Originally posted by wizard69
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
OpenMandriva Is Finding Great Success In Their Switch To Using LLVM's Clang Compiler
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by wizard69 View PostBut 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!
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.
That's the core of the userspace right there.
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostIt'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)
That's the core of the userspace right there.
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
-
Originally posted by King InuYasha View Postglibc is actually a C standard library that works with a wide variety of operating systems.
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
-
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.
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
-
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.
#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
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by staalmannen View PostIs OpenMandriva also using llvm libc++ instead of libstdc++ ?
For the same reason, we still use libgcc/libgcc_s and not compiler-rt.
That said, libc++ would likely give a bit of a performance boost. If we were to build a version that doesn't care about compatibility with others, chances are we'd opt for libc++ and compiler-rt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by cybertraveler View PostIt makes sense to call it GNU/Linux purely for practical reasons.- The Google Pixel 3 phone runs Android which is not GNU/Linux. It just uses the Linux kernel.
- The Purism Librem 5 phone runs PureOS which is GNU/Linux: the GNU OS with the Linux kernel.
Is it the use of gcc? glibc? coreutils?
I like the GNU project, but the GNU/Linux naming for something that isn't "the GNU OS with the Linux kernel", even if it relies heavily on some GNU components, not so much.
Comment
Comment