sources please!
Google GPLv3 court case. There are no applicable results. Until a Judge
decides what the license truly means everyone using it is at risk.
true.
But why anyone from FreeBSD fundation didn't just write official letter
to GNU Free Software Foundation asking for just that
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:36:03 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
But why anyone from FreeBSD fundation didn't just write official letter
to GNU Free Software Foundation asking for just that case?
There needs to be a lawsuit and lawyers and judges need to be
On 06/21/2012 10:30, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Because there's no reason to do that. It's an asinine suggestion.
Clang is here to stay. Most of us are happy about that decision. GCC
Because most that are not already stopped and ignored thing. and use GCC.
Politics won.
Excellent. We have a
On 6/21/12 10:36 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
sources please!
Google GPLv3 court case. There are no applicable results. Until a
Judge decides what the license truly means everyone using it is at risk.
true.
But why anyone from FreeBSD fundation didn't just write official
letter to GNU Free
Mark Felder schreef op 21-06-2012 19:28:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:16:31 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
This has not been decided in court yet.
Additionally, the exceptions for using the GCC runtime library
Additionally, the exceptions for using the GCC runtime library for non-GPL
executables
is limited to what hey call eligible compilation processes, what rules out
using
proprietary GCC plugins or other combinations of core GCC functionality with
non-GPL
tooling and extensions.
Please note
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Stas Verberkt lego...@legolasweb.nl wrote:
Mark Felder schreef op 21-06-2012 19:28:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:16:31 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
This has not been decided
So, has anyone compared the performance of clang vs gcc compiled in daily use--
for example as a server? Anyone can cherry pick a couple of binaries, but how
important is this for the performance of FreeBSD world?
not big, as with almost any compiler. Most workload are dominated by cache
On Jun 21, 2012 11:23 AM, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
wrote:
Additionally, the exceptions for using the GCC runtime library for
non-GPL executables
is limited to what hey call eligible compilation processes, what rules
out using
proprietary GCC plugins or other combinations
On 6/21/12 10:30 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
z woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
This has not been decided in court yet.
sources please!
Logical fallacy -- looking for a non-existence proof.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:33:40 -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
Google GPLv3 court case. There are no applicable results. Until a Judge
decides what the license truly means everyone using it is at risk.
As you've already been told it's not English it's Law
I assume that there's not just one case
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:25:22AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
You're being paid to write a program for a customer. You
i don't talk that case, but if i am hired to write some part of
program as an employer in software company.
There are basically four circumstances that might apply here,
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 06:11:46AM -0400, Thomas Mueller wrote:
Snippet from Antonio Olivares olivares14...@gmail.com:
I have some friends that develop software. They had released it under
GNU umbrella. Later on, other folks were taking advantage and not
giving back as the license
2012-06-21 19:33, Mark Felder skrev:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:30:40 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
z woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
This has not been decided in court yet.
sources please!
2012-06-21 10:59, fred.mor...@gmail.com skrev:
we have feelings too!!!
Ouch! Another feeling person. Can't you just stop this feeling stuff.
/sarcasm off
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:40:11AM +0200, Michel Talon wrote:
Le 21 juin 2012 à 03:52, kpn...@pobox.com a écrit :
All of this may seem stupid to a reasonable person outside of law. I'll
agree
that it probably does look stupid. But it is also the reality of the legal
systems we must
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
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 07:30:23PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Because there's no reason to do that. It's an asinine suggestion.
Clang is here to stay. Most of us are happy about that decision. GCC
Because most that are not already stopped and ignored thing. and use GCC.
Politics won.
Hi,
On Friday 22 June 2012 11:18:01 Bernt Hansson wrote:
2012-06-21 10:59, fred.mor...@gmail.com skrev:
we have feelings too!!!
Ouch! Another feeling person. Can't you just stop this feeling stuff.
do not forget the feelings regarding the devil.
Erich
2012-06-22 06:50, Erich Dollansky skrev:
Hi,
On Friday 22 June 2012 11:18:01 Bernt Hansson wrote:
2012-06-21 10:59, fred.mor...@gmail.com skrev:
we have feelings too!!!
Ouch! Another feeling person. Can't you just stop this feeling stuff.
do not forget the feelings regarding the devil.
Hi,
On Friday 22 June 2012 12:04:35 Bernt Hansson wrote:
2012-06-22 06:50, Erich Dollansky skrev:
On Friday 22 June 2012 11:18:01 Bernt Hansson wrote:
2012-06-21 10:59, fred.mor...@gmail.com skrev:
we have feelings too!!!
Ouch! Another feeling person. Can't you just stop this feeling
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?
As far as I know, the main difference is that the GPLv3 is
often called a viral license. Software linking against v3
libraries and so maybe
Here[1] we can read a program linking agains a gpl v3 library should be released
under the gplv3 too. However, the only concern would be when the program is
implicitly linked against libgcc right? Well, there's even an
exception[2] for this.
this is exactly how i understand that. Anyway
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Here[1] we can read a program linking agains a gpl v3 library should
be released
under the gplv3 too. However, the only concern would be when the
program is
implicitly linked against libgcc right? Well, there's even an
exception[2] for this.
this is exactly how i
The bad thing about GPLv3 is that if anyone commits any code under this
license into the tree vendors that use our code base for making their own
OSes will ditch FreeBSD as they can be sued by FSF. Juniper for example. It
would be wise to listen to their point of view on GPLv3.
not really
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
The bad thing about GPLv3 is that if anyone commits any code under
this license into the tree vendors that use our code base for making
their own OSes will ditch FreeBSD as they can be sued by FSF. Juniper
for example. It would be wise to listen to their point of view on
On 6/19/2012 4:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
BSDL in opposite is often criticized a rape me license.
No, it is not, except perhaps by lying atheist Marxist bastards and his
religious adherents.
Please don't use atheist as a derogatory term. There are plenty of
capitalistic
I am also a newcomer and I agree with Stephen. But I guess the only
way is to simply ignore those who make such statements. I don't see
much benefit in arguing or reasoning with them.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Stephen Cook scli...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/19/2012 4:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:04:47 +0200
Fred Morcos articulated:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Stephen Cook scli...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 6/19/2012 4:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
BSDL in opposite is often criticized a rape me license.
No, it is not, except perhaps by lying
Really, this format of discussion is rather exception
than rule (from my experience).
Nothing wrong with productive flaming for me,
but it's just not typical code of conduct in FreeBSD
mailing list at all.
--
View this message in context:
I'm a relative newcomer. Are the FreeBSD mailing lists always this flame-y? I
no. it is temporary.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
A somewhat haphazardly search of the postings in this forum would seem
to indicate that any post questioning the ethics or usefulness of
FreeBSD as compared to other operating systems that elicit six or more
strange but usefulness of FreeBSD wasn't questioned.
By the way Fred, please don't
Really, this format of discussion is rather exception
than rule (from my experience).
or rather - discussion is a rule :)
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send
On 20.06.2012 13:45, Jakub Lach wrote:
Really, this format of discussion is rather exception
than rule (from my experience).
Nothing wrong with productive flaming for me,
but it's just not typical code of conduct in FreeBSD
mailing list at all.
Actually I can't remember any flame-war about
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:48:15 +0200 (CEST)
Wojciech Puchar articulated:
A somewhat haphazardly search of the postings in this forum would
seem to indicate that any post questioning the ethics or usefulness
of FreeBSD as compared to other operating systems that elicit six
or more
Nothing wrong with productive flaming for me,
but it's just not typical code of conduct in FreeBSD
mailing list at all.
Actually I can't remember any flame-war about system compilers - this is the
first one.
because such situation like now never happened - changing C compiler to
much worse
On Wednesday 20 June 2012 12:59:51 Stephen Cook wrote:
On 6/19/2012 4:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
[snip childish invective]
I'm a relative newcomer. Are the FreeBSD mailing lists always this
flame-y? I realize that this particular post might be trolling / satire
No, they
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Jonathan McKeown j.mcke...@ru.ac.za wrote:
On Wednesday 20 June 2012 12:59:51 Stephen Cook wrote:
On 6/19/2012 4:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
[snip childish invective]
I'm a relative newcomer. Are the FreeBSD mailing lists always this
flame-y?
Polytropon wrote:
I assume it's just an aspect of still being too young in
regards of missing the difference between freedom and
anarchy: the right to extend one's freedom is limited
as soon as it limits the freedom of others. Maybe another
aspect is the lack of discussion culture and the
They could be reduced by a combo. of eg:
- forcible unsub, black list,
- block of anon. remailer domains
- making this list subscribtion required before posting.
(which would make it harder for newbies fresh to
FreeBSD, but we need some
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
Nothing wrong with productive flaming for me,
but it's just not typical code of conduct in FreeBSD
mailing list at all.
Actually I can't remember any flame-war about system compilers - this is
the first
it is only a proof that it was decided to put it as FreeBSD default
compiler.
Everything is said, explained and discusse why this decision is made.. So
Explanation about the decision was already made isn't explanation.
but i don't require any explanation. actually i don't require anything.
I have some friends that develop software. They had released it under
GNU umbrella. Later on, other folks were taking advantage and not
isn't it that once you release your own work as GPL you don't really own
this and even you cannot use it in closed source software?
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 22:06:31 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar wrote:
I have some friends that develop software. They had released it under
GNU umbrella. Later on, other folks were taking advantage and not
isn't it that once you release your own work as GPL you don't really own
this and
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:06:31PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
I have some friends that develop software. They had released it under
GNU umbrella. Later on, other folks were taking advantage and not
isn't it that once you release your own work as GPL you don't really
own this and even
isn't it that once you release your own work as GPL you don't really own
this and even you cannot use it in closed source software?
Releasing something as GPL does not mean you give up
copyright. If I understood this whole thing correctly,
I'm not a lawyer but i repeat what i've read time ago,
isn't it that once you release your own work as GPL you don't really
own this and even you cannot use it in closed source software?
When you license something, you still own the copyright. You can then
release it under other licenses as well, and for versions you have
modified you can release
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:57:17 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar wrote:
from what i know (still, possibly incorrent) if i am hired as a programmer
and write a program, this program belong to the company and i couldn't use
it everywhere at least officially.
That is highly debatable and mostly
You're being paid to write a program for a customer. You
i don't talk that case, but if i am hired to write some part of program as
an employer in software company.
So - if authors of any project, no matter how numerous, will all
without exception agree that they want to get rid of GPL,
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:25:22 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar wrote:
You're being paid to write a program for a customer. You
i don't talk that case, but if i am hired to write some part of program as
an employer in software company.
Sorry, I misread the situation.
In this case I assume that
Hi Polytropon, cc questions@
(No CC Wojciech P. as my local filters drop text from him )
To translate this to a programmer's job:
You're being paid to write a program for a customer. You
deliver the program. That's what you are paid for. Still
the source code is yours (as _you_ are the
...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Why Clang
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:25:22 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar wrote:
You're being paid to write a program for a customer. You
i don't talk that case, but if i am hired to write some part of program as
an employer in software company.
Sorry, I misread
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Sorry, my last header wrongly to Mark Felder, could give
the wrong impression. I would like Wojciech Puchar (not Mark F.)
to stop banging on about 'GNU communist licence' etc.
because you don't like facts.
No you don't. You like what YOU (and
No you don't. You like what YOU (and ONLY you) think of as facts (see below).
still not explained what is wrong in comparing end results of benchmark
and seeing that they are quite same. This is the only meaningful point for
me.
I live ideology for others.
Only facts? Well and good. Do you
from David Naylor:
I am the one who sends these persistent messages. Some users of my packages
reported that wine didn't run due to a clang compiled world. I never verified
them (although I got multiple reports). With the updates to clang it may have
also been corrected.
I attributed the
Thomas Mueller writes:
Now how will I know whether GCC or Clang is the default compiler
for building the world and kernel, and for ports?
My understanding is:
8.*
base - gcc
ports - gcc
9.0 (and possibly 9.*)
base - gcc
ports - clang
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
If you cannot see this - i cannot help you any more. sorry.
Your noise is no help. Use appropriate lists.
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo
Cheers,
Julian
--
Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com
Reply below not
Only facts? Well and good. Do you have any proof GNU is in any way
connected to any communist movement?
Yes, see the Gnu Manifesto. Hint: it's named that way for a reason.
Do you have any facts (NOT living in your head) GPLvX is in any way
inspired/based on/even remotely connected to/ ANY
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Robert Huff roberth...@rcn.com wrote:
Thomas Mueller writes:
Now how will I know whether GCC or Clang is the default compiler
for building the world and kernel, and for ports?
My understanding is:
8.*
base - gcc
ports - gcc
David Brodbeck said:
Another way of looking at it is after 25 years of optimization GCC is
unable to beat a new compiler that's had almost none...
Unfortunately this affirmation is blatantly false, recent gcc produce code
much faster than clang. I give here an example which i like, a monte carlo
I would also guess that the base system is stuck with gcc ~4.1 due to
the GPLv3-ization of later gcc version. Is that correct?
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Michel Talon ta...@lpthe.jussieu.fr wrote:
David Brodbeck said:
Another way of looking at it is after 25 years of optimization GCC is
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:14:25 -0500, Fred Morcos fred.mor...@gmail.com
wrote:
I would also guess that the base system is stuck with gcc ~4.1 due to
the GPLv3-ization of later gcc version. Is that correct?
Yes, 4.2.1 is the latest we can use.
Also, I have no idea what version of Clang
You should really configure your email client to attribute quoted
commentary properly (or, as a first step, at all).
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:51:00AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
be more exact.
I believe Robert Bonomi (you didn't include attribution for the previous
email, I notice)
On 19.06.2012 16:43, Michel Talon wrote:
David Brodbeck said:
Another way of looking at it is after 25 years of optimization GCC is
unable to beat a new compiler that's had almost none...
Unfortunately this affirmation is blatantly false, recent gcc produce code
much faster than clang. I
lilas% clang -v
Apple clang version 2.1 (tags/Apple/clang-163.7.1) (based on LLVM 3.0svn)
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin11.4.0
lilas% clang -O4 test.c -lf2c
lilas% time ./a.out
...
real 0m2.359s
user 0m2.341s
sys 0m0.003s
lilas% /usr/local/bin/gcc -v
?
gcc version 4.6.1 (GCC)
lilas%
I would also guess that the base system is stuck with gcc ~4.1 due to
the GPLv3-ization of later gcc version. Is that correct?
true.
anyway - can someone point me an article about explaining in human
language (contrary to lawyer language) why GPLv3 is more limiting in
reality over v2 .
programs like mencoder which require
the highest efficiency.
Really - just to throw in another opinion:
As an average user I don't see any performance impact on my clang-built
desktop-every-day-workstation. The only thing that is getting on my nerves
are some ports I frequently have to
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:54:45 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar wrote:
anyway - can someone point me an article about explaining in human
language (contrary to lawyer language) why GPLv3 is more limiting in
reality over v2 .
Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?
As
Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?
As far as I know, the main difference is that the GPLv3 is
often called a viral license. Software linking against v3
libraries and so maybe programs compiled by a v3 compiler
will have - according to the license - to be released
i wouldn't be surprised that FreeBSD team would decide to go back to gcc
soon.
I would as one of the driving forces of the change was to replace GPL
licensed code in FreeBSD core with more permissive licensed code. This helps
to remove a massive legal encumberment for a lot of developers who
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
forcible, viral open source. I think we can all see the
On 19 June 2012 12:58, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?
As far as I know, the main difference is that the GPLv3 is
often called a viral license. Software linking against v3
libraries and so maybe programs
I don't see much fruit coming out of that conversation anymore.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria)
mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at wrote:
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:06:49 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch.
By insulting
20.06.2012 00:06, Anonymous Remailer (austria) пишет:
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
20.06.2012 00:50, Polytropon пишет:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:06:49 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:09:11 +0400, Евгений Лактанов wrote:
20.06.2012 00:50, Polytropon пишет:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:06:49 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous Remailer (austria)
wrote:
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:06:49PM +0200, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch. That is not
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
forcible, viral open source. I think we can all see the difference. Open
your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball...
Give him a break. His heart is in the right place,
On 17 June 2012 21:37, Thomas Mueller mueller...@insightbb.com wrote:
What is the current status of Clang vs. GCC as default compiler for ports
and for
make buildworld and make buildkernel in HEAD and 9.0-STABLE?
http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsAndClang
Now one concern is wine not
On 18/06/2012 05:37, Thomas Mueller wrote:
What is the current status of Clang vs. GCC as default compiler for ports and
for
make buildworld and make buildkernel in HEAD and 9.0-STABLE?
Most ports work fine with clang -- at the last count 18252 out of 23661
ports compiled just fine. Of the
Thomas Mueller wrote:
Now one concern is wine not working when Clang is used to make buildworld.
For me I'm just waiting on toolchain stabilization as both this one and
(open|libre)office fail because of libgcc_s compiled with clang on amd64.
--
Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.
clang already compiles the system perfectly well. I'm using it by
default for that on my personal machines without problems. Any
remaining clang-bugs in the system would be few and far between and
generally in areas which are quite hard to trigger.
clang with ports is less well covered.
Clang is consistently faster at compiling than GCC and it is very clean and
modular -- not bloated.
-r-xr-xr-x 3 root wheel 37025016 12 cze 21:46 /usr/bin/clang
well..
hope you just left the debugging symbols in and statically linked it?
standard FreeBSD built, assumed freebsd build
Hi,
On Monday, 18 June 2012 09:19:28 Thomas Mueller wrote:
On 17 June 2012 21:37, Thomas Mueller mueller...@insightbb.com wrote:
Now one concern is wine not working when Clang is used to make
buildworld.
This isn't good. Can you please follow up with more debugging
information?
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 15:13:05 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
Clang is consistently faster at compiling than GCC and it is very clean
and modular -- not bloated.
-r-xr-xr-x 3 root wheel 37025016 12 cze 21:46 /usr/bin/clang
well..
# ls -la
Are you sure CLANG is the bloated project?
already posted comparision.
your seems like too much propaganda.
I don't say clang is just bad, but i prefer real data over hype.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:50:37 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
I don't say clang is just bad, but i prefer real data over hype.
This is the most memorable and impacting set of graphs that I remember. I
haven't followed the data much since.
I don't say clang is just bad, but i prefer real data over hype.
This is the most memorable and impacting set of graphs that I remember. I
haven't followed the data much since.
http://clang.llvm.org/performance-2008-10-31.html
Now imagine having to rebuild projects constantly during your
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:37:55 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
This tens or hundreds of thousands of work-hours could be spent far
better by getting latest gcc available on GPLv2 licence and start from
there, just improving it.
We already have the latest
We already have the latest available with GPLv2, which is very far behind and
it requires GCC codebase experts to make any changes at all. This is
equivalent to letting any random coder make major changes to OpenSSL -- you
simply cannot afford to risk it.
so not doing anything and just spent
Please stop asking for instant gratification; you won't have it no matter
how loud you yell. The Clang decision is far-reaching and gives numerous
advantages to the FreeBSD platform. It's also not been a waste of time;
you're implying that the FreeBSD devs have spent thousands of hours
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Mark Felder f...@feld.me wrote:
Please stop asking for instant gratification; you won't have it no matter
how loud you yell. The Clang decision is far-reaching and gives numerous
advantages to the FreeBSD platform. It's also not been a waste of time;
you're
Apple had no problem using a GPL v2 licensed compiler. It looks like they
have a huge problem using a GPL v3 licensed compiler.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Joe Gain joe.g...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Mark Felder f...@feld.me wrote:
Please stop asking for instant
pear-shaped.
Clang is a great set of compiler tools. If you are only a user, as you suggest,
as i suggested - i am a user of compiler. i do compile my own programs,
as well as programs from ports.
and i hate just telling something is white while it is at most grey.
Please stop asking for instant gratification; you won't have it no matter how
loud you yell.
gratification Seems like you ask for it.
The Clang decision is far-reaching and gives numerous
advantages to the FreeBSD platform.
for example what?
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
Please stop asking for instant gratification; you won't have it no matter
how loud you yell.
gratification Seems like you ask for it.
This might be to gratuitous for most on the list, but diversity
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
And the facts are: Lots of worktime were spent to make new C compiler from
scratch and this resulted with thing 5 times larger, working at similar
speed and producing similar code to GCC that is already
GPL runs contrary to the nature and intent of the BSD style license.
Free and open software benefits us all.
Getting rid of GPL is a good thing, and well worth any (debatable)
performance hits.
--
Dave Robison
Sales Solution Architect II
FIS Banking Solutions
510/621-2089 (w)
530/518-5194 (c)
gratification Seems like you ask for it.
This might be to gratuitous for most on the list, but diversity is almost
reason enough. And I don't mean this is some sort of fashion-way. I
think llvm and clang are interesting and serious projects.
never told otherwise.
i just try to do what
101 - 200 of 1876 matches
Mail list logo
