I am not sure, as long as clients would be treated seriously!
I look at large corporate software vendors and see them treating
customers seriously maybe 2% of the time at best. In this case, most of
I assumed FreeBSD team are OK and would fit in this 2% or even those 0.2%
am i wrong?
I would see a problem with that -- not because I don't think FreeBSD is
worth it. I do, and I think it is worth more than that, in fact. The
true.
biggest problem with what you propose, though, is that it would destroy
the social factors in development of the FreeBSD system that make it
On Friday 22 June 2012 07:04:35 Bernt Hansson wrote:
I want to whish all a very mery Midsummer's Eve and Midsummer's Day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midsummer#Sweden
I appreciate the sentiment but it's midwinter here ;)
Jonathan
___
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 7:28 PM, Mark Felder f...@feld.me wrote:
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.
In which court not? Of which
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 06:07:49 2012
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:06:12 +0200 (CEST)
From: Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
To: Michel Talon ta...@lpthe.jussieu.fr
Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, kpn...@pobox.com
Subject: Re: Why
Chad Perrin wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 01:06:12PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
i already proposed (but not publically) to turn FreeBSD into
commercial system.
REALLY i would not see a problem to pay say 100$ per server licence.
I would see a problem with that -- not because I
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
We put clang because sponsors wanted it.
Sponsors didn't want clang. Sponsors wanted not to be encumbered by a GPLv3
they are not.
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
You don't know what you don't know, trollboi.
Anything so much as
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 12:37:00 2012
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:30:40 +0200 (CEST)
From: Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
To: Mark Felder f...@feld.me
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Why Clang
z woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 12:39:02 2012
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:30:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
To: Robison, Dave david.robi...@fisglobal.com
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Why Clang
Because there's
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 12:44:17 2012
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:36:03 +0200 (CEST)
From: Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
To: Mark Felder f...@feld.me
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Why Clang
sources please!
Google GPLv3
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 12:46:15 2012
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:37:48 -0500
From: Mark Felder f...@feld.me
Cc: Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
Subject: Re: Why Clang
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:36:03 -0500, Wojciech
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
I disagree with the assessment by others that FreeBSD is in some way
effectively a subsidiary of its corporate users, but it does have
corporate users, as well as non-corporate users. Just as it must
reasonably see to
Because it doesn't address an of the *OTHER* valid reasons why GCC is
being replaced -- among them:
1) GCC's continuously increasing propensity to generate bad code,
examples? All test shows that gcc code is not only bad, but very good. Why
are you just saying things you know isn't true?
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Because it doesn't address an of the *OTHER* valid reasons why GCC is
being replaced -- among them:
1) GCC's continuously increasing propensity to generate bad code,
examples? All test shows that gcc code is not only bad, but very good.
Why are you just saying things you
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:25:55 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
examples? All test shows that gcc code is not only bad, but very good.
Why are you just saying things you know isn't true?
Fast code is not guaranteed to be correct code.
Thomas Mueller wrote:
There actually is/was a closed-source BSD (BSDI), and there is Mac OS X, with
BSD under the covers.
BSDi sold source-code licenses. I was an early-adopter, and I _have_ one.
The vast majority of the code was taken directly from BSD 4.4 Lite, and
the source-code
From woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl Fri Jun 22 09:26:33 2012
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:25:55 +0200 (CEST)
From: Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
To: Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com
cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Why Clang
Because it doesn't address
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 08:28:17AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
biggest problem with what you propose, though, is that it would destroy
the social factors in development of the FreeBSD system that make it what
it is, and thus destroy FreeBSD itself, as far as I am concerned.
I am not
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 01:16:09PM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 01:06:12PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
i already proposed (but not publically) to turn FreeBSD into
commercial system.
REALLY i would not see a problem to pay say 100$ per
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 09:24:57AM -0500, Reid Linnemann wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
I disagree with the assessment by others that FreeBSD is in some way
effectively a subsidiary of its corporate users, but it does have
corporate users, as
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 live with today.
I can only praise kpneal for this very well
And I just want to add I'm a gay Marxist atheist and I represent the
accusations leveled in that other post...we have feelings too!!!
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To
from Stephen Cook scli...@gmail.com:
No, this is unusual. But also remember that most of these lists are not
just unmoderated but open to posting without subscription. Then it
becomes kind of amazing at how little flaming and trolling there is.
That's not an accident, the admins work hard
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 a subsidiary and must be.
I just don't like that it isn't stated
Because of FreeBSD lists being mainly unmoderated and open to posting without
subscription, I notice some outright spams that slip through the list filters.
I believe (could possibly be wrong) that the lists have spam filters in place.
it must have and well done. FreeBSD list is for sure more
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 requires. There was little to no way to
enforce the license, he decided
wrong way to go. I can ask him for these and other reasons at your
request.
Yes, that would be a good idea, not so much for me as for others who want to
better understand the licensing issues of GCC compared to Clang.
i would like to hear this. but only in C compiler context.
i understand
On 6/21/12 1:40 AM, Michel Talon wrote:
Second, FreeBSD is not a commercial company, and while this argument may have a
merit
for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself.
You seem to be unaware of what percentage of the development and
maintenance staff and the
Second, FreeBSD is not a commercial company, and while this argument may
have a merit
for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself.
You seem to be unaware of what percentage of the development and maintenance
staff and the money to pay for them comes from those
On 6/21/12 10:08 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Second, FreeBSD is not a commercial company, and while this argument
may have a merit
for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD
itself.
You seem to be unaware of what percentage of the development and
maintenance staff and
We put clang because sponsors wanted it.
Sponsors didn't want clang. Sponsors wanted not to be encumbered by a GPLv3
they are not.
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On 6/21/12 10:16 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
We put clang because sponsors wanted it.
Sponsors didn't want clang. Sponsors wanted not to be encumbered by a
GPLv3
they are not.
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
Programs that link to GPLv3 libraries are encumbered.
On 06/21/2012 10:08, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
You seem to be unaware of what percentage of the development and
maintenance staff and the money to pay for them comes from those
commercial users. If FreeBSD cannot maintain the critical mass to
continue, it will not continue.
but why it isn't
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.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
they are not.
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
Programs that link to GPLv3 libraries are encumbered.
you mean libgcc_s.so.1 and libstdc++?
scanned /bin and /usr/bin and few programs do link it - all are C++
written.
None IMHO are needed in closed-source system
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.
___
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!
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
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!
Google GPLv3 court case. There are no
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
, ignoring a shit-ton of additional
information about why Clang is better based on information that you have
not only admitted not knowing about but proclaimed you have no interest
in learning. You *refuse* to educate yourself about some of the subject
matter that pertains to other benefits
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:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Why-Clang
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
system compilers - this is
the first one.
But I believe it is a good proof, that clang is a serious alternative to
gcc - else people would talk about an interesting project or something
like that.
Greetings
Peter.
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Why
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
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
