Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

5+ Years Late: LLVM's AMD Excavator Target Was Missing Two Features

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    you hate oss so much that you hope for monoculture?
    Funny because it's GPL zealots that push for a monoculture and then complain about it. So two faced. When the tables have turned these same fools complain from the opposite perspective, but it still makes them look like hypocrites.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Volta View Post
      How? Or perhaps you meant it doesn't allow proprietary to leech on it so easily?
      GCC is the definition of playing stupid games you get stupid prizes. It's known for making stupid design decisions because "bad people" might use our code. Well there are consequences to that. For a long time people begrudgingly used GCC. Now there is another player in town. People don't have to deal with GCC's bullshit. On top of it there are a hell of a lot of technical advantages switching away too. It's a win win.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by pal666 View Post
        it impairs thief's freedom to steal
        you hate oss so much that you hope for monoculture?
        No, I hope for sane tools.. and, healthy BSD-like ecosystem, instead of CLA-ed "GPL" software. You can call it stealing, others call it voluntary sharing of reusable libraries and tools.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Michael_S View Post

          To address the "developer's freedom" thing for the bazillionth time:

          copyleft takes away the recipient's freedom to release a proprietary copy or proprietary fork, and the benefit of the license is transitive. That is, if you release something copyleft, and I modify it and release the modified version, and some third person modifies my version or your version and releases it, all of us get access to the modifications.

          permissive license takes away the developer's freedom to access all of the modifications and improvements other users might make.

          Neither is "more free" than the other, it's just a question of which set of freedoms you value more. If you just want to use other people's work without giving back, I'd call you a parasite but then, hey, clearly permissive license is the model for you. If you want everyone that uses the software to benefit from the work that anyone does with it, then copyleft is the way to go.

          And before someone says it: no, copyleft is not anti-capitalist. It just switches the software industry business model away from paying for copyrighted work towards paying for labor. Instead of buying a proprietary LLVM front-end from you, I just pay you to write and release under the GPL a GCC front end.
          So, you call all spring framework users parasites? It's voluntary sharing and cooperation on development of reusable tools and libraries for proprietary domain specific applications. GPL just enforces freedom as in free beer, which must be given by all derived software developers. So, it is anti-capitalist. And, socialism works the best for lazy parasites, who don't want to put effort into quality work.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by kravemir View Post
            So, you call all spring framework users parasites?
            they are already Java developers, do we need to go further than that?

            It's voluntary sharing and cooperation on development of reusable tools and libraries for proprietary domain specific applications.
            Different names for the same thing.

            GPL just enforces freedom as in free beer, which must be given by all derived software developers. So, it is anti-capitalist.
            enforced opensource is as anti-capitalist as permissive opensource is pro-capitalist (i.e. "it is not")

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by kravemir View Post

              So, you call all spring framework users parasites? It's voluntary sharing and cooperation on development of reusable tools and libraries for proprietary domain specific applications. GPL just enforces freedom as in free beer, which must be given by all derived software developers. So, it is anti-capitalist. And, socialism works the best for lazy parasites, who don't want to put effort into quality work.
              I didn't call users parasites. I called the people who take an open source project and then make and sell a proprietary version, without contributing anything back to the original project, parasites. Yes, a "proprietary domain specific application" is parasitic. If it's really proprietary and domain specific, write your own complete stack.

              I don't have any problem with people earning money, even tons of money, for their work. I have a problem with people getting money for what they own. If we work together and you work longer, harder, or smarter than me, you deserve more money. If you own the company where I work because you inherited it from your grandparents, and you sip margaritas in a beach house while I work, you don't deserve a cent. Even if you own the company where I work because you busted your ass twenty years ago, and now you're relaxing in a beach house, you still don't deserve a cent. Pay should be for labor, not for ownership.

              Anything else is hypocrisy. "Getting paid for doing nothing is evil. Unless you're a shareholder, then it's totally awesome."

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Michael_S View Post

                I didn't call users parasites. I called the people who take an open source project and then make and sell a proprietary version, without contributing anything back to the original project, parasites. Yes, a "proprietary domain specific application" is parasitic. If it's really proprietary and domain specific, write your own complete stack.

                I don't have any problem with people earning money, even tons of money, for their work. I have a problem with people getting money for what they own. If we work together and you work longer, harder, or smarter than me, you deserve more money. If you own the company where I work because you inherited it from your grandparents, and you sip margaritas in a beach house while I work, you don't deserve a cent. Even if you own the company where I work because you busted your ass twenty years ago, and now you're relaxing in a beach house, you still don't deserve a cent. Pay should be for labor, not for ownership.

                Anything else is hypocrisy. "Getting paid for doing nothing is evil. Unless you're a shareholder, then it's totally awesome."
                Couple of warm words,... Sounds like complete communism. Actually, the ability to make profit from owned things drives effort into research and development. If people are paid for labour, then they don't care about improvement of things... (there is some little number of exceptions)

                Or how is this research and development paid in yours ideal world? Who pays it? What's the cashflow from end-user to labour investing the time into research and development, which will produce benefits in future?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                  it's not my fault that your mind can't comprehend addition
                  You are going to live your life once.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by kravemir View Post

                    I had developed a toy frontend for LLVM and also a tiny frontend for GCC. It's much more comfortable to use LLVM and it doesn't require to fork the whole jungle, also it doesn't require to work with obscure makefiles. Also, GCC impairs developer's freedom heavily. LLVM is the future of OSS compilers.
                    And LLVM doesn't cause global warming, won't burn down forests, and doesn't kick puppies like GCC?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I welcome llvm providing competition to gcc, which helps improve gcc. However, I still like gcc a lot better than llvm. LLVM's overly permissive license makes me leary of it becoming the dominant compiler, then having the rug ripped out from under us when Apple, Google or some other big corporation decides to take it proprietary.

                      And for what it's worth, ever since Qt Creator started moving towards using llvm backends, performance has decreased and bugginess has increased. The function drop down list in Qt Creator used to populate instantly, now I have to wait around for it to get populated, and sometimes it doesn't even get populated for whatever reason. Very irritating.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X