Re: Why Clang
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? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 what it is, and thus destroy FreeBSD itself, as far as I am concerned. I am not sure, as long as clients would be treated seriously! I would have thought that even you should be able to understand that without help. another personal attack? I though i talk with adults. For paying this i would like FreeBSD to be maintained with quality and performance being the only reason, not politics. Turning it into a commercial enterprise rather than an open source project would probably turn it into a project that is driven about 60% by corporate politics and 40% by marketing BS, with no room left over for quality except as needed to support the minimum credibility its CEO deems necessary to support those two concerns. It depends solely on development team. For now - as we see - it's decision are driven by money. But not all users money but few selected large users. must be stopped. You seem to think this is all about Juniper. I wonder where you get that Not JUST juniper. It is only i hate GNU type decision. No, it's not only that. It's *also* that, and with good reason. Good I hate too, and in spite of this am against removing gcc and replacing it with much worse product. Worse based on a couple of very narrowly applicable metrics derived There will be IMHO soon good compiler available. it's highly probable that pcc would improve a lot, for now it is small, quick but doesn't produce good code for new CPUs. But it probably will improve. CLANG is already great bloat, and will be worse. No amount of money will fix it, actually too much money will hurt. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Flaming mailing lists (was Re: Why Clang)
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 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 a subsidiary and must be. I just don't like that it isn't stated openly! It is nothing wrong, unless one can feed using zero point energy, everyone needs money to stay alive. Wouldn't it be smarter to openly say Juniper request as to get rid o GPL as soon as we can because they are fed up with this shit and law mess. instead of personal attacks, messing with my (and others) sentences and posting evident lies just to explain the decision. It is a difference between honest people and fools. 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. from Chad Perrin: 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 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. Eliminating the copyfree licensed, open source development model of FreeBSD would undermine the majority of the technical benefits supported by that development model. I would have thought that even you should be able to understand that without help. (snip) Turning FreeBSD into a commercial system would turn a lot of users to other BSD or Linux, myself included. I ran IBM OS/2 from 1.3 to (Warp) 4 until a disk crash in April 2001, after which I was never again able to boot any OS/2, and I sure tried. Closed source was one severe drawback, why I certainly prefer either Linux or FreeBSD. Actually there is a continuation/successor to OS/2, namely eComStation (www.ecomstation.com) but no way would I go that way! Either Linux or FreeBSD is far ahead now! There actually is/was a closed-source BSD (BSDI), and there is Mac OS X, with BSD under the covers. Tom ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 jurisdiction? Even if one jurisdiction says something doesn't mean all other 190+ or so countries would agree. Since we're an international project, better be safe (legally) than sorry, and avoid GPLv3 when possible. -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 Clang 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. Which simply proves you don't know what you don't know. I just don't like that it isn't stated openly! No one on the Project would consider lying about such things, just to make Wojciech happy. instead of personal attacks, messing with my (and others) sentences and posting evident lies just to explain the decision. Maybe when you stop lying about what the others say. It is a difference between honest people and fools. You have made it clear that -you- are a name-calling fool. People have tried to explain, clearly, and politely, the *multiple* factors that went into the decision. You ignore everything else, and fixate on the one that seems specious to you. There is nothing to prevent giving source with system. Non-Free software doesn't have to be binary only. Nice strawman. But you cannot show where anybody has claimed it did. For paying this i would like FreeBSD to be maintained with quality and performance being the only reason, not politics. A demonstrable lie -- the only thing you care about is speed of execution. Nothing against Juniper (the make truly good working hardware), but if they enforce decision because of their personal likes then it must be stopped. Therefore, _your_ attempts to enforce decisions because of your personal likes must be stopped. GPLv3 based C compiler does not prevent making closed source software like JunOS for example. You don't _know_ that. It is only your -opinion-. How much of a financial bond are you willing to put up, payable to, say, Juniper, if they rely on your _opinion_, and it turns out to be wrong?` It is only i hate GNU type decision. You lie. I hate too, and in spite of this am against removing gcc and replacing it with much worse product. Your closed--mind bias is showing. You think it's ok to get _wrong_ answers rather than correct answers, if you get the wrong answeers faster and the correct answers somewhat slower. GCC, even 4.21., is well known for generating bad code -- meaning 'logically incorrect and gives wrong answers', and sometimes 'code that cannot be successfully executed' -- e.g. it always segfaults or has some other fatal exception -- under a number of conditions. The variety of such instances increases with vritually -every- minor upgrade' to the compiler. Code that worked under minor release 'x', not work under x+1, because 'yet another' of these 'features' crept in.. There are known bugs of this sort in GCC that have been identified for over a -decade-. But, the GCC source-code is such a swamp that *nobody* has been able to figure out, or find, *where* the problem is occurring -- let alone determine what needs to be changed, to fix it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 don't think FreeBSD is worth it. I do, and I think it is worth more than that, in fact. The biggest problem with what you propose, though, is that it would destroy Hi Chad etc, I admire the perserverance, but maybe Don't feed the troll ? Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below not above, cumulative like a play script, indent with . Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. Mail from @yahoo dumped @berklix. http://berklix.org/yahoo/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 -linked- with a libarary that is under GPLv3, *IS* subject to GPLv3 terms, -unless- the library has an express exclusion ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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: programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered. This has not been decided in court yet. sources please! Easy! Here is the complete list of court rulings on the matter: [end of list] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 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. Liar. *Quality*, mantainability, and standards compliance won. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 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 case? 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, 2) The inability of GCC mamintainers to fix _long-standing_ bugs, some have been identified for over a decade, and have not been fixed. 3) The continuously increasing trend of introducing 'non standard' features, 4) The growing need to 'write around' correct/valid code that GCC will not compile. 5) The fact that the GCC code is 'unmaintainable' -- *NO*ONE* (other than someone who has been working with GCC internals for forever --a decade at an absolute minimum) has any chance of 'understanding' what it is doing internally. GPLv3 concerns are 'incidental' to those 'fundamental' issues. It may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but there were lots of other VALID reasons to trashcan GCC. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 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 involved. You can't just ask the FSF to explain themselves. You _can_ ask. The response just doesn't 'mean anything' -- the actual language of the 'license' takes precedence. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 the needs of the individuals who use it, so must it also reasonably see to the needs of those corporate users, especially when some of those corporate users' employees are key developers for the base system (to the significant benefit of the rest of us). Thus, saying that a particular set of conditions having an impact on commercial sponsors of FreeBSD has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself is just . . . incorrect. And I would like to stress on this point that, when I referred to corporate sponsorship in an earlier post, I was thinking specifically about the sponsorship of employing developers that keep the system moving forward, not necessarily monetary donations. The foundation does need money, but the software is doomed if no one is gainfully employed to maintain and enhance it. I think there is an altruistic fiction that many people subscribe to that free software is merely the result of the generosity of developers producing code of their own volition and on their own spare time and giving it away, and from that viewpoint the act of considering concerns of a sponsoring entity amounts to selling out. The reality is much different and much more complex, as you well know. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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? 2) The inability of GCC mamintainers to fix _long-standing_ bugs, some have been identified for over a decade, and have not been fixed. That's true. still not that much. 3) The continuously increasing trend of introducing 'non standard' features, No need to use them. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 know isn't true? 0k, what if I add my example? Hardware: Processor: Intel Xeon E5620 (16 Cores), Motherboard: Supermicro X8DT3 1234567890, Memory: 24576MB, Disk: SEAGATE ST3146855SS S527 + SEAGATE ST31000640SS 0001 + SEAGATE ST31000640SS 0001 + SEAGATE ST3146855SS S528 + TOSHIBA Trans 1.00 + TEAC DV-28S-V 1.0B Software: OS: FreeBSD, Kernel: 9.0-RELEASE-p3 (x86_64), Compiler: GCC 4.2.1 20070831 + Clang 3.0 (SVN 142614), File-System: zfs CPUTYPE=core2 clang 3.0 Test project /tmp/ports/usr/ports/graphics/png/work/libpng-1.5.11 Start 1: pngtest 1/2 Test #1: pngtest .. Passed0.02 sec Start 2: pngvalid 2/2 Test #2: pngvalid . Passed 14.03 sec gcc 4.6 (lang/gcc, USE_GCC=4.6+) Test project /tmp/ports/usr/ports/graphics/png/work/libpng-1.5.11 Start 1: pngtest 1/2 Test #1: pngtest .. Passed0.02 sec Start 2: pngvalid 2/2 Test #2: pngvalid . Passed 14.40 sec gcc 4.2.1 Test project /tmp/ports/usr/ports/graphics/png/work/libpng-1.5.11 Start 1: pngtest 1/2 Test #1: pngtest .. Passed0.02 sec Start 2: pngvalid 2/2 Test #2: pngvalid . Passed 14.96 sec This one shows that clang is superior to both gcc 4.2.1 and gcc 4.6. I haven't test data now but a month or so ago I tested them on one of the Alioth Shootout examples (nestedloop probably). gcc 4.2.1 was winning, clang was close with fractions of percent drop of speed but gcc 4.6 was off for nearly 7%. 3) The continuously increasing trend of introducing 'non standard' features, No need to use them. There's no 'Unsubscribe me' link included... -- Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 carried just the UCB copyriht and licensinG, The 'missing pieces' necessary to make an 'operational' O/S were copyright BSDi, most had fairly liberal license terms. There were some _vendor_supplied drivers that were binary-only, and had more rstrictive licensing.` ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 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.
YOU ARE A LIAR. The _only_thing *you* measure by is 'speed'. You don't
understand what the words bad code means -- that it has *nothing* to do
with how fast the code executes.. Despite the fact I explicitly described
what I was talking about -- and that you intentionally removed that
description.
Why are you just saying things you know isn't true?
Why are you just _lying_ trollbiu?
Just because _you_ haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not true.
I *KNOW* it is true -- I've been bitten by GCC bad code _multiple_ times,
and in multiple ways, in application code. Problems in O/S internals are
much more common.
I've had segfaults in code that couldn't _POSSIBLY_ segfault. An example
of the _kind_ of thing that has blown up:
int foo()
{ int a,b,c[10];
b=2;
a=c[b]; /* dies here with a segfault */
}
running in the debugger confirms b has the correct value just before
the statement assigning a value to a. issue a 'next' command in the
debugger, and you get a segfault. printing the value of 'b' shows
it is 2.
Disassembling the machine code shows that the WRONG REGISTER is used
to calculate the effective address of the array element.
It's clearly a bug in the optimizer -- I'd be surprised if it showed
in that 'minimal' illustrative code. When I've gotten bit, it was
a 1,000+ LOC module.
I've also seen it use machine 'loop' instructions with the DF flag
set wrong.
2) The inability of GCC mamintainers to fix _long-standing_ bugs, some
have been identified for over a decade, and have not been fixed.
That's true. still not that much.
Your opinion of the seriousness doesn't count. Those of us who have had
to 'code raround' those bugs for years and years have a _very_ different
opinion.
3) The continuously increasing trend of introducing 'non standard'
features,
No need to use them.
Trollboi shows he doesn't know what he doesn't know, yet again.
Some of them _conflict_ with STANDARD C. Thus 'standards-compliant' C source
does 'something else', when compiled with GCC. The FSF thinks 'their way'
is better, and have no intention of changing.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 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 the developers and project managers of FreeBSD are also customers, which changes things significantly. I would have thought that even you should be able to understand that without help. another personal attack? I though i talk with adults. 1. It's a comment on your tendency to ignore substantive arguments from other people, including probably half a dozen (so far) lengthy explanations of factors you refuse to consider written by *me*. 2. You're a hypocrite, pretending you're an innocent victim of personal attacks, given the way you go around making personal attacks on everyone else with a broad brush. I've commented on that, too, but -- like much of the rest of what I've said -- you simply ignored it. Turning it into a commercial enterprise rather than an open source project would probably turn it into a project that is driven about 60% by corporate politics and 40% by marketing BS, with no room left over for quality except as needed to support the minimum credibility its CEO deems necessary to support those two concerns. It depends solely on development team. I take it you don't know anything at all about how public corporations manage their development teams. That, or you're being disingenuous. It depends on the development team, and the priorities they choose to pursue first, right now. Under the stewardship of a publicly traded corporation, it would depend on the CEO, the board of directors, marketing, PR, and the accounting department, and the priorities *they* choose to pursue first, instead. For now - as we see - it's decision are driven by money. But not all users money but few selected large users. It's not *just* a decision driven by money. Money applies, certainly, but not as much as it would if FreeBSD were a for-profit public corporation rather than a community-driven open source project. When you say this, by the way, you ignore something like 90% of the perfectly reasonable additional motivating factors that have been brought up. I suppose I should not expect any different by now, given the strong track record you've managed to establish just in this one extended discussion. Worse based on a couple of very narrowly applicable metrics derived There will be IMHO soon good compiler available. it's highly probable that pcc would improve a lot, for now it is small, quick but doesn't produce good code for new CPUs. But it probably will improve. CLANG is already great bloat, and will be worse. Binary size and minuscule benchmark variations are all you see. It is ludicrous to watch you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and shout lalalalalalalala so consistently to prevent any other factors involved in compiler choice from entering your mind -- such as good output from a compiler that will be stable and do what you expect. No amount of money will fix it, actually too much money will hurt. . . . and yet you want to turn the FreeBSD project over to Microsoft (or the equivalent). You contradict yourself. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 server licence. 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 biggest problem with what you propose, though, is that it would destroy Hi Chad etc, I admire the perserverance, but maybe Don't feed the troll ? Yeah. . . . -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 well as non-corporate users. Just as it must reasonably see to the needs of the individuals who use it, so must it also reasonably see to the needs of those corporate users, especially when some of those corporate users' employees are key developers for the base system (to the significant benefit of the rest of us). Thus, saying that a particular set of conditions having an impact on commercial sponsors of FreeBSD has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself is just . . . incorrect. And I would like to stress on this point that, when I referred to corporate sponsorship in an earlier post, I was thinking specifically about the sponsorship of employing developers that keep the system moving forward, not necessarily monetary donations. The foundation does need money, but the software is doomed if no one is gainfully employed to maintain and enhance it. I think there is an altruistic fiction that many people subscribe to that free software is merely the result of the generosity of developers producing code of their own volition and on their own spare time and giving it away, and from that viewpoint the act of considering concerns of a sponsoring entity amounts to selling out. The reality is much different and much more complex, as you well know. Indeed. When I contribute to an open source project, as an individual, much the same factors apply. I do not do it to help someone like Michel Talon, or even Reid Linnemann; I do it to help myself, by improving software I like, or to help people who in turn work to improve software I like. I have selfish goals that are served by my support of well- designed copyfree software, whether that support is financial in nature, a contribution of development effort, or something less direct. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 argumented post. However some remarks. The whole argument revolves around FUD, fear, uncertainty and doubt. But there will never be any shortage of lawyers trying to spread FUD on any subject to please their clients, and if companies bend over instead of fighting FUD they will promptly be paralyzed. Last time a company tried to use such tactic against Linux, it did not turn out a bright idea. 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. If FreeBSD appears as a subsidiary of some commercial company (say Juniper) i am not sure this will be good for its further development. This being said, i agree with you that the FreeBSD binaries will not see a big performance degradation through the use of clang, so, as long as gcc is in the ports to be used with performance critical stuff, it is no big deal. Anyways as a long time FreeBSD user i have seen clang presented as an experiment by two or three people, and then suddenly stuffed without any discussion in the base system, apparently for political reasons that i don't share (i mean this stupid obsession of GPL free system, which has replaced the previous focus on quality and performance). -- Michel Talon ta...@lpthe.jussieu.fr
Re: Flaming mailing lists (was Re: Why Clang)
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 unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: List flames (was Re: Why Clang)
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 to limit abuse. As an alternate, consider the forums (http://forums.freebsd.org/), which are moderated. 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. If a message has properties of spam, it will be held for a human moderator to see if it is spam (dump it) or not spam (let it through). Tom ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 openly! It is nothing wrong, unless one can feed using zero point energy, everyone needs money to stay alive. Wouldn't it be smarter to openly say Juniper request as to get rid o GPL as soon as we can because they are fed up with this shit and law mess. instead of personal attacks, messing with my (and others) sentences and posting evident lies just to explain the decision. It is a difference between honest people and fools. 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. There is nothing to prevent giving source with system. Non-Free software doesn't have to be binary only. For paying this i would like FreeBSD to be maintained with quality and performance being the only reason, not politics. Every trendy or otherwise requested feature could be added separately or even charged separately, as long as it doesn't have any effects on base system. ZFS being example. Nothing against Juniper (the make truly good working hardware), but if they enforce decision because of their personal likes then it must be stopped. GPLv3 based C compiler does not prevent making closed source software like JunOS for example. It is only i hate GNU type decision. I hate too, and in spite of this am against removing gcc and replacing it with much worse product. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: List flames (was Re: Why Clang)
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 known to spammer than me, while i would get ca 2000 spams per day after turning off my antispam system. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 to move to other license that protects his work and let others use it was well with little to no strings attached. He know uses the CDDL which is also an Open Source License. He can give you many reasons as to why the GPLv3 is the 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. That would help explain why FreeBSD is switching to Clang. Tom ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 the other issues, but IMHO there are none about using GPLv3 licenced compiler to compile non-opensource programs. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 money to pay for them comes from those commercial users. If FreeBSD cannot maintain the critical mass to continue, it will not continue. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 commercial users. If FreeBSD cannot maintain the critical mass to continue, it will not continue. but why it isn't clearly stated: We put clang because sponsors wanted it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 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 clearly stated: We put clang because sponsors wanted it. Sponsors didn't want clang. Sponsors wanted not to be encumbered by a GPLv3 license. If there was a shmoodlepoodle compiler instead of clang that met this requirement instead and was at least as performant and stable, it would likely have been selected. If you don't like clang as an option, go away and come back when you've built a better compiler and offered it under an acceptable license. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 clearly stated: We put clang because sponsors wanted it. 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 will still be in the ports tree for those of you who prefer to run it. Your questions have been answered repeatedly, ad nauseam, but apparently you don't like and won't accept the answers so you ask the questions again and again. You don't like Clang. You prefer GCC. We get it. -- Dave Robison Sales Solution Architect II FIS Banking Solutions 510/621-2089 (w) 530/518-5194 (c) 510/621-2020 (f) da...@vicor.com david.robi...@fisglobal.com _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 really, anyway (i don't have clang installed now) what clang compiled C++ programs use as libstdc++ ? do clang provide it? cannot you just use this (or other) nonGPL library? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 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 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 case? Nothing to loose, lots to gain. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 involved. You can't just ask the FSF to explain themselves. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 winner. Now you can stop commenting. -- Dave Robison Sales Solution Architect II FIS Banking Solutions 510/621-2089 (w) 530/518-5194 (c) 510/621-2020 (f) da...@vicor.com david.robi...@fisglobal.com _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 Software Foundation asking for just that case? Because what FSF says is irrelevant. What courts decide is all that counts. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 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 that this is indeed not tested in court. Therefore, reality may turn out even more interesting. That's why a lawyer's answer should always be it depends. :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 that this is indeed not tested in court. Therefore, reality may turn out even more interesting. That's why a lawyer's answer should always be it depends. :) GNU GPL is even worse that i ever dreamed (in worst horror). ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 in court yet. 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 that this is indeed not tested in court. Therefore, reality may turn out even more interesting. That's why a lawyer's answer should always be it depends. :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org 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? -- joe gain jacob-burckhardt-str. 16 78464 konstanz germany +49 (0)7531 60389 (...otherwise in ???) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 misses and jump misprediction. That's why my gzip comparision resulted in minimally worse clang-compiled one (1% or less), while f2c converted fortran code for scientific calculations showed large differences. i expect large difference in eg. cjpeg, lame etc and rather small in for eg. perl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 of core GCC functionality with non-GPL tooling and extensions. Please note that this is indeed not tested in court. Therefore, reality may turn out even more interesting. That's why a lawyer's answer should always be it depends. :) GNU GPL is even worse that i ever dreamed (in worst horror). ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org I have seen a few instances which are risky IMHO... or at least interesting to ponder.. one is a claim that GPLv3 enables the vendor to require the use of their trademark logo (flowplayer)... which opens up other legal issues i think, and another, i recently purchased a router, in the package was a small piece of paper stating the device includes GPL software, and if i want the source i need to write (snail mail) their legal department and explain why i want it. (d-link). but i agree the issues have not been legally decided AFAIK. anyway, i think a BSD licensed FreeBSD operating system works for me. Waitman Gobble San Jose California USA ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 neccessary (to be carried out to the end): What about countries with different jurisdiction? For example, Germany doesn't have precedence law as it is very famous in the USA. Given basically the same situations, two judges can decide differently. Cases only have effect on the parties who fight there - except very few cases where decisions get promoted to level of law, it doesn't mean anything to others. And that's just within Germany. How about different countries? Does a case (e. g. M. S. Bob vs. R. M. Stallman) have any effect outside the USA? I am not a lawyer, but because I have some legal knowledge I know for sure that what's written in the law and how law is practiced in reality does very much differ, in unpredictable and volatile. So I don't make any claims here. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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, as far as I'm aware: 1. Your work is considered work for hire, where you are just a cog in the corporate machine and the corporation is the creator or author of record (and thus the default copyright holder). This means you would have to get permission (license) to use the work outside of your function as an employee. 2. Your work can be used by the employer under exclusive license, which means you cannot use the work yourself except under strictly limited conditions specified in law. 3. Your work can be transfered to the employer, so that though you are the default copyright holder an agreement (possibly an employment agreement, but generally requiring a distinct agreement separate from the employment agreement itself for this case) establishes the legal transfer of copyright from you to the employer. 4. Your work is provided to the employer under a non-exclusive license, which means you can then license it to others as well. By far the most common case for a standard employment relationship is case 1. Pathological edge-cases may adjust these circumstances. My assumptions in writing this are based on my experience with US copyright law. I am not a lawyer, and this does not constitute legal advice, but only an explanation of my understanding and perspective with regard to copyright law. BUT - as everyone is free to obtain, modify and re-issue GPL source code, I'm not sure such a consensus could be reached. by creating a BSD licenced fork - constructed from parts written by all developers that - as you said - have personal right to their code. This is pretty much exactly what happened with the Pentadactyl extension for Firefox. The people who had been doing the majority of development work for the Vimperator extension for a while, but were not the project owner, took the code they had created and rewrote (from scratch) any additional code needed to make it work, creating the Pentadactyl project. The original Vimperator project used a copyleft license (the GPL), and the new Pentadactyl project used a copyfree license (I don't recall which, probably either the Simplified BSD License or the MIT/X11 License). -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 requires. There was little to no way to enforce the license, he decided to move to other license that protects his work and let others use it was well with little to no strings attached. He know uses the CDDL which is also an Open Source License. He can give you many reasons as to why the GPLv3 is the 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. That would help explain why FreeBSD is switching to Clang. Related (perhaps somewhat indirectly): Advancement Through License Simplicity http://univacc.net/?page=license_simplicity -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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! 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 fought the law, and the law won http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Fought_the_Law This whole thread has gone wayward, and I don't think it's going anywhere, except down. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Flaming mailing lists (was Re: Why Clang)
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 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 live with today. I can only praise kpneal for this very well argumented post. However some remarks. The whole argument revolves around FUD, fear, uncertainty and doubt. But there will never be any shortage of lawyers trying to spread FUD on any subject to please their clients, and if companies bend over instead of fighting FUD they will promptly be paralyzed. It was actually a fairly sober assessment of legal conditions, especially in light of the rather unreasonable expenses often attendant to legal battles. In any case, it pays to play things safe when your options are: * Take the idiots on, head-on, over their copyleft licensing zeal, and see if you get sued. * Play it safe by using a compiler built on a better architecture that provides better development features, more correct output, and other advantages, with a copyfree license instead of a copyleft license. Last time a company tried to use such tactic against Linux, it did not turn out a bright idea. 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. 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 the needs of the individuals who use it, so must it also reasonably see to the needs of those corporate users, especially when some of those corporate users' employees are key developers for the base system (to the significant benefit of the rest of us). Thus, saying that a particular set of conditions having an impact on commercial sponsors of FreeBSD has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself is just . . . incorrect. If FreeBSD appears as a subsidiary of some commercial company (say Juniper) i am not sure this will be good for its further development. This being said, i agree with you that the FreeBSD binaries will not see a big performance degradation through the use of clang, so, as long as gcc is in the ports to be used with performance critical stuff, it is no big deal. Anyways as a long time FreeBSD user i have seen clang presented as an experiment by two or three people, and then suddenly stuffed without any discussion in the base system, apparently for political reasons that i don't share (i mean this stupid obsession of GPL free system, which has replaced the previous focus on quality and performance). How much were you around in the mailing lists and other relevant venues for discussion of changes to the base system? You are presumably aware this list doesn't really count, being a general-questions list that is not exactly the official place to discuss things like base system choices of library and userland development (for instance), or even ports system development. It's possible all you saw of the discussion was the parts that escaped into the wild, as it were; the more in-depth discussion of the matter surely happened elsewhere. This might give you a mistaken impression that there was not much discussion of the matter. . . . and thanks for calling the concerns of everyone who wants to be able to use FreeBSD as the basis of other projects without having to deal with problematic licensing restrictions as stupid and obsessed. That's not very nice (or accurate). -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 a subsidiary and must be. I just don't like that it isn't stated openly! It is nothing wrong, unless one can feed using zero point energy, everyone needs money to stay alive. Wouldn't it be smarter to openly say Juniper request as to get rid o GPL as soon as we can because they are fed up with this shit and law mess. instead of personal attacks, messing with my (and others) sentences and posting evident lies just to explain the decision. It is a difference between honest people and fools. 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 don't think FreeBSD is worth it. I do, and I think it is worth more than that, in fact. The 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. Eliminating the copyfree licensed, open source development model of FreeBSD would undermine the majority of the technical benefits supported by that development model. I would have thought that even you should be able to understand that without help. There is nothing to prevent giving source with system. Non-Free software doesn't have to be binary only. Read-only source, or even modifiable but non-distributable source, does not provide the social benefits of an open source development model that encourage the kind of participation FreeBSD needs to remain FreeBSD, rather than becoming Oracle Solaris or MS Windows Server 2010: Race Condition Odyssey. For paying this i would like FreeBSD to be maintained with quality and performance being the only reason, not politics. Turning it into a commercial enterprise rather than an open source project would probably turn it into a project that is driven about 60% by corporate politics and 40% by marketing BS, with no room left over for quality except as needed to support the minimum credibility its CEO deems necessary to support those two concerns. Every trendy or otherwise requested feature could be added separately or even charged separately, as long as it doesn't have any effects on base system. ZFS being example. Nothing against Juniper (the make truly good working hardware), but if they enforce decision because of their personal likes then it must be stopped. You seem to think this is all about Juniper. I wonder where you get that idea. Why didn't you pluck iXsystems out of thin air as your whipping boy, or Yahoo, or some other corporate user? GPLv3 based C compiler does not prevent making closed source software like JunOS for example. In most cases, this may be true, *if* the license exceptions apply as described if/when tested in court. There are some cases where even the optimistic explanation of the license exceptions particular to GCC mentions that the GPLv3 might apply to generated code. It is only i hate GNU type decision. No, it's not only that. It's *also* that, and with good reason. Good job ignoring a whole lot of information people have tried to bring to your attention, including lengthy messages from me to which you have not substantively responded. Are you unable, or simply unwilling, to have an honest discussion on the matter? Ironically, your possibly dishonest intention in this matter occurs even as you pretend that potentially mistaken statements by one or two people make *everyone* into malevolent liars who deserve your ire and insults. I hate too, and in spite of this am against removing gcc and replacing it with much worse product. Worse based on a couple of very narrowly applicable metrics derived from specific, very particular use case conditions, whose measures are of negligible scale for most purposes, 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, then proclaim everyone else at fault for the fact you cannot see past your nose to note that the whole world does not revolve around some dubious benchmarks. I doubt you're convincing anyone of anything you seem to think we should all accept as gospel. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail
Re: Why Clang
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. Development benefits are not politics. Easier distribution is not politics. More responsive upstream developers are not politics. You ignoring all of these points and more that have been brought up, some by me, *is* evidently politics -- because you are seeking a political capitulation to your willfully ignorant demands. Politics *lose*, so far, and for that I am grateful. . . . but if it makes you feel better to whisper to yourself that all opposition to your position (even when you ignore it and have not bothered to actually read and understand it) is just politics, go ahead, as long as it doesn't perpetuate this wholly unnecessary griping on the mailing list. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Flaming mailing lists (was Re: Why Clang)
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 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Flaming mailing lists (was Re: Why Clang)
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. Aaa. Yes the devil That fill's my whole body with concrete. I want to whish all a very mery Midsummer's Eve and Midsummer's Day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midsummer#Sweden ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Flaming mailing lists (was Re: Why Clang)
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 stuff. do not forget the feelings regarding the devil. Aaa. Yes the devil That fill's my whole body with concrete. yes, this is the guy. You can consider yourself lucky that he uses only concrete. Bad guys like me get liquid steel. I want to whish all a very mery Midsummer's Eve and Midsummer's Day Oh yeah, you celebrate this only on the following weekend. Enjoy! Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 programs compiled by a v3 compiler will have - according to the license - to be released as v3 too. This word: MAYBE is most crucial here. I don't see how GPLv3 is viral. 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. I'm not saying moving to clang is a bad idea. I just don't think the viral license argumentation is strong enough. Can anyone provide an example of viral propagation of the license if we compile the base system with a gpl v3 gcc? Thanks. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#IfLibraryIsGPL [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LibGCCException wouldn't it be just simplest solution to ask GNU leader for clearing it out? i wouldn't be surprised that FreeBSD team would decide to go back to gcc soon. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 DragonFly BSD developers (which is BSD licenced) don't have any problems and just use latest gcc. I'm not saying moving to clang is a bad idea. I am saying this. Moving to worse compiler is a definitely bad idea. This is not a place of politics. As GPLv3 doesn't prevent it from being used in FreeBSD and is better - it should be used. It's simple. If clang would be better - it should be used. Can anyone provide an example of viral propagation of the license if we compile the base system with a gpl v3 gcc? there are none probably. Before actually testing it i believed we move to clang because it is better compiler AND and supported a move. Good lesson to test first and don't believe, even with FreeBSD. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 understand that. Anyway DragonFly BSD developers (which is BSD licenced) don't have any problems and just use latest gcc. I'm not saying moving to clang is a bad idea. I am saying this. Moving to worse compiler is a definitely bad idea. This is not a place of politics. As GPLv3 doesn't prevent it from being used in FreeBSD and is better - it should be used. It's simple. If clang would be better - it should be used. Can anyone provide an example of viral propagation of the license if we compile the base system with a gpl v3 gcc? there are none probably. Before actually testing it i believed we move to clang because it is better compiler AND and supported a move. Good lesson to test first and don't believe, even with FreeBSD. 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. As for DragonflyBSD they AFAIK are taking the path of fixing world to build on any stock compiler as we currently do. And they have no such user base to support. FreeBSD is heading the right way: bringing BSD toolchain to the world and fixing world compilation with gcc46 from ports would give anyone a choice on which compiler to use keeping GPL out of tree. -- Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 understood this. if anyone commits any code under this license into the tree into what tree? gcc tree or FreeBSD tree? FreeBSD has it's own copy of gcc so any change in gcc doesn't automatically change FreeBSD code and licencing. Can you explain it more precisely privately? thanks FreeBSD is heading the right way: bringing BSD toolchain to the world and fixing world compilation with gcc46 from ports would give anyone a choice on which compiler to use keeping GPL out of tree. the right way is to use best performing tools as long as no law problems exist. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 GPLv3. not really understood this. if anyone commits any code under this license into the tree into what tree? gcc tree or FreeBSD tree? I was talking about FreeBSD sources here. FreeBSD has it's own copy of gcc so any change in gcc doesn't automatically change FreeBSD code and licencing. FreeBSD has old and abandoned copy of gcc, the last version available under GPLv2 license. FreeBSD is heading the right way: bringing BSD toolchain to the world and fixing world compilation with gcc46 from ports would give anyone a choice on which compiler to use keeping GPL out of tree. the right way is to use best performing tools as long as no law problems exist. There can be different ways for selecting best tools. Someone needs better performance while other one state that stability is a must. For now clang is a choice for stability and not the performance. Yet due to the rapid development this is subject to change while gcc is not. Think of it like we are changing a car that shines for the one that can move. -- Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 atheists who neither lie nor have unmarried parents! I'm a relative newcomer. Are the FreeBSD mailing lists always this flame-y? I realize that this particular post might be trolling / satire, but others in the thread (and other unrelated threads recently) are a FAR CRY from the technical support and discussion I expected. I thought I'd see an occasional RTFM, maybe a random WinBlows here and there... but this type of thing just diminished everyone involved. -- Stephen ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 (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 atheists who neither lie nor have unmarried parents! I'm a relative newcomer. Are the FreeBSD mailing lists always this flame-y? I realize that this particular post might be trolling / satire, but others in the thread (and other unrelated threads recently) are a FAR CRY from the technical support and discussion I expected. I thought I'd see an occasional RTFM, maybe a random WinBlows here and there... but this type of thing just diminished everyone involved. -- Stephen ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 atheist Marxist bastards and his religious adherents. Please don't use atheist as a derogatory term. There are plenty of capitalistic atheists who neither lie nor have unmarried parents! I'm a relative newcomer. Are the FreeBSD mailing lists always this flame-y? I realize that this particular post might be trolling / satire, but others in the thread (and other unrelated threads recently) are a FAR CRY from the technical support and discussion I expected. I thought I'd see an occasional RTFM, maybe a random WinBlows here and there... but this type of thing just diminished everyone involved. 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. 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 responses, seems to inevitably result in Godwin's Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law being invoked. You might also want to check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum. I just read it for the first time a few days ago. You might also want to familiarize yourself with the term Sour Grapes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes. It is expressed by a certain clique here quite frequently. By the way Fred, please don't Top Post. That pisses people off too, plus it makes following a really good argument a lot more difficult than it needs to be. Welcome to the fray ... -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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-tp5715861p5720039.html Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 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 freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 Top Post. That pisses people off too, Well. I have to explain people at least once a day not to do it. Sometimes i even get a result and sometime someone learn. rarely. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 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-Clang-tp5715861p5720039.html Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 strange but usefulness of FreeBSD wasn't questioned. The ethics of using clang most certainly were. Perhaps you missed the word or that I used to distinquish between the possible causes. Furthermore, the usefulness of using clang VS GCC were also voiced by at least on poster. He stated, correctly or not is not an issue here, that clang produces slower code VS GCC for math intensive operations. It was also pointed out that Linux is solidly in bed with GCC, at least at the present time. Therefore, the other operating system requirement has been fulfilled. I did not say, nor mean to convey that every condition had to be met in every post in every thread. It is more of a cumulative effect. Very easy to overlook unless each post is read in its entirety. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 because of political reasons. But I believe it is a good proof, that clang is a serious alternative to gcc it is only a proof that it was decided to put it as FreeBSD default compiler. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Flaming mailing lists (was Re: Why Clang)
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 aren't. And I notice that whoever is primarily responsible for it isn't even prepared to sign his own name to his tirades - he (or she) is using anonymous remailers. (Irritatingly this makes him difficult to killfile - it turns out there's at least one recent legitimate post that's been sent through a similar remailer so I can't just toss them all away). Jonathan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Flaming mailing lists (was Re: Why Clang)
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? I realize that this particular post might be trolling / satire No, they aren't. And I notice that whoever is primarily responsible for it isn't even prepared to sign his own name to his tirades - he (or she) is using anonymous remailers. (Irritatingly this makes him difficult to killfile - it turns out there's at least one recent legitimate post that's been sent through a similar remailer so I can't just toss them all away). Jonathan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org The anonymous remailer's administrator can be contacted and made aware of the abusive email sent through it. To quote an automated message from the remailer: quote This message is being sent to you automatically in response to an email that you sent to mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at. If you did not send such an email, please ignore this message. This remailer is a free service that allows individuals including crime victims, domestic violence victims, persons in recovery, and others, such as those living under oppressive regimes, to communicate confidentially in a manner that ensures their privacy under even the most adverse conditions. To obtain information on how you can use this service, please send an email with subject remailer-help to mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at. Should you have received an unwelcome message through this service or to report problems with this service, please contact the Administrator at ab...@remailer.privacy.at. Thank you for your interest in secure and private communications, -- The Austria Remailer Administrator /quote ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 proper use of means of language. You often find such behaviour among school children of the lower grades. Using words without knowing their meaning is very typical for people in puberty. :-) Yes. Questions@ has some un- self- disciplined kids/ drunks/ trolls, who degrade this list's signal to noise ratio. 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 solution) I suggest others too should complain to postmas...@freebsd.org appending offenders bad postings, let postmaster decide action. The only other option I can think of is to personaly extend my procmail filter on my own questions@ incoming stream, to delete all postings from listed individuals. Many others could do similar, but massive inefficiency, newbies couldn't, the noise on the raw unfiltered list in web achives would damage FreeBSD. Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below not above, cumulative like a play script, indent with . Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. Mail from @yahoo dumped @berklix. http://berklix.org/yahoo/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 solution) I suggest others too should complain to postmas...@freebsd.org appending offenders bad postings, let postmaster decide action. The only other option I can think of is to personaly extend my procmail filter on my own questions@ incoming stream, to delete all postings from listed individuals. Many others could do similar, but massive inefficiency, newbies couldn't, the noise on the raw unfiltered list in web achives would damage FreeBSD. while subscription is good idea, as well as your personal blacklist, your other proposition would require strict political compatibility with those who would decide about who cannot post. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 one. because such situation like now never happened - changing C compiler to much worse because of political reasons. I think you misspelled licensing and sponsorship. It's a fairly indisputable fact that without sponsoring users FreeBSD cannot move forward, and those sponsoring users do not get a warm fuzzy from the base system being built with a) An unmaintained GPLv2 licensed gcc or b) A maintained and current GPLv3 gcc with GPLv3 licensed libc. So between the options of 1) continuing to use an out of date compiler 2) alienating sponsors and losing their financial and developer support and 3) switching to a BSD licensed compiler/libc ... it's fairly obvious to me that options 1) and 2) lead to irrelevance and death of the project. clang being better than or on par with gcc in every conceivable category right this instant is far less important than continued existence and relevancy to sponsoring users, IMO. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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. what do you want? that someone says Yes you are right clang is shit?. No i don't like words but actions. and i am feared because once such projects like FreeBSD will start to decide about major things this way, it's beginning of end. Politics won over performance and quality. sad. From my side - end of topic ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 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, _you_ (as the creator) can still use the source that you've just released to the public (under the GPL rules) and create derivates from it, continue development internally into a different direction and also use it in a commercial way as closed-source. _Others_ can not do so. The act of releasing is, as far as I know, tied to a specific version of the source tree - the point from which others can see, download, use and modify the source counts. If I understand the GPL correctly, from that point (i. e. when contributions have taken place) you cannot turn the result into closed source. However, with your own work, you can. Maybe some lawyer intellectual property copyright expert can be more precise and elaborate. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 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 it under another license *only* if you choose, thus no longer having the GPL attached to those version. The old version's license, though, cannot be rescinded for those who have already received it under those terms, which then allows them to pass it on to others under the same license. This means that you can simultaneously offer a piece of software for which you own the copyright both under the GPL and as a paid-license product for those who want different license terms than the GPL, so yeah, you *can* use it in closed source software even when distributing it under the GPL at the same time if *you* own the copyright or if you get a separate license from whoever owns the copyright. The people who are restricted from using it in a closed-source project are those who do not own the copyright, do not pay the copyright holder for a different license, and acquire it under the GPL. In short, the people most restricted in such circumstances are the people who make up the open source development community. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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, and .. that is a logical result. The act of releasing is, as far as I know, tied to a specific version of the source tree - the point from which others can see, download, use and modify the source counts. If I understand the GPL correctly, from that point (i. e. when contributions have taken place) you cannot turn the result into closed source. However, with your own work, you can. thanks for explanation. 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. I wasn't ever hired as a programmer (or fortunately, as anyone else) so it wasn't ever a problem for me. but that was my reasoning. So - if authors of any project, no matter how numerous, will all without exception agree that they want to get rid of GPL, then - they always can turn it to BSD licenced ? am i right? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 it under another license *only* if you choose, thanks of explanation. i believed that the rules of GPL affects everyone including the programmer who wrote the code. This is good as with programs that doesn't have huge list of authors, it is still possible to get away from GPL. Would be nice to see someday that term Free software will only mean free software, not free software but... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 subject to the content of your programmer's contract. In most cases, one would assume that by receiving a payment, you give the rights of creator to that company. But it doesn't neccessarily have to be the case! Imagine a photographer who takes photos of you, e. g. for a new passport. You pay the photographer for the developed (today: printed) photos you receive, for example 4 or 6 pieces. You do _not_ obtain the right regarding the image by that payment. The photographer (as the creator of the image) still owns it. You can buy it separately. (At least this is the case here in Germany according to the law.) 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 creator, no matter who you sold a copy to). So I would assume that you can still use the program for further projects that run independently from that customer. EXCEPT - of course, there is a contract specifying otherwise. So - if authors of any project, no matter how numerous, will all without exception agree that they want to get rid of GPL, then - they always can turn it to BSD licenced ? am i right? A general consensus of the issuers of the license (continuous licensing) could maybe do that, I assume. Still there would be the possibility to create a fork (common means in open source when something needs to be changed that doesn't go well with mainstream), and that fork could keep the old license. Now there are two independent projects. BUT - as everyone is free to obtain, modify and re-issue GPL source code, I'm not sure such a consensus could be reached. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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, then - they always can turn it to BSD licenced ? am i right? A general consensus of the issuers of the license (continuous licensing) could maybe do that, I assume. Still there would be the possibility to create a fork (common means in open source when something needs to be changed that doesn't go well with mainstream), and that fork could keep the old license. Now there are two independent projects. that is fine. BUT - as everyone is free to obtain, modify and re-issue GPL source code, I'm not sure such a consensus could be reached. by creating a BSD licenced fork - constructed from parts written by all developers that - as you said - have personal right to their code. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
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 the situation. In this case I assume that any half-baked employer will have a specific clause in the contract that will cause that all your creations will be attributed to the employer immediately, the wage being an act of selling your intellectual property (if this term applies here, not sure, it's widely stressed) to the employer who becomes the new owner and creator on behalf. It's also possible that similar content can be present in a contract between client and customer (just like between employer and employee). I highly assume that if such a clause is _not_ present, the natural and normal interpretation appears, i. e. you are the creator, copyright is yours. Even if it sounds strange, it still can apply in an employment setting. But as I said, contracts and local law may have some regulations that applies. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 creator, no matter who you sold a copy to). So I would assume that you can still use the program for further projects that run independently from that customer. EXCEPT - of course, there is a contract specifying otherwise. There's often legal (copyright, patents, etc) discussions on FreeBSD lists, maybe we should have a le...@freebsd.org list on http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo There's 193 countries in the United Nations http://www.un.org/en/members/growth.shtml Some have different laws even within one country: In UK, England Scotland have different contract law: http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/scotland-home/8094-scots-and-english-contract-law-false-friends Decades back USA employees by default retained more patent /or maybe copyright rights than UK employees. In UK by default it went to employer. But if a USA employer put a clause in to over- ride the default ? ... IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer etc. German employee law I don't know. I've always been freelance. Tip: Often mentioning the idea at the beginnning of contracts, technical project directors are happy to ask their legal dept. to add a simple clause they draft themselves along the lines of eg: Customer has exclusive rights to code written just for project. Programmer can keep publish general code written or enhanced for general tools not exclusively for project. Customer can keep use a copy of tools. Best to suggest such ideas at the beginning not end of projects. Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below not above, cumulative like a play script, indent with . Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. Mail from @yahoo dumped @berklix. http://berklix.org/yahoo/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Wed Jun 20 17:37:45 2012 Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:33:35 +0200 From: Polytropon free...@edvax.de.r-bonomi.com To: Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Antonio Olivares olivares14...@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 the situation. This is a situation addressed _specifically_ in Berne Convention copyright law, under the heading of 'work done for hire'. For _anything_ that falls under the 'work done for hire' clause(s), copyright (and _title_) reses with the party who 'hired' the work done. Work done by a 'contractor' under a 'purchase of services' contract is generally _not_ 'work done for hire' (although it -may- be, depending on the language of the contract), and thus, genenrall, copyright, etc. remains with the person who did the work, -- *unless* the contract specifies otherwise. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 ONLY you) think of as facts (see below). Sorry but i like only facts. Only facts? Well and good. Do you have any proof GNU is in any way connected to any communist movement? Do you have any facts (NOT living in your head) GPLvX is in any way inspired/based on/even remotely connected to/ ANY communist movement/party/literature? And PLEASE don't push on us all that trash like obligation to provide sorces==communism. GPLvX (for any X) do not forbid to make profit out of your software. It just stands again closing of the sources and therefore against infringing of the (totally democratic) human right of having the (vital for somebody) information. So: since you are against GPL means you are communist. Perhaps even stalinist. Period. P.S. If needs be I could prove an opposite. And be quite a bit meaner. P.P.S. Now PLEASE take any moral/political/religious garbage out of this mailing list to chat, advocacy or any other non-technical forum. GPL-vs-BSD, Linux-vs-Windows-vs-BSD-vs-whatever else, Christianity-vs-Buddhism and so on does not belong here. Vladimir. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 have any proof GNU is in any way connected to any communist movement? Yes. Exactly the same targets and understanding of freedom. Just Richard Stallman is (fortunately) limited mostly to computing. If you cannot see this - i cannot help you any more. sorry. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang?
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 problem to clang miscompiling a library in base used by wine and Volodymyr, I think, confirms this: I only have other people's experience on this issue, need to test this, but want to keep a GCC-compiled world for now, at least for a production system. This would not stop me from trying Clang on an experimental/testing installation, such as HEAD, where the basic intent is development. From Volodymyr Kostyrko: 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. I guess that's why I want to keep at least one GCC-compiled world for now. Like it or not, Linux is by far the leading open-source OS, and most of the ports are originally developed with mainly Linux in mind. Linux software development is GCC-centric, I don't know if there is any work with Clang in Linux. Now how will I know whether GCC or Clang is the default compiler for building the world and kernel, and for ports? Not that I want to avoid Clang, just don't want to be caught by surprise. Tom ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang?
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 (with the caveat some ports need either any gcc or a specific version) CURRENT base - as of this writing, clang (look for announcement in current@ or hackers@) ports - clang, as above though with a shorter list (Someone please correct me if they have more accurate information.) Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why 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 above, cumulative like a play script, indent with . Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. Mail from @yahoo dumped @berklix. http://berklix.org/yahoo/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 communist movement/party/literature? Yes, see above. Stallman is a self-described atheist Marxist. information. So: since you are against GPL means you are communist. Perhaps even stalinist. Period. No, but that is a good example of a Marxist/Stalinist tactic. Lies, lies, and more lies. The truth is Stallman is to software what Stalin was to people. You must do everything according to his will or you will be branded an enemy of the people. Sick, because in truth Stallman is an enemy of the people. He's the programming equivalent of a televangelist, making a religion out of his sick communist ideals and at the expense of honest people who sell write and sell software. He wants to drive them out of business but only so he can create more power and fame by making more groupies. Sick! P.S. If needs be I could prove an opposite. And be quite a bit meaner. P.P.S. Now PLEASE take any moral/political/religious garbage out of this mailing list to chat, advocacy or any other non-technical forum. Morality does have a place in software and everywhere else in life. GPL-vs-BSD, Linux-vs-Windows-vs-BSD-vs-whatever else, Christianity-vs-Buddhism and so on does not belong here. But it is Free BSD so freedom needs to be understood. GPL is wrong, it's not free and it doesn't belong in FreeBSD. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang?
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 9.0 (and possibly 9.*) base - gcc ports - clang (with the caveat some ports need either any gcc or a specific version) I can't confirm this other than to say, that I compile stable 9 base (kernel + world) using clang and ports using gcc. I have to compile base using WERROR= and NO_WERROR= settings in make.conf so that the compilation doesn't halt on error messages. Maybe this is no longer required. This is as per wiki, though admittedly, as per wiki a couple of months ago. I can imagine that the problem will be compiling ports with clang. Some of the gcc code is not correct as per specification. There's a list somewhere of currently compilable ports using clang. CURRENT base - as of this writing, clang (look for announcement in current@ or hackers@) ports - clang, as above though with a shorter list (Someone please correct me if they have more accurate information.) Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -- joe gain jacob-burckhardt-str. 16 78464 konstanz germany +49 (0)7531 60389 (...otherwise in ???) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
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 computation for a spin lattice. Everything runs on my macbook. 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 ... real0m2.359s user0m2.341s sys 0m0.003s lilas% /usr/local/bin/gcc -v … gcc version 4.6.1 (GCC) lilas% /usr/local/bin/gcc -O3 test.c -lf2c lilas% time ./a.out … real0m1.241s user0m1.234s sys 0m0.003s So gcc gives an executable running twice faster than clang, basically, when both compilers are run at maximal optimization. To show the effectiveness of the optimizer, here is the running time without any optimization: lilas% /usr/local/bin/gcc test.c -lf2c lilas% time ./a.out … real0m6.895s user0m6.889s sys 0m0.005s What this demonstrates is that for programs which do real computations, optimization is *very* important, and gcc is now very good (i have not shown the numbers but they match the Intel compiler) while clang is at the level gcc was ten years ago. So i fully agree with Wojciech Puchar, the move to clang is only driven by anti GPL propaganda which is frankly completely stupid, since in any events, gcc does not contaminate the binaries it produces (except when using contaminated accompanying libraries e.g. for C++). Of course, when compiling FreeBSD kernel or similar programs which do little computation there is no harm using clang. I suspect that the price is higher for programs like mencoder which require the highest efficiency. I will not comment on the better error messages coming from clang, this could be a more serious argument. -- Michel Talon ta...@lpthe.jussieu.fr
Re: Why Clang
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 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 computation for a spin lattice. Everything runs on my macbook. 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% /usr/local/bin/gcc -O3 test.c -lf2c lilas% time ./a.out … real 0m1.241s user 0m1.234s sys 0m0.003s So gcc gives an executable running twice faster than clang, basically, when both compilers are run at maximal optimization. To show the effectiveness of the optimizer, here is the running time without any optimization: lilas% /usr/local/bin/gcc test.c -lf2c lilas% time ./a.out … real 0m6.895s user 0m6.889s sys 0m0.005s What this demonstrates is that for programs which do real computations, optimization is *very* important, and gcc is now very good (i have not shown the numbers but they match the Intel compiler) while clang is at the level gcc was ten years ago. So i fully agree with Wojciech Puchar, the move to clang is only driven by anti GPL propaganda which is frankly completely stupid, since in any events, gcc does not contaminate the binaries it produces (except when using contaminated accompanying libraries e.g. for C++). Of course, when compiling FreeBSD kernel or similar programs which do little computation there is no harm using clang. I suspect that the price is higher for programs like mencoder which require the highest efficiency. I will not comment on the better error messages coming from clang, this could be a more serious argument. -- Michel Talon ta...@lpthe.jussieu.fr ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
