Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:42:12 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <20120622044212.GC24912@hemlock.hydra> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206211257150.1980@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <402199FE-380B-41B6-866B-7D5D66C457D5@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <CAH3a3KWKNF5Bt-8=KgtbMh=rV6GfUO7OaeE6-SutxkcRe8cG3Q@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206191953280.8234@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20120621015237.GB58187@neutralgood.org> <AC6A916E-066B-4399-89E1-90C2394327E7@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206211257150.1980@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 01:06:12PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself. If FreeBSD appears > >as a subsidiary of some commercial company (say Juniper) i am not sure this will be good > > I think any project that size is actually a subsidiary and must be. > > I just don't like that it isn't stated openly! It is nothing wrong, > unless one can feed using zero point energy, everyone needs money to > stay alive. > > Wouldn't it be smarter to openly say "Juniper request as to get rid > o GPL as soon as we can because they are fed up with this shit and > law mess." instead of personal attacks, messing with my (and others) > sentences and posting evident lies just to "explain" the decision. > > It is a difference between honest people and fools. > > i already proposed (but not publically) to turn FreeBSD into > commercial system. > > REALLY i would not see a problem to pay say 100$ per server licence. I would see a problem with that -- not because I don't think FreeBSD is worth it. I do, and I think it is worth more than that, in fact. The biggest problem with what you propose, though, is that it would destroy the social factors in development of the FreeBSD system that make it what it is, and thus destroy FreeBSD itself, as far as I am concerned. Eliminating the copyfree licensed, open source development model of FreeBSD would undermine the majority of the technical benefits supported by that development model. I would have thought that even you should be able to understand that without help. > > There is nothing to prevent giving source with system. Non-Free > software doesn't have to be binary only. Read-only source, or even modifiable but non-distributable source, does not provide the social benefits of an open source development model that encourage the kind of participation FreeBSD needs to remain FreeBSD, rather than becoming Oracle Solaris or MS Windows Server 2010: Race Condition Odyssey. > > For paying this i would like FreeBSD to be maintained with quality > and performance being the only reason, not politics. Turning it into a commercial enterprise rather than an open source project would probably turn it into a project that is driven about 60% by corporate politics and 40% by marketing BS, with no room left over for quality except as needed to support the minimum credibility its CEO deems necessary to support those two concerns. > > Every "trendy" or otherwise requested feature could be added > separately or even charged separately, as long as it doesn't have > any effects on base system. ZFS being example. > > Nothing against Juniper (the make truly good working hardware), but > if they enforce decision because of their personal likes then it > must be stopped. You seem to think this is all about Juniper. I wonder where you get that idea. Why didn't you pluck iXsystems out of thin air as your whipping boy, or Yahoo, or some other corporate user? > > GPLv3 based C compiler does not prevent making closed source > software like JunOS for example. In most cases, this may be true, *if* the license exceptions apply as described if/when tested in court. There are some cases where even the optimistic explanation of the license exceptions particular to GCC mentions that the GPLv3 might apply to generated code. > > It is only "i hate GNU" type decision. No, it's not only that. It's *also* that, and with good reason. Good job ignoring a whole lot of information people have tried to bring to your attention, including lengthy messages from me to which you have not substantively responded. Are you unable, or simply unwilling, to have an honest discussion on the matter? Ironically, your possibly dishonest intention in this matter occurs even as you pretend that potentially mistaken statements by one or two people make *everyone* into malevolent liars who deserve your ire and insults. > > I hate too, and in spite of this am against removing gcc and > replacing it with much worse product. "Worse" based on a couple of very narrowly applicable metrics derived from specific, very particular use case conditions, whose measures are of negligible scale for most purposes, ignoring a shit-ton of additional information about why Clang is better based on information that you have not only admitted not knowing about but proclaimed you have no interest in learning. You *refuse* to educate yourself about some of the subject matter that pertains to other benefits, then proclaim everyone else at fault for the fact you cannot see past your nose to note that the whole world does not revolve around some dubious benchmarks. I doubt you're convincing anyone of anything you seem to think we should all accept as gospel. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120622044212.GC24912>