Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenMandriva Is Finding Great Success In Their Switch To Using LLVM's Clang Compiler

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Almindor View Post

    Can I take your stuff, put a header on top with my copyright and pretend I built it all? Oh wait, that's what Apple did...

    That's the reason people distruct BSD-alike licenses.
    When did Apple do this exactly?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by You- View Post

      I am pretty sure the free software communities started precisely when they couldn't do this. AFAIK it was a printer driver that prevented Stallman from doing what he needed to do.
      So? I mean honestly what drove Stallman 50 years ago shouldn’t be warping today’s discussion. This especially when GPL 3 has become such a hideous license.
      The "Problem" with LLVM is that it has big business support precisely because it is not GPL (V3).
      Err no it got support because it was interesting tech at the time. The arrival of GPL 3 did however cement it in the business world. The fact is business can’t take the risk of an even more radical GPL 4.
      The big businesses want the ability to screw their customers over should it become a profitable avenue. They want their silos.
      Nonsense! LLVM took of In the business world because it reduces risk when it comes to something they will never make money on. Even Apple publicly admitted this when releasing XCode as a free product. It is extremely difficult to recover the expense of building a set of tools like LLVM. In a nut shell few companies survive solely on selling compilers and almost none have a suite of tools like the LLVM project offers.

      Simply put few companies see compilers as profit centers.
      While that may be beneficial to a specific business it ends up screwing over the ecosystem
      How? The LLVM ecosystem is huge! This includes working tools, new innovations and all sorts of research using the suite of tools. At this point the over all impact of LLVM is significantly larger than GCC.
      look at the ARM world. Because all the SOC's and companies built their own silos even when most use the same components most SoC companies need their own build with a specific version of the software because that is how their silo operates and doing anything outside there is 100x as hard.
      That is the ARM world which is largely a function of growing up in the embedded and special function world. They will either adapt or give up in the general computing world. Given that you will only see ARM in innovative machines in the future because innovation requires breaking away from the X86 world that has dominated for so long. X86 has literally painted itself into a corner with the obsession with a standard platform.
      There is a similar risk with Google Chrome - those that remember the days of IE6 dominance should shudder at the thought. It took years of work to overcome the damage that caused. As some governments had mandates online platforms that were designed to only working with IE6, it meant it stood around for far longer than it should have.
      what does this have to do with the discussion? Seriously government do a lot of stupid things and frankly mandates are a good portion of them. Just consider what has happened in the USA with stupid policies and mandates. By the way it isn’t just governments, the corporation I work for hung onto IE 6 for way too long. IE 6 was just one of a long line of stupid IT policies. If you are at the wrong end of the pyramid there isn’t much you can do about it.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by wizard69 View Post

        Obviously you don’t know what you are talking about here. If you care to look Apple has a file for every licensed bit of software they ship. It is a big file.

        This is perhaps one one of the biggest problems I have with the GNU crowd and that is the use of out right lies to support their positions. Maybe they don’t like the idea that BSD is a freer license than GPL 3.
        Similar issue with the anti-systemd crowd.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
          But you aren’t stating the truth! Linux is Linux! What is included is another thing. Your argument makes about as much sense as calling MacOS, BSD UNIX!
          But you are posting complete uninformed bullshit! Linux is the kernel's name. What is included is another thing. Your argument makes about as much sense as calling MacOS "XNU" (which is MacOS's kernel name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU ) or FreeBSD as "kernel" (as its kernel does not have a specific name, it's just the kernel part of the FreeBSD OS project)

          That said I don't see the point in having to call Linux Desktop as "GNU/Linux", as it's not really clear to anyone what that means, while Linux Desktop usually means desktop distros.

          By the way those tools are often functional copies of software found on old UNIX versions.
          It's not about the tools but about the base system libraries. You know, the Glibc? That's GNU and is not from UNIX (also because it is Linux-specific interface library)
          https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/
          That's the core of the userspace right there.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by computerquip View Post

            When did Apple do this exactly?
            1666. They put a header on Newton and "invented" gravity.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
              It's not about the tools but about the base system libraries. You know, the Glibc? That's GNU and is not from UNIX (also because it is Linux-specific interface library)
              https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/
              That's the core of the userspace right there.
              Just in case no one realized it, glibc is actually a C standard library that works with a wide variety of operating systems. As far as I'm aware, it's the only libc that officially supports running on different OSes. Most libc implementations are intended for a specific OS, but glibc was intended to replace all *nix libc implementations.

              In fact, today, glibc is used with Linux and HURD (yes, yes, I know...). And there have been ports for various Unix systems over the years, too.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by King InuYasha View Post
                glibc is actually a C standard library that works with a wide variety of operating systems.
                No, not really. It's at most used in HURD, and I'm already using the term "operating system" very very loosely.

                I'm personally not really going to trust *BSD Glibc to be anything more than hand waving at this point, given the official site (source not touched in 15 years) https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/glibc-bsd/

                or the status of Debian's kbsd flavor I never really checked but does seem like a little HURD to me https://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/

                Meanwhile outside of Linux everyone uses other stuff.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by You- View Post

                  I am pretty sure the free software communities started precisely when they couldn't do this. AFAIK it was a printer driver that prevented Stallman from doing what he needed to do.

                  The "Problem" with LLVM is that it has big business support precisely because it is not GPL (V3). The big businesses want the ability to screw their customers over should it become a profitable avenue. They want their silos.

                  While that may be beneficial to a specific business it ends up screwing over the ecosystem - look at the ARM world. Because all the SOC's and companies built their own silos even when most use the same components most SoC companies need their own build with a specific version of the software because that is how their silo operates and doing anything outside there is 100x as hard.

                  There is a similar risk with Google Chrome - those that remember the days of IE6 dominance should shudder at the thought. It took years of work to overcome the damage that caused. As some governments had mandates online platforms that were designed to only working with IE6, it meant it stood around for far longer than it should have.
                  First of all, I'd just like to point out that Linux is probably the single biggest most used open source project in the world, and it's GPL. I don't see why corporations would be flocking to Clang to get away from GPL when they gladly use Linux. They could just as easily start adopting FreeBSD, but the business world is absolutely in love with Linux.

                  I'm really curious about the rest of your post. I'm assuming your post is backed by the philosophy that, if a program is BSD/MIT and allows a proprietary fork, a proprietary fork will be made and will become more successful than the original source base.

                  When has this ever happened? Why would this ever happen? What is the paranoia behind this? Not only can I not think of a good example of this (feel free to provide one if you'd like. macOS has already been provided as an example and debunked, not to mention Darwin's source is still being provided by Apple), but major corporations like Microsoft are releasing all their software under MIT, including the Roslyn compiler. C# is one of their biggest products, and they don't need GPL.

                  Also, if someone forks an open source project, and writes their own code to add to it, why are you so keen on forcing them to give you that code back? Why can't they own their own contributions and decide what they want to do with it? You act like them using your software is a violation of your territory on their part. And if they were claiming their code as yours wholesale, that would be a problem. But, if they have to put your copyright on it (as MIT/BSD mandates), is it so bad if they want to use your code privately along with their own private modifications? You demand they treat your code with respect but then also demand they have no rights over their own contributions?

                  Not to mention, I think you're missing a massive contradiction here. Who would ever want to steal someone's source code if they have the manpower to maintain it privately? Why wouldn't they just write their own version that they get to design and they know the ins and outs of, instead of having to train their staff on this new source base that they'd now have to maintain entirely on their own without any more updates since it's a fork? Wouldn't it be a million times easier from a business standpoint to give back to the central repository, regardless of license, so you get free updates and maintenance? Why would any company ever decline free work? Why would they ever not contribute back to an open source project? Even Sony's PS4 operating system based on FreeBSD contributed back to the FreeBSD codebase. It makes zero sense to do anything else.

                  I think there's a reason corporations use MIT/BSD and hobbyists use GPL. Corporations understand how corporations work and know they don't want to do work when they don't have to, even if it means to give back to a community if they can avoid work by doing so. Hobbyists are often paranoid of corporations because they're unemployed and have no idea how companies even work outside of their favorite fictional Orwellian novels. Sorry for the blunt insult, but I'm honestly flabbergasted at this blatant lack of insight. Companies have limited resources, even big ones like Apple. They're not rubbing their hands together thinking of what open source project they can stomp out next, all they want is free work.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by wizard69 View Post

                    Obviously you don’t know what you are talking about here. If you care to look Apple has a file for every licensed bit of software they ship. It is a big file.

                    This is perhaps one one of the biggest problems I have with the GNU crowd and that is the use of out right lies to support their positions. Maybe they don’t like the idea that BSD is a freer license than GPL 3.
                    I never said they didn't provide the licence. I never said they override the header in the original file. What they do is this

                    #include <stdio.h> -> /mac/path/stdio.h

                    /mac/path/stdio.h -- proprietary apple copyright header and otherwise empty with something like
                    #include "bsd/stdio.h" <- has the actual BSD license header + actual code/api

                    I meant they HIDE it not that they remove or modify the originals. Most people assume it's all copyright Apple this way and it's a nice way to have a "we've nothing to do with this" 1st glance. You can then pretend it's all yours and most people will think that.

                    Not to mention of course the fact that you don't need to give back if you fix bugs or improve upon it.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by You- View Post

                      I am pretty sure the free software communities started precisely when they couldn't do this. AFAIK it was a printer driver that prevented Stallman from doing what he needed to do.

                      The "Problem" with LLVM is that it has big business support precisely because it is not GPL (V3). The big businesses want the ability to screw their customers over should it become a profitable avenue. They want their silos.

                      While that may be beneficial to a specific business it ends up screwing over the ecosystem - look at the ARM world. Because all the SOC's and companies built their own silos even when most use the same components most SoC companies need their own build with a specific version of the software because that is how their silo operates and doing anything outside there is 100x as hard.

                      There is a similar risk with Google Chrome - those that remember the days of IE6 dominance should shudder at the thought. It took years of work to overcome the damage that caused. As some governments had mandates online platforms that were designed to only working with IE6, it meant it stood around for far longer than it should have.
                      But at least Google Chrome uses Chromium, so anything enforced will work in Chromium(-based browsers) as well. Can't say the same thing about IE6.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X