Why Clang

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
216 messages Options
123456 ... 11
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Wojciech Puchar-5
>> be more exact.
>
> I believe Robert Bonomi (you didn't include attribution for the previous
> email, I notice) *was* more exact, in that the rest of his email
> explained what he thought of your glossing over the various factors that
> might contribute to binary size.
>
> I notice you ignored most of it in your response, too.

or maybe missed. So please tell me finally what is wrong in measuring
speed by measuring time of execution doing same things?
What i should measure? time in heavens?


> I can generally puzzle out what caused various GCC warning and error
> messages when trying to compile my own code, given comparison of what's

strange but i don't have a problem - and i always set -Wall when using gcc
as 99% of warnings are actually errors.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Wojciech Puchar-5
In reply to this post by Julian H. Stacey-3
> 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.
Sorry but i like only facts.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Vladimir Kushnir-2


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.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Wojciech Puchar-5
>
> 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.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Julian H. Stacey-3
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/
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Nomen Nescio
In reply to this post by Vladimir Kushnir-2
> 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.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Michel Talon
In reply to this post by Thomas D. Dean
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
[hidden email]





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Fred Morcos
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 <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Mark Felder-4
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:14:25 -0500, Fred Morcos <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> I would also guess that the base system is stuck with gcc ~4.1 due to
> the GPLv3-ization of later gcc version. Is that correct?

Yes, 4.2.1 is the latest we can use.

Also, I have no idea what version of Clang Michael is using on OSX. That  
tag means nothing to me; for all I know that really could be back in Clang  
2.1 days which makes this exercise pointless. We need to be comparing at a  
minimum the very latest Clang to GCC 4.2.1. Further benchmarks against the  
latest GCC is welcome, but we should care more about not having a huge  
performance regression in comparison to what GCC 4.2.1 already provides us.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Chad Perrin
In reply to this post by Wojciech Puchar-5
You should really configure your email client to attribute quoted
commentary properly (or, as a first step, at all).


On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:51:00AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:

> >>be more exact.
> >
> >I believe Robert Bonomi (you didn't include attribution for the previous
> >email, I notice) *was* more exact, in that the rest of his email
> >explained what he thought of your glossing over the various factors that
> >might contribute to binary size.
> >
> >I notice you ignored most of it in your response, too.
>
> or maybe missed. So please tell me finally what is wrong in
> measuring speed by measuring time of execution doing same things?
> What i should measure? time in heavens?

He didn't say anything about your measurement of time being faulty.  He
said your measurement of size was faulty.


> >
> >I can generally puzzle out what caused various GCC warning and error
> >messages when trying to compile my own code, given comparison of what's
>
> strange but i don't have a problem - and i always set -Wall when
> using gcc as 99% of warnings are actually errors.

I guess you're either some kind of rare genius or suffering from
Stockholm syndrome.  Everyone I've encountered with something to say
about warning and error reporting with regard to Clang vs. GCC has
remarked about how much nicer it is with Clang.

--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Peter Ulrich Kruppa
In reply to this post by Michel Talon


On 19.06.2012 16:43, Michel Talon wrote:

> David Brodbeck said:
>> Another way of looking at it is after 25 years of optimization GCC is
>> unable to beat a new compiler that's had almost none...
> Unfortunately this affirmation is blatantly false, recent gcc produce code
> much faster than clang. I 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.
Really - just to throw in another opinion:

As an average user I don't see any performance impact on my clang-built
desktop-every-day-workstation. The only thing that is getting on my
nerves are some ports I frequently have to rebuild with gcc.

It would be nice if the porting team could set up some automagic for
that. There seems to be no harm in running a mixed clang/gcc built
userland. Some members of this list seem to fear some kind of communist
infiltration by gcc - I hope this is no serious issue, is it?


>
> I will not comment on the better error messages coming from clang, this could be a more serious argument.
I don't know what they mean, but they really do look good :-)

Greetings

Peter

>
> --
>
> Michel Talon
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Wojciech Puchar-5
In reply to this post by Michel Talon
> 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 actually improved.

Can you compare the execution speed of latest gcc vs. latest clang. thank
you

i compared FReeBSD 9 supplied gcc with FreeBSD 9 supplied clang.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Wojciech Puchar-5
In reply to this post by Fred Morcos
> I would also guess that the base system is stuck with gcc ~4.1 due to
> the GPLv3-ization of later gcc version. Is that correct?

true.


anyway - can someone point me an article about explaining in human
language (contrary to lawyer language) why GPLv3 is more limiting in
reality over v2 .

Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Wojciech Puchar-5
In reply to this post by Peter Ulrich Kruppa
>> programs like mencoder which require
>> the highest efficiency.
> Really - just to throw in another opinion:
>
> As an average user I don't see any performance impact on my clang-built
> desktop-every-day-workstation. The only thing that is getting on my nerves
> are some ports I frequently have to rebuild with gcc.

every time anyone will point a fact about clang not being really the best
- some fanatics will reply by going off topic, or worse (fortunately not
you) - by aggression, attack or lies.

Can you finally behave like normal intelligent people or clang-religion
fanatics?!

facts are important. ONLY FACTS, unless you want to turn whole FreeBSD
project from technical quality to useless propaganda.

Please don't do it, as FreeBSD is the only really usable unix remaining!
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Polytropon
In reply to this post by Wojciech Puchar-5
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:54:45 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> anyway - can someone point me an article about explaining in human
> language (contrary to lawyer language) why GPLv3 is more limiting in
> reality over v2 .
>
> Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?

As 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. Code that is v3 once cannot become "something different"
(either v2, BSDL or closed).

GPLv2 does have fewer restrictions, emphasizing the freedom
of the developer: It's not okay to turn v2 programs into
closed source. However, it is okay to make derivates from
it as long as the derivates are also published (contributed
back). GPLv3 also has this requirement.

GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to be turned into closed source products.

A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will
typically use the BSD license which is "more free".

BSDL in opposite is often criticized a "rape me license".
It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed
source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code
can be a key component in a proprietary closed source
product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance),
and nobody will find out about that fact.

WP has a nice comparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open_source_software_licenses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

All those licenses do _not_ allow to steal copyright!





--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Wojciech Puchar-5
>>
>> 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.

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.


_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Anonymous Remailer (austria)
In reply to this post by Polytropon

> GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
> code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
> but not to be turned into closed source products.

What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
"forcible, viral open source". I think we can all see the difference. Open
your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball...

> A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will
> typically use the BSD license which is "more free".

No, it's just plain "free."

> 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.

> It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed
> source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code
> can be a key component in a proprietary closed source
> product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance),
> and nobody will find out about that fact.

Now you got it! GPL is about forcing people to do what /you/ want and BSD is
about letting them do what /they/ want. Let's see if you can guess which one
of those licenses is about freedom. Hint: freedom is not defined as forcing
people to do what you want.

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Why Clang

Sean Cavanaugh-3
In reply to this post by Wojciech Puchar-5
>
> i wouldn't be surprised that FreeBSD team would decide to go back to gcc
> soon.
>
I would as one of the driving forces of the change was to replace GPL
licensed code in FreeBSD core with more permissive licensed code. This helps
to remove a massive legal encumberment for a lot of developers who no longer
have to worry how their BSD licensed code has to be treated if its compiled
thru a GPL compiler.

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Eitan Adler-4
In reply to this post by Wojciech Puchar-5
On 19 June 2012 12:58, Wojciech Puchar <[hidden email]> 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.

This is false: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html

> i wouldn't be surprised that FreeBSD team would decide to go back to gcc
> soon.

Unlikely. clang is much better on all the other fronts. Even if clang
produces slightly slower code for math heavy code for now we don't
care that much. The kernel does not spend much time in compute heavy
code. :)


--
Eitan Adler
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Clang

Fred Morcos
In reply to this post by Anonymous Remailer (austria)
I don't see much fruit coming out of that conversation anymore.

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria)
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>> GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
>> code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
>> but not to be turned into closed source products.
>
> What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
> "forcible, viral open source". I think we can all see the difference. Open
> your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball...
>
>> A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will
>> typically use the BSD license which is "more free".
>
> No, it's just plain "free."
>
>> 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.
>
>> It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed
>> source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code
>> can be a key component in a proprietary closed source
>> product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance),
>> and nobody will find out about that fact.
>
> Now you got it! GPL is about forcing people to do what /you/ want and BSD is
> about letting them do what /they/ want. Let's see if you can guess which one
> of those licenses is about freedom. Hint: freedom is not defined as forcing
> people to do what you want.
>
> _______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
123456 ... 11