GCC Soars Past 14.5 Million Lines Of Code & I'm Real Excited For GCC 5

[pal666]

I just prefer Upstart over SystemD...

some people just prefer to live in cave. nobody cares

[pal666]

It's called bloat.

^ that is called stupudity

[wikinevick]

Hm, no wonder why GCC compilation takes forever and doesn't even fit into 4 GiB tmpfs.
...

It's called bloat.

[tuxd3v]

Except that Upstart wasn't unnecessary or "double work". It was created for a reason, and it was designed to be used across all distros. Just because systemd came along later and happened to be better at what Upstart was trying to do doesn't make it horrible.

Similarly, just because you hate Ubuntu/Canonical, it doesn't make everything they've done horrible.

I just prefer Upstart over SystemD...

[Linuxhippy]

Usually I will agree with you. Upstart, Mir are unnecessary/double work, but I really like Unity. It is the most lean environment for me. I tried Fedora 21 and Gnomes Hell for a while, but I got frustrated with the ugly fonts and so much vertical space wasted. I would like to ditch off Ubuntu, but the only viable alternative is OSX unfortunately.

I didn't say Unity is bad in any way - it is however licensed and maintained in a way no sane distributor would ship it as anything more than an optional add-on user-interface.
In my opinion this is a questionable way of doing linux bussiness (taking whats already there and replacing certain parts with self-written stuff licensed in a way others won't benefit - simply to differentiate).

And its not just Unity, Canonical is almost always absent when it comes to upstream development.
I've seen quite a few OSS project stats and for almost all important projects the usual suspects are main constributors (RedHat, SuSE, Intel, .....).

Best regards, Clemens

[Daktyl198]

It would be great to see again which company contributed how much.

It is always interesting to see, that e.g. RedHat is heavily involved in most important projects whereas Canonical usually doesn't give back a whole lot to the community as they usually fork stuff, maintain their own patch-sets or simply prefer to do their own thing instead of building something great together (Unity, Mir, Upstart, ...).

Usually I will agree with you. Upstart, Mir are unnecessary/double work, but I really like Unity. It is the most lean environment for me. I tried Fedora 21 and Gnomes Hell for a while, but I got frustrated with the ugly fonts and so much vertical space wasted. I would like to ditch off Ubuntu, but the only viable alternative is OSX unfortunately.

Except that Upstart wasn't unnecessary or "double work". It was created for a reason, and it was designed to be used across all distros. Just because systemd came along later and happened to be better at what Upstart was trying to do doesn't make it horrible.

Similarly, just because you hate Ubuntu/Canonical, it doesn't make everything they've done horrible.

[doom_Oo7]

Hmm? Actually, it really does encourage a lot of contributions from academic types - PHD students, etc. who are experimenting with a compiler, creating a new language, etc., but don't want to spend all the time it takes to get up to speed with GCC. Contributing to LLVM is much simpler because of it's design, and the lack of tons of old legacy code interacting in various "interesting" ways. I don't think that's a controversial point of view.

Yes, we had for instance a compiler course, and the home project was to make a Ruby compiler that targets the LLVM IR.

[smitty3268]

One day while I was relaxing on the couch with my laptop I accidentally contributed a gorillion KLOC to LLVM! Who would've thought that the only thing inhibiting everyone to contribute to incredibly complex software projects was after all just a vague notion of "clarity" and not, I don't know, excellent education, enormous motivation, being paid to do so, concrete reasons to contribute, and so on. Thank god we have individuals such as you who make otherwise totally unnecessary and meaningless comments, so LLVM just continues growing devs ad infinitum!

/snark

Hmm? Actually, it really does encourage a lot of contributions from academic types - PHD students, etc. who are experimenting with a compiler, creating a new language, etc., but don't want to spend all the time it takes to get up to speed with GCC. Contributing to LLVM is much simpler because of it's design, and the lack of tons of old legacy code interacting in various "interesting" ways. I don't think that's a controversial point of view.

[ClosureSpin]

Which doesn't surprise anyone given the much cleaner and easier to understand (thus facilitating contributions) LLVM codebase.

One day while I was relaxing on the couch with my laptop I accidentally contributed a gorillion KLOC to LLVM! Who would've thought that the only thing inhibiting everyone to contribute to incredibly complex software projects was after all just a vague notion of "clarity" and not, I don't know, excellent education, enormous motivation, being paid to do so, concrete reasons to contribute, and so on. Thank god we have individuals such as you who make otherwise totally unnecessary and meaningless comments, so LLVM just continues growing devs ad infinitum!

/snark

[dom0]

However, this is behind LLVM seeing contributions from 272 individuals for 2014.

Which doesn't surprise anyone given the much cleaner and easier to understand (thus facilitating contributions) LLVM codebase.