Most definitely not.
Thanks for clarification. Then it is something like MIT approach except
strict license policy.
This also means that there is probably desire to dump GCC favor of LLVM?
Drawbacks are using C++ code and reduced portability to legacy
platforms.
I personally don't find GCC to
Hi Matti,
Matti Karnaattu wrote on Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 12:25:54AM +0300:
This also means that there is probably desire to dump GCC
Yes, we strongly wish to replace GCC because we are stuck with
the last available GPLv2 version, which is ancient by now.
Newer GCC is GPLv3, and GPLv3 code won't
previously on this list Ingo Schwarze contributed:
There are problems with fvwm, yes. It is old, crufty code of
horrible quality.
I was under the impression that when it was audited it was found to be
far better than expected and I believe something like quite clean or
surprising little
I find it far more useful and easier to work with and control than
modern desktops and wish modern programs went back to older config
standards and used text rather than *conf rubbish and that freedesktop
followed the older principles more closely when doing desktop
unification features etc..
I
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Matti Karnaattu mkarnaa...@gmail.com wrote:
What I meant was to clarify OpenBSD culture, priorities and coding
practices and like to know whichever was the lesser of two evils:
-simplicity vs. licensing purity
-licensing purity vs. completeness
-pragmatic
Hi Matti,
Matti Karnaattu wrote on Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 08:57:30PM +0300:
And if I understand correctly, priorities goes like this:
simplicity licensing purity correctness completeness
Most definitely not.
That's more than just a bit misleading.
None of these can be put into an
6 matches
Mail list logo
