I also think people who licence their code as BSD/MIT-style are extremely generous. But it all boils down to personal choice, there is no right or wrong other than that which the code author (or owner should he/she work for someone) chooses.

    Whatever the terms are, accept them or write your own code. And for the record I have no problem with proprietary code, which I assume you must since you find GPL 'selfish'.

    Leave a comment:


  • pingufunkybeat
    replied
    Who says that Stallman has a problem with the (modified) BSD license? The FSF clearly recommends it as one of many Free licenses on its website.

    The FSF has created the GPL as a way to ensure that users of software have access to the source code, and people who care about this tend to choose the GPL. This doesn't mean that Stallman hates the BSD.

    Who's funding this character assassination FFS?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X