From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 21 17:12:55 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D1B1065675 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:12:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rogerk@queernet.org) Received: from mailbox.onlinepolicy.net (mailbox.onlinepolicy.net [209.237.247.99]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78CF88FC0C for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:12:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from RogerKs-MacBook-Air.local (unknown [208.146.43.5]) by mailbox.onlinepolicy.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E28917ADA10; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:12:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FE35616.9080304@queernet.org> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:12:54 -0700 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wojciech Puchar References: <402199FE-380B-41B6-866B-7D5D66C457D5@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <20120621015237.GB58187@neutralgood.org> <4FE35208.40708@queernet.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Clang X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:12:55 -0000 On 6/21/12 10:08 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >>> Second, FreeBSD is not a commercial company, and while this argument >>> may have a merit >>> for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD >>> itself. >> >> You seem to be unaware of what percentage of the development and >> maintenance staff and the money to pay for them comes from those >> commercial users. If FreeBSD cannot maintain the critical mass to >> continue, it will not continue. > > but why it isn't clearly stated: > > "We put clang because sponsors wanted it." > Sponsors didn't want clang. Sponsors wanted not to be encumbered by a GPLv3 license. If there was a "shmoodlepoodle" compiler instead of "clang" that met this requirement instead and was at least as performant and stable, it would likely have been selected. If you don't like clang as an option, go away and come back when you've built a better compiler and offered it under an acceptable license.