On Sun, Feb 15, 2026 at 2:57 AM Bruno Haible via cfarm-users < [email protected]> wrote:
> Paul Eggert wrote: > > I tested for the compilation problem by compiling on cfarm111.cfarm.net > with > > /opt/IBM/xlc/16.1.0/bin/xlc. If you're using an older version of xlc, > > that would explain why you see a compilation problem but I don't. > > Indeed, I was using the /usr/bin/xlc (which identifies itself as being from > 2012). > > > I suppose if IBM doesn't care enough to make that compiler > > easily available then free-software maintainers shouldn't care enough to > > port to it. > > Yes. And likewise for AIX: If IBM doesn't care enough to make an AIX box > available to the Free Software community with reasonable usage terms, > and if IBM doesn't care enough any more to employ the leading GCC developer > for AIX, then why should GNU package maintainers continue to worry about > portability to AIX? I think this is an echo chamber using flawed arguments. Effectively what is being argued is, if <X> does not support free software, then free software should not support <X>. I think that is a flawed argument. Instead, I think the question to ask is, should free software support <X>, where X is a compiler like XLC or a platform like AIX. I think the answer to that question is Yes, because it maximizes user freedom, maximizes interoperability, ensures broad access to GNU technology, and encourages collaboration . I also don't buy into the argument that the vendor no longer supports <X>, so we should not support <X>. I think that's another flawed argument. IBM and other companies like Microsoft and Google do not rule by fiat. The market determines what needs to be supported. And I am not aware of free software ever following external corporate policies. What other company policies does free software follow? Jeff
_______________________________________________ cfarm-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tetaneutral.net/listinfo/cfarm-users
