Warren wrote: > On 11/22/2011 6:02 PM, Harlan Stenn wrote: > > The BSDs have their good reasons to want to avoid GPL'd code, especially > > GPL3. > > Besides, why should BSD purity get to hold back the Autotools?
So GNU/Linux purity is fine but BSD purity is not? > If the distrowatch.com stats are to be believed, *BSD's market share > is under 1% that of Linux, which itself is only about 1% of the > overall market of machines the Autotools can reasonably be used on. > Further reduce that by the percentage of BSD boxes that have not yet > had gmake installed after installation; 10% maybe? We're probably > talking about a set of boxes comprising < 0.001% of the market. (10% > of 1% of 1%.) > > The hyperconservative autotools do drop backwards compatibility for > marginalized systems occasionally. I seem to recall that some Ultrix > compatibility hacks were dropped recently, for example. > > Not that I'm comparing modern BSDs to Ultrix. They BSDs probably > couldn't be killed off at this point even if one wanted to. Still, to > cater to the limitations of systems commanding something on the order > 0.001% of the market seems a *bit* obsessive. There are %s and there are numbers. And we all know what they say about statistics. I'm refraining, mightily and successfully, from escalating. At least so far. H
