From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 16 11:05:37 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94CAC1065676 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:05:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from christoph.mallon@gmx.de) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1061E8FC1F for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:05:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from christoph.mallon@gmx.de) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2009 11:05:35 -0000 Received: from p54A3E7DB.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO tron.homeunix.org) [84.163.231.219] by mail.gmx.net (mp017) with SMTP; 16 Jan 2009 12:05:35 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1673122 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/ZYjB2Kl3ZYol5fzIBNITPwSD5dHFO/N7btjSZF1 8AdPK+2ibgURsL Message-ID: <497069FE.9080704@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:05:34 +0100 From: Christoph Mallon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "O. Hartmann" References: <20090115084515.GA91157@freebsd.org> <496FBFCD.6010302@FreeBSD.org> <7d6fde3d0901152315y7c6ce36fqe137519bd73e3e@mail.gmail.com> <20090116100932.GB36588@mech-cluster238.men.bris.ac.uk> <497064C6.5070807@zedat.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <497064C6.5070807@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.54 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Anton Shterenlikht Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:05:38 -0000 O. Hartmann schrieb: > Anton Shterenlikht wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:15:52PM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote: >>> the end. Take Gentoo Linux: it's a Linux distribution riddled with >>> choices -- so many bloody choices that one has to make to get a >>> working system, that just one library going south with the wrong >>> option can set you back hours or days in order to get up and going >>> again... we shouldn't go down that road or we'll just be begging for >>> pain, if not from a support end, then from a user endpoint because >>> we'll be more efficient manufacturers of rope than ever before, and >>> users will be isolated from folks trying to reproduce their issues. >> >> As a FBSD user I'm really happy with the current balance between >> freedom of choice and order. This was the thing that attracted me >> first to FBSD (v 4.9), after being thoroughly confused by linux anarchy. >>>> From my point of view this is the ideal balance, and this is what makes >> FBSD stand apart from linux and other BSDs. >> >> Too much choice is not always a good thing. >> >> yours >> anton >> > > .. but having NO or a very RESTRICTED choice could lead to a dead end, > see performance, modern parallel techniques (OpenMP) and new OpenMP? In the core of an operating system? mkay... > built-in-silica -features. If the 'dictated choice' of the compiler > leads also development of the OS's interna (by taking care of having no > specific features like SSE3/4/4.1/4.2 for basic libc-features like > memcopy etc due to the danger the compiler/binutils will not target this > in all cases or whilst the development of the compiler stagnated and > therefore those features could not be used), this could also be the end > for the OS. The end of the world is near! Please, people, keep realistic. > Switching back to an hopeless outdated relict from the past (pcc) means > having years of development and invention bringing those compiler suits > back to the recent state of the art and this means the OS that relies on > those strange political directions could end up behind competitors. This > may sound stupid for several people here, but Within the 13 years with > FreeBSD now, I saw many departments switching from FreeBSD to Linux and > moneyflow is in most cases directed towards expected profit. Since BSD > isn't developed as an academic approach of an OS, it is highly dependend > on a pseudo-commercial success finding new donations hiring developer > (not scientists, what a pitty). I wonder if this has anything to do with the massive amounts of $$$ firms like HP and IBM pour into marketing for the Linux hype...