Le 30.10.2013 18:44, Curt a écrit :
On 2013-10-30, Conrad Nelson <y...@marupa.net> wrote:
4. The FSF is irrelevant to the development of Linux itself. Linux
isn't
even a GNU-based project. It simply makes use of the GNU toolchain
(And
even that's not a requirement.)
How would the linux kernel be developed without the gnu development
tools?
* GNU make: Automation tool for compilation and build;
Good. You did not forgot the "GNU" before "make". It simply means that
there are a lot of "make" tools. And you know what?
Wikipedia
POSIX includes standardization of the basic features and operation of
the Make utility
Yes! It is part of POSIX standard! It happens that GNU implemented one.
That's all.
* GNU Compiler Collection (GCC): Suite of compilers for several
programming languages;
Linux is written in C. C has a lot of compilers, and GCC currently is
not really the best compiler suite I know. It is a gigantic memory
eater. Use clang instead, and you will understand what I mean.
You can argue that clang is a new compiler, and it's true. But C is far
older than GNU, too.
* GNU Binutils: Suite of tools including linker, assembler and
other tools;
Well, as for GCC, that suite is quite a standard, when you use C. There
are plenty of them. Without them, you can not use things you made in C.
* GNU Bison: Parser generator
* GNU m4: m4 macro processor
Since I do not use them, I do not know good replacements. Since I am
not a kernel developer, I do not know if they are used to build linux,
either.
I would be curious to know what they could be used for, in a kernel.
* GNU Debugger (GDB): Code debugging tool;
GDB is not a ring 0 debugger, so it is not really the best tool to
debug a kernel. It can not debug the kernel, unlike, say, softice, or
rr0d.
* GNU build system (autotools):
o Autoconf
o Autoheader
o Automake
o Libtool
Do not make me laugh. Those tools are just dirty.
Every time I have to compile something with autotools, it gave me
problems and problems and yet another problems!
They are slow, produces unreadable logs, are hard to maintain... (I
mean, it is hard to maintain the scripts they need to work)
Amongst others, apparently (list taken from wikipedia). Is it
possible
(feasible) to bypass these "vital" tools with another set of tools,
that you'll
be writing shortly after responding to this post?
Linux kernel is written in C. C owns nothing to GNU. Nothing.
It may happen that Linux's developers used some GNU implementations for
a C compiler, an assembler, a debugger, etc... but it could have be made
with other tools too.
GNU means "Gnu is Not Unix", and it is because it was meant to be a
complete OS ( I have never seen a working hurd ) different than Unix,
but keeping the same behavior.
In other word: the goal have never be to invent something, only to copy
what exists somewhere else, but with the interest of being open-source,
and that stuff depending on (linked with) their tools would stay
open-source.
It simply means, that they have invented nothing, except the licenses.
Which are an important contribution, yes, and they gave useful tools,
too. I do not claim that they did nothing useful.
Simply, it is a lie to say that Linux depends on them.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4cda8ef34b4d1f62c0dd6d7f750c5...@neutralite.org
