OpenBSD Is Now Forked As Bitrig

[smitty3268]

Not having found the GCC toolchain arduous, or at any rate no more so than any other command line compiler, I can only take you at your word wrt ease of development.

I've always been a performance man, I care about that 10%.

When LLVM/Clang exceeds GCC in speed of generated code I will probably switch.

This is true only if you use current versions of GCC.

With the BSD's refusing to upgrade past 4.2 (the last GPL2 version) for political reasons, it makes a lot of sense for them to all switch over to LLVM quickly now.

[LightBit]

Well Linux isn't really GitHub project. It's developed at kernel.org and Linus shared fair bit of criticms against it when they used it as kernel.org was down. That's not to say that there aren't any interesting projects.

Yes, and the same is with Bitrig.

[Teho]

https://github.com/torvalds/linux

Well Linux isn't really GitHub project. It's developed at kernel.org and Linus shared fair bit of criticms against it when they used it as kernel.org was down. That's not to say that there aren't any interesting projects.

It seems to work well as a hosting place, I'm less impressed with the infrastructure to help "develop" things. It's clearly way too easy to create pointless issue requests, and the "pull requests" seem to be actively designed for somebody who pulls without ever even thinking about what he does - which is against everything I believe in as a project manager.

So from the pull request it's actually hard to see *what* somebody asks you to pull. Together with making it trivial to create commits and pull requests entirely in the browser, I think it's much too easy to do bad-quality requests.

That said, it's working fairly well for the small dive log software I originally put there. For the kernel, I just wish I had a way to disable pull requests entirely, because they are so worthless - even if you disregard any code issues, we just have much higher standards even just for the process of a real kernel pull-request (much more explanation about what the pull contains etc).

That said, I did give them some feedback about the things that really don't work well. So who knows..

-Linus Torvalds

[LightBit]

Oh, I won't take any GitHub project seriously either

https://github.com/torvalds/linux

[pankkake]

I think it's meant github.

Oh, I won't take any GitHub project seriously either

[Teho]

Well, except for the one company most known for FOSS.

Red Hat? They use permissive licence for their cloud stuff for example. I think the important part here is that if we want open source software to succeed we need to make it easy and compelling for the new companies. They don't necessarily have to start contributing right a way because it's more likely for them to do so at some point in the future if they already are using open source software.

[liam]

Most companies that develope open source software use permissive licences like Apache and BSD. It makes developing open source software easier and therefor more compelling. So yes, it kinda makes sense.

Well, except for the one company most known for FOSS.

[Sergio]

Hmm... Does this mean... "It protects freedom of the [content] with the cost of its freedom"... ? Yes?

WRONG. It protects freedom of the content by preventing to remove this freedom.

Because if you remove this freedom, you don't have it. At this point, BSD stops existing. This case is ignored in BSD. Which means BSD is simply public domain.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

[LightBit]

I have a hard time taking them seriously after that.

I think it's meant github.

[Teho]

1. "BSD is easier for companies than GPL."
True for evil companies, useless for good companies. Answered by me.

Makes no fucking sense. If company is about to move to open source software then it's quite important that it's easy and safe and permissive licences are just that. You should understand that what is "evil" and what is not is completely subjective. Most of the major open source companies also use permissive licences including Red Hat and Google; so yeah I really doubt it is useless...

2. " BSD is more free than GPL."
Lie. answered by me.

You can't just go and redefine words. BSD is more free than GPL as long as free actually means what free actually means.

3. "Apache/BSD is extremely popular for corporate software."
For useless opencore projects or parts.

Yeah like Apache, Android, OpenStack, OpenShift, Wayland, Compiz, X.org, Chromium...

Do you understand how hard it's to take this shit seriously? Nothign you say make any sense what-so-ever. Not only that but you accuse others of lies and bullshiting yet you do exactly that youself.