×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

LLVM & GCC Compiler Developers To Begin Collaborating

timothy posted about 10 months ago | from the integration-nation dept.

GNU is Not Unix 279

An anonymous reader writes "While RMS is opposed to LLVM over its BSD-like license rather than the GPL, LLVM/Clang and GCC developers have agreed to try to start cooperating in an "open compiler initiative" to jointly tackle common issues that plague both compilers and issues that can be better served by working together rather than creating fragmentation between the two popular open-source compilers."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fb (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46198835)

fuck beta

Re:fb (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46198837)

Fuck you.

Re:fb (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46198859)

:D

Re:fb (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199173)

Agree with both.

Re:fb (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46198889)

Buck feta!

A mere dollar? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199111)

Tax that noise, STAT!

altslashdot.org (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46198857)

http://www.altslashdot.org/

in case y'all didn't know.

#F...BETA

Open borders... one way? (5, Interesting)

paxcoder (1222556) | about 10 months ago | (#46198863)

I'm not sure how GCC could benefit from this.
While theoretically GPL could subsume BSD code produced from the collaboration, I reckon it's more likely that brains are going to migrate rather than code. And I don't see those working on LLVM (for commercial interest) migrating to GCC.
If I were RMS I'd be worried.

Re:Open borders... one way? (5, Interesting)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 10 months ago | (#46198891)

Well, just getting both camps into the same room from time to time would be an improvement.

Re:Open borders... one way? (5, Informative)

Rosyna (80334) | about 10 months ago | (#46198899)

I'm pretty sure this is not about sharing code, but about collaborating on needed features via a shared spec. So both compilers implement something a standard way instead of coming up with new features independently.

Re:Open borders... one way? (2)

paxcoder (1222556) | about 10 months ago | (#46198929)

For example?
Would GCC migrate to LLVM bytecode? What does that give us (except lack of diversity)?
Not sure what else could these two compilers have in common.

Re:Open borders... one way? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199027)

For example, the pretty huge list of C and C++ extensions that both gcc and clang implement, and that are invented by the authors of said tools. It's much better that the two talk about it, and come up with one spec that both compilers implement than to have two competing standards that results in code one or other compiler can't deal with.

Re:Open borders... one way? (5, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 10 months ago | (#46199191)

Another thing would be to harmonize the representation of fundamental classes like std::string and std::vector, so those classes can be passed between codes compiled with both compilers, even though the implementation code for those classes might otherwise differ.

Re:Open borders... one way? (3, Insightful)

thoth (7907) | about 10 months ago | (#46199045)

There's a boatload of stuff to agree on for better interop. The language itself (c/c++) says nothing about a lot of stuff people kind of expect these days.

  Language extensions specific to compilers (e.g. __user), toolchains (e.g. llvm is working on lld, a linker, to replace the default system linker), security additions (e.g. if I build a library with gcc and specify stack protection and canaries, none of which are in the language standard, will I be able to link a clang built library and executable and actually have it work), etc.

The GPL is like the Slashdot Beta: Unwanted! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46198921)

As times change, so do the needs of people. These days, we don't need the GPL. We also don't need the Slashdot beta site.

Both the GPL and the Slashdot beta site have come to exemplify the tyranny we sometimes see within the open source world.

The GPL purports to bring "freedom" by going out of its way to restrict the freedom of people who wish to distribute modified, closed-source versions of GPL licensed software.

Likewise, the Slashdot beta is supposedly "better", but in reality it's a steaming pile of dogshit that's worse than the existing site in every single possible way. Yet it's forced upon us randomly these days, and soon it'll be our only "choice", once the current site is gone.

Open source users, be they individuals or community projects (like FreeBSD) or companies (like Apple) have spoken: they want freedom for everybody. That means no more GPL. Instead, software is best released under the BSD or MIT licenses. The BSD and MIT licenses maximize the freedom of everybody, with the only restrictions being nearly inconsequential. That's very different from the GPL, which in its failed attempt to bring some quaint idea of "freedom" ends up limiting the overall degree of freedom for everybody.

Slashdot users have spoken, too. We've very plainly said that we've had enough of the goddamn beta site. It can't be salvaged; it needs to go. It's a failed software project, and it needs to be discarded completely like failed software projects should be.

GCC is eventually going to die out, probably sooner than most would expect, because of its freedom-limiting license.

Slashdot, too, is obviously on the path to death. The beta will kill the Slashdot community.

It's a shame that a once-important project like GCC will likely soon die out, and it's a shame that a once-important community gathering place like Slashdot will likely soon die out. Both could have been preventable; GCC by ditching the GPL in favor of a truly free software license, and Slashdot by killing the beta project and site right away.

Re:The GPL is like the Slashdot Beta: Unwanted! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199011)

Wow, that went full retard. Your analogy with the GPL is fundamentally flawed, and stupid. I was going to explain how you can create a valid analogy with exactly the opposite statement, but meh, not worth it.

At least we agree with something: FUCK BETA

Re:The GPL is like the Slashdot Beta: Unwanted! (4, Interesting)

paxcoder (1222556) | about 10 months ago | (#46199019)

What do you think the purpose of copyleft (of which GPL is just a manifestation) was? The problems it adressed persist.
Now let me address the "freedoms" you're defending. There's always the quote "your freedom to wave your fist ends where my nose begins", but I'm not going to argue that in this case - let's assume users don't have freedoms like FSF asserts. Let's listen to you and focus on corporate freedoms:
You're saying people should have the "freedom" to leech, because this technically means the least amount of restrictions on a code. But in fact, what you're really defending is the right of authors of derivatives to restrict what their users can do. And you know what? I agree that they have that freedom: They built it, they should be able to do with it whatever they want. But the dissonance in your opinion is this: The author of the original piece of code which they built on also has the same right! So if you're going to defend people who impose restrictions that hurt end-users, why attack those that use the same right in the purpose of maximizing the freedoms of those same end-users?
So there are restrictions in both stories, just that BSD is asocial and GPL isn't: BSD says "do what thou wilt" and that inevitably favors the bully. Mind you, the bully (=the warlord in the case of anarchy) is going to impose his own rules. GPL says instead: Fair play rules are valid for everyone.

Re:The GPL is like the Slashdot Beta: Unwanted! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199139)

Why do you make this so complicated?

Let's crunch the numbers. We'll give +1 whenever a license gives a particular user more freedom, and -1 whenever it takes away freedom. We have two users (the author and the user) and two licenses (the GPL and the BSD).

The GPL gives the author freedom (author: +1), but it denies some freedom of the user (user: -1).

The BSD license gives the author freedom (author: +1), and it gives the user the same freedom (user: +1).

So the GPL's score comes out to 0. Any freedom it gives to the author is taken from the user.

And the BSD license's score is +2. It gives everybody a maximal level of freedom.

Say whatever you want, but the numbers speak for themselves. The BSD license increases freedom for everybody. The GPL increases it for the author at the expense of everybody else. Therefore, the BSD license is the truly free license, while the GPL encourages tyranny.

Re:The GPL is like the Slashdot Beta: Unwanted! (0, Troll)

pe1rxq (141710) | about 10 months ago | (#46199295)

By your logic the BSD license encourages tyranny when compared to the public domain.

So far you have only proven that you can add and subtract the number 1.

Re:The GPL is like the Slashdot Beta: Unwanted! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199701)

This is one of the stupidest things i've read this week.

Re:The GPL is like the Slashdot Beta: Unwanted! (4, Interesting)

Arker (91948) | about 10 months ago | (#46199737)

Except that you did it wrong.

BSD gives the author freedom, but screws the user. (1-1=0)
GP gives the author freedom, and preserves it for the user also. (1+1=2)

Really, this is simple math, there is no excuse for such a fundamental mistake.

Re:The GPL is like the Slashdot Beta: Unwanted! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199155)

Yep. After a decade of the same argument appearing time after time on this site, your post will finally set it, at least for the users who stay on.

the Virtal Nature of closed-source code (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199177)

To play devil's advocate here: If a company restricts my freedom to use software how I see fit, I can choose not to use that company's product. If an individual restricts my freedom to use software how I see fit (for example, by saying that I can't sell a derivative work without also maintaining a method by which the source code of the derivative can be distributed), I can choose not to use that individual's code.

Just as one might discourage NVidia from distributing nonsensically-closed-source drivers, one might discourage RMS from distributing nonsensically-limited-in-intent source code.

And to take off my Devil's Advocate hat and stick on some actual horns:
Remember that the GPL doesn't just say you need to distribute the source code of derivative works. It also has the ramification that everyone else you collaborate with needs to be using GPL-compatible code. This is fine for individuals, but for absolutely any business, this is a nightmare to manage. Using a third-party library? You need to be sure it's GPL compliant, or you will be tainted. Using outsourced developers? Are you sure they understand the GPL and everything it implies? You aren't, so you can't actually trust them to touch anything you may have wanted to release under GPL.

What it comes down to is this: GPL isn't Viral, but non-GPL code is. It will get into your codebase, and spread around, and unlike GPL, there is no simple remedy of releasing the source-code or removing functionality.

The result is that it's far easier, and far less-risky, to either: 1) Avoid GPL code, or 2) [what actually happens] keep a very broad definition of what doesn't count as "distribution". Make sure everyone other than the community which could actually benefit (and therefore which might complain that certain parts are not distributed) will get a copy. Use GPL code "internally", but never give back your changes, at all, even a little. Because that would just open you up to liability.

Re:The GPL is like the Slashdot Beta: Unwanted! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199815)

The GPL purports to bring "freedom" by going out of its way to restrict the freedom of people who wish to use others people's code however they wish and not give anything back.

There, FTFY. HAND.

Re:Open borders... one way? (5, Interesting)

thoth (7907) | about 10 months ago | (#46198999)

I was a compiler grad student, and my university had its own intermediate representation it did work with. Back then (mid 90's) there was also SUIF (stanford university intermediate form), something I forget from University of Illinois... there were probably others too. But some big-name CS departments focused on other stuff, databases, operating systems, AI, and weren't necessarily up there in compilers or revealing the details of their intermediate form (not that it's was a secret, merely from academia the algorithm is more important than the intermediate form used).

Now, my old school adopted LLVM. I recently checked as I'm working with LLVM/Clang and found that quite interesting. I can't even pull up Stanford's SUIF compiler group research page (suif.stanford.edu, maybe I'm just unlucky or it's gone/moved/temporarily down). And LLVM/Clang is from University of Illinois... so yeah, I'm sure they are using it too.

The benefit to GCC from this is to not become obsolete in 5-10 years, from a steady influx of improved algorithms and tuning from a body of people that can easily contribute. Just from the fact LLVM/Clang is easier to work with, universities using it for their classes/research means that there is a steady crop of undergrads/grads familiar with LLVM/Clang and its set of libraries. They can contribute, and the research community doesn't have to roll its own intermediate form for research algorithm implementation and then throw that out when it comes to implementing the same algorithms in an actual intermediate language that is used in a real compiler. When you're a student, the last thing you want to do when you've got a project due in the semester, or you are trying to write your thesis/dissertation and graduate, is screw with compiler internals that are purposely difficult to work with (GCC).

Yes, GCC has a core group that has done an excellent job. But they are facing commercial interests improving the LLVM/Clang (i.e. Apple and Obj-C) plus now the OpenCL and OpenMP work going on, and on top of that an ever growing population of former students with skills/knowledge and perhaps the desire to contribute.

f I were RMS I'd be worried.

Agreed. Those years he opposed modularizing GCC might have really hurt the project in a way that isn't done being felt yet.

Re:Open borders... one way? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199277)

If you produce a technically inferior compiler for political reasons you deserve a world of hurt from superior, freer alternatives.

Re:Open borders... one way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199443)

Or perhaps two worlds of hurt.

Also, FUCK BETA.

"If I were RMS I'd be worried" (3, Interesting)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#46199129)

RMS is like a typecast actor. He has his role, and plays it unswervingly.
However, if there are ways to help out the studio, even if he's not in the film, what's the issue?

You are not reading history. (5, Insightful)

tlambert (566799) | about 10 months ago | (#46199225)

I'm not sure how GCC could benefit from this.

You are not reading history.

GCC moves too damn slow and doesn't include features that developers (and more importantly: the companies which pay developers) want. These days, that includes the changes between the GPLv2 and GPLv3 not being wanted by the people who pay the bills.

GCC was more or less started in 1984: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnup... [gnu.org]

GCC was almost replaced by the EGCS fork in 1997, and it took two years before RMS finally gave up on the idea of having the ultimate editorial control over the language implementation, and "blessed" EGCS as the replacement for GCC. When he did that, he gave up on limiting the OSs that the compiler worked on, and limiting the inclusion of things like #pragma (which used to exec "nethack" because RMS didn't like it), and some of the language front ends that are now included, like g77, which RMS didn't want.

GCC is on the verge of being marginalized again by LLVM; all the sexy compiler work is happening in LLVM, all the bright young minds in the compiler world are going to LLVM because it's a lot easier to make a front end for a new language or a back end for a different processor or embedded controller or virtual machine. LLVM is the "go-to" compiler for academic projects involving compiler research.

It makes sense; GCC: 1984; +15 years = EGCS: 1999; +15 years = ????: 2014.

RMS' recent appeal *might* be able to attract a bunch of new ideologues to the GCC project, and have them forsake LLVM work, but more likely course and project requirements for a degree, and after that, an employer, probably mean that LLVM is going to remain the "go-to" compiler for the new blood.

The idea that GCC can leverage some of the new blood by making it easier for them to work with code in both contexts, rather than leaving GCC in the ashbin of history, is about the *only* way to give GCC the transfusion of new blood it's going to need to survive another 15 years.

It also couldn't hurt to expand the number of (or replace) members of the "GCC steering committee" so that GCC can get a little more forward momentum. You can get forward momentum one of two ways: (1) more specific impulse, or (2) take off the parking brake.

Re:Open borders... one way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199313)

Why wouldn't GCC just assimilate all the parts of Clang that were agreed to be better than GCC? That doesn't seem like it would require cooperation...

Re:Open borders... one way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199505)

If GCC assimilated the open licensing, that would be awesome!

Re:Open borders... one way? (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 10 months ago | (#46199779)

I'll get hate for saying this but fuck it, truth is truth and RMS burnt a LOT of bridges with GPL V3 so I wouldn't be surprised to see more devs moving from GCC to LLVM and Clang.

What RMS and his fans just seem to refuse to accept is a simple little bit of reality which is thus...this ain't 1979 anymore, no matter how many times RMS calls everyone "hackers" like he's at a computer club meting. The chips, the designs...we are talking about INSANE complexity folks, it is just not something "a couple of guys banging away in their basement" is gonna be able to do. What you have to have is dozens of highly skilled, highly trained guys working on this stuff 8-12 hours a day every day...the requires funds folks, no way you can get around that.

What does that have to do with RMS giving corps the bird with GPL V3? Simple...where do you think ALL that money was coming from? Donations by individuals? Nope that was all being paid for by corps whom RMS made clear aren't welcome round here anymore. with GPL V2 you had kind of a "wink wink" with the corps while GPL V3 has made sure that you had better be a GPLed company if you want anything to do with GPL V3 code. This is why Google has a "No GPL V3" rule with ChromeOS and Android, and I have no doubt you'll be seeing money dry up for projects like GCC, simply because companies will be afraid to touch it.

At the end of the day encouraging corps to open their code is fine, flipping them the bird if they refuse to go GPL? Not the smartest thing. We should be able to tell within the next year whether all the money is gonna go to GCC or LLVM/Clang, I personally think it'll be the latter.

RMS needs to get over the GPL (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46198869)

The GPL is not for everyone or every company, get over it.

The BSD[MIT/APACHE/ZLIB] licence is the only real free open source license. In a perfect world we wouldn't need licences at all and everyone wouldn't have a hissyfit every time someone borrowed code from someone.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (4, Interesting)

paxcoder (1222556) | about 10 months ago | (#46198905)

RMS knows that (and has made statements to that effect): GPL exists precisely because it's not a perfect world.
While you may call it a freedom, "freedom" to kill would not be a beneficial one.
Speaking metaphorically, that's what BSD license grants you: A way to murder free software in the black hole of proprietary software.
Do companies contribute back? Sure, some do, some of the things. But everything else is competition.
And therein lies the real difference: GPL is against proprietary software, it aims to provide free software to everyone. BSD isn't and doesn't.
Kinda like free vs open.
TL;DR: No.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (-1, Offtopic)

epine (68316) | about 10 months ago | (#46199001)

way to murder

My favourite part is where the wardrobe malfunction puts a dagger through Muhammad's heart. Please, daddy, tell us that part again! I'm waiting with beta'd breath.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199007)

Do companies contribute back? Sure, some do, some of the things. But everything else is competition.

I would be very interested in seeing real statistics on this, because my experiences with companies using BSD style licensed code in their software suggests the exact opposite. There are a number of reasons to use open source software in your project, the chief among them being "not reinventing the wheel". The problem is, the moment you generate your own proprietary fork, you're back to reinventing the wheel. Chances are, you made the changes because the software in question didn't quite do what you wanted it to do, or to fix a bug. Great, so now you've got your own branch, and every time you update this software with the latest "official" version for whatever reason (including perhaps, not reinventing the wheel for some new feature) you have to apply your patches and changes, and hope that the patches you built against version X are still valid against version Y.

In my experience, the only time companies don't give back is when they've made such massive changes that they would be maintaining their own branch anyway. And with changes that large, it's extremely unlikely the main branch would ever integrate them all back in, which means the company is maintaining their own fork, regardless of whether or not they've released the code. Now, you can argue (as RMS does) that regardless, the important thing is whether the new code is open, not whether it's ever merged back, but there are considerations to be had as well. Forks split and consume development resources. Different projects all doing the same thing slightly differently create more work for people trying to target those projects, such that writing new useful software that takes advantage of other available resources either requires multiple code paths to handle each resource (think vendor specific CSS tags but worse) or can't be meaningfully built without someone writing additional code.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199043)

Speaking metaphorically, that's what BSD license grants you: A way to murder free software in the black hole of proprietary software.

I find it hilarious that you use this analogy in a thread talking about a BSD licensed compiler (clang) that Apple wrote, and then fully open sourced more freely than the competition..

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#46199149)

So maybe there are multiple motives and strategies behind licensing, and the GPL + BSD ecosystems are stronger than either would be in isolation.
I realize that part of the advertising going on is beating up everyone who doesn't agree with Teh One True Way, but still. . .

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199337)

We shouldn't have to depend on that kind of goodwill from a company that might one day be motivated to limit the freedom of users...

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (1, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 10 months ago | (#46199401)

BSD = "I don't care WHAT the hell you do with this code"

GPL = "You better give some something back buddy if you want to use this"

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (5, Informative)

paxcoder (1222556) | about 10 months ago | (#46199543)

Actually, no. You may use GPL'd code any way you like (that's freedom 0) and share with others (freedom 2). You can likewise modify the software any way you like (freedom 1). And all this time, you need not release source code. The condition to release the source only kicks in with freedom to distribute your changes (freedom 3), so only when there is a third person involved with your derivative you have to grant them the same freedoms you've been given by the original author.
In fact, this was a problem with SaaS: You could've modified free software, and run it in the back on your servers, and say that you're simply providing a service to the end user, and since he's not getting the modified program, he doesn't get to have its source either. This is what AGPL is designed to address, and thus it's mostly used for web software. So with AGPL, as soon as you use a program, whether you have a copy, or are executing it online, you get access to the source.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (3, Informative)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#46199583)

Neither the BSD nor the GPL remove (not can they remove) the aspect that copyright requires that a person must get permission from the original copyright holder if they are creating a derivative work of something copyrighted. In that light, both the BSD and GPL licenses essentially state that everyone who adheres to the terms of the license is free to create derivative works, thereby effectively granting such permission... but still only to people who adhere to the terms of the license.

Of course, the terms of the BSD license are pretty lax in comparison to the GPL... the former being not much beyond keeping the copyright notices in header files intact, while the latter license requires that the derivative work be released under the same license.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199775)

GPL is emphatically "not an option" for most of companies.

(And I'm not talking about security through obscurity, but rather "we don't have the right to release the source to most of our stuff, so the GPL is poison.")

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46198909)

Licensing is an economic matter, not a technical one.

The only "real" free licence is one which exists in a world without respect for property, so I can access any code at any time and use it as I see fit.

Then in come those who argue that property is freedom, so you have to have the means to stop people taking code, even if that means not moving it off your servers...

And then we realise that it's all arbitrary anyway, and everyone uses "freedom" emotively like "terrorist".

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (4, Interesting)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 10 months ago | (#46198915)

One of the areas where the licensing of gcc have been very successful is within embedded hardware. Gcc has gained a high reputation within this field which has lead to adoption by several vendors of embedded systems. These firms are not known for their generosity or cooperability, so without the GPL it is unlikely that the changes they needed had been contributed back upstream. This is of course only speculation, but I would say that the GPL has overall been advantages to gcc.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 10 months ago | (#46199047)

What? I'm guessing you don't work in embedded because GCC sucks on every embedded platform I use. GCC is what chip makers port to their chips first because its easy since the majority of the work is done by someone else, but its a shitty compiler and you want something else as soon as possible.

I don't know anyone who uses GCC for actual production work anymore except Linux distros.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199231)

I work on embedded firmware every day with GCC. No problems. And that's on production code in large projects, across several arches - PPC, MIPS, ARM, ARM Cortex. GCC has had occasional failed/bad releases but all and all it is pretty good stuff. For every person that doesn't like GCC, there is a person that thinks it is okay.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (1)

pe1rxq (141710) | about 10 months ago | (#46199339)

I don't know which platforms you use, but I am guessing they suck in general.
For all platforms I use gcc is just fine.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199511)

Depends,

GCC is mostly 'alright' on sane architectures. But tools like IAR really do better (in code space optimization mostly, optimization for speed is comparable). This doesn't matter if you buy a microcontroller with 2KB rom, but for chip development where every byte has some cost it makes the price of the compile instantly uninportant.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199599)

I think you're mixing up GCC and codewarrior.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199049)

Right, I mean, if companies like Apple weren't forced to give back their changes, they'd never do it. I mean, they're known the world over for never giving back to open source.

Wait, what's that, they wrote and BSD licensed clang? Well I'll be...

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (4, Interesting)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 10 months ago | (#46199227)

Would they have BSD-licensed clang if there had not been the competing GPLed GCC? Who knows ...

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199265)

Please mod parent up.

Re: RMS needs to get over the GPL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199517)

Gpl3

Apple was using Gcc until the license limited XCode.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (2)

ejr (2998) | about 10 months ago | (#46199667)

No, Chris Latner started clang while at UIUC. Apple hired him to continue.

On the flip side, there would be *no* free Objective C compiler had gcc used a non-copyleft license. Apple (well, NeXT, now better considered Apple-in-exile) tried to run around the GNU GPL but failed. They were forced to release the source, leading to gobjc. Note that gobjc has not been able to keep up with Apple's Objective C and C++ changes *because* of Apple's switch to an LLVM-based system. Also, note that previous Apple animosity against the GPL was not entirely technical.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199117)

Our group uses it because it is the only linux based compiler available for some of our targets. We use clang for everything else.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199197)

I agree with this sentiment but you also have to conciser the number of ideas, projects and companies that never even leave the ground because they aren't willing to entertain the idea of including GPL licensed code because it means they would have to open up the source of their entire project. I think this is a point that most devs that defend GPL to the death fail to conciser.
GPL is a giant viscous legal thorn bush for ANY developer who has ANY reason they can't or don't want to release the source of their code and this potentially limits the progress of society just as much as a lack of open sorce libraries does.

I mean, I'm allowed to use gpl code for private projects but nothing that could actually have a decent chance of supporting my cost of living because even through I have a bunch of novel and useful ideas for software, they would be poached and re-released a month after I made a switch to the GPL license because first mover advantage means absolutely nothing in the software engineering world unless you have millions of dollars to spend of marketing or a way of securing the redistribution of your ideas like closed source (or maybe the day I can finally afford a patent).

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (1)

pe1rxq (141710) | about 10 months ago | (#46199357)

You are trying to sell the wrong thing.
Software is not scarce, the only way to sell it like it is scarce is by artificially making it so. That is what closed source software (or like you mentioned patents) do.

Making mony with GPL licensed code is not that hard, (many others are doing it), but you have to sell the thing that is truly scarce: Your time and knowledge.
Have them pay you to make it or improve it, or sell support.

Sell Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199755)

So make sure to be overly complex and opaque so your software needs support.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (5, Insightful)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 10 months ago | (#46199579)

On the contrary, that point is exactly *why* we GPL advocates advocate it. We don't want to enable companies which have no intention whatsoever to be part of the community. They're free to do everything themselves, and good luck to them. But giving them a leg up to get off the ground just so they can be selfish assholes with their ideas? Why should we? And yes, sharing your *ideas* and *implementations* is what we mean by being part of the community. If this isn't for you, then don't let the door hit you on the way out, thanks.

Not a perfect world (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46198925)

[quote]... in a perfect world ... [/quote]
And that's exatly why we need GPL ;)

/. needs to get over Classic (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199189)

Slashdot Classic is not for everyone or every company, get over it.

The Beta is the only real future of Slashdot. In a perfect world we wouldn't need versions at all and everyone wouldn't have a hissyfit every time someone changed the style of a site. [userstyles.org]

Re:/. needs to get over Classic (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199767)

Why oh why are the shills always AC? They are giving AC a bad image.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199237)

The GPL guarantees that if you have access to the binary you have access to the source. BSD/etc do not. In other words: BSD gives you the "freedom" to restrict others freedom. That isn't something people on the free software front consider positive.

Maybe it's you who should get over the fact rms believes in free software. You're entitled to your opinion, he's entitled to his. It isn't like he's pointing a free 3D-printed gun to your face and forcing you to write GPL'd code to extend emacs.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (2)

caseih (160668) | about 10 months ago | (#46199335)

It all depends on your definition of freedom. I don't believe Linux would have the diversity of corporate backing without the GPL. The GPL is what allows IBM, Google, RedHat, and other heavy weights the freedom to collaborate for mutual benefit while still being competitors. Every contributor and developer operates on an equal legal footing with the GPL. The BSD works fine for many people, and for companies, like Apple. But Apple definitely is not collaborating on core OS X proper with other companies. Apple releases some of their core code under the BSD, true, but they aren't worried about it being used against them in competing products. This opinion is not necessarily mine; I have heard this from others who are involved with Linux development. Whatever the cause the amount of collaboration surrounding Linux has enabled it to go places BSD-based unixes just aren't going, like embedded devices, tablets, etc.

Anyway, as they say, different strokes for different folks. Your opinion is nor more valid or invalid than any other one. And you're right about the fact that in a perfect world intentions would always be honored without formal documents and copyrights. I think the GPL states that very fact.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199527)

Back in the old days, parent would've been quickly dispatched to -1 hell. Today, with the Instant Gratification/file sharing/Stack Overflow pasting generation of Slashdot mods, things are different.

Re:RMS needs to get over the GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199575)

None of those are free. Those are slave licenses. If you want to work for free for a multination, you are welcome to it. But you certainly are not free.

Cooperation (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 10 months ago | (#46198879)

I bet this works great for the GCC devs.

Unless they're going to work under the BSD license, LLVM will be screwed over because they aren't going to include GPL code into LLVM.

FUCK BETA! (-1, Troll)

zlaxdot (3530465) | about 10 months ago | (#46198895)

registered now, to scream FUCK BETA! ( and bye bye Feb 10 2 4 ever ) tear in my eye,,) lurked since Grandpa was young and Unicorns roared free! lurked because there was nothing to add, it was beautiful, full of god comments and knowledge, i pointed my browser to /. because of that,. this is ok @ random porn site,, or hippster out of touch whattevva,, NOT "News for nerds, stuff that matters". We have reached a point where technological evolution and progress isn't important anymore because everything has to be dumbed down so even the biggest fucking retard out there can use it and that's the number one priority these days, everything else barely matters. FUCK BETA!

Re:FUCK BETA! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46198935)

Is there a way to filter these comments out? Because I'm starting to get *really* tired of them.

Filters (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46198943)

In Classic, yes, you could filter comments. It was by score, but it was great.
Not in Beta, my friend ;)

Re:Filters (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46198985)

It is possible in Beta too, and -- lo and behold -- that feature works pretty well actually. Use the gear icon at top of the comments.

Re:Filters (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199041)

LOL, extreme irony ftw! :D
--
[FUCK BETA]

Re:Filters (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199223)

Then just switch back to Classic, my friend.

Re:Filters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199355)

As long as you can, my friend.

Re:FUCK BETA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199777)

Yep...another bad AC shill. Tim is that you?

I've gotta say... BETA sucks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46198947)

At first I wasn't sure, but looking back at the classic, much easier to navigate, browse, skim comments. In a way there's an inherent conflict between real content and the visual "spaciousness" aesthetic of the new UI. Why have so much space wasted and so much content deliberately hidden. This is killing my favorite website. Listen to the users and turn off BETA. TURN OFF BETA! TURN OFF BETA!!!

OH MY GOD - MY EYES!!! FUCK BETA FUCK BETA F (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46198951)

I've been hitting the Classic page until this evening.

Damn near went blind !

MY EYES!!! FUCK BETA FUCK BETA FUCK BETA

Slashdot: Betas for bros, stuff that monetizes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46198957)

Slashdot is the new Myspace!

BETA & WINDOWS 8 Developers To Begin Collabora (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199003)

Please post this to new articles if it hasn't been posted yet. (Copy-paste the html from here [pastebin.com] so links don't get mangled!)

On February 5, 2014, Slashdot announced through a javascript popup that they are starting to "move in to" the new Slashdot Beta design. Slashdot Beta is a trend-following attempt to give Slashdot a fresh look, an approach that has led to less space for text and an abandonment of the traditional Slashdot look. Much worse than that, Slashdot Beta fundamentally breaks the classic Slashdot discussion and moderation system.

If you haven't seen Slashdot Beta already, open this [slashdot.org] in a new tab. After seeing that, click here [slashdot.org] to return to classic Slashdot.

We should boycott stories and only discuss the abomination that is Slashdot Beta until Dice abandons the project.
We should boycott slashdot entirely during the week of Feb 10 to Feb 17 as part of the wider slashcott [slashdot.org]

Moderators - only spend mod points on comments that discuss Beta
Commentors - only discuss Beta
  http://slashdot.org/recent [slashdot.org] - Vote up the Fuck Beta stories

Keep this up for a few days and we may finally get the PHBs attention.

-----=====##### LINKS #####=====-----

Discussion of Beta: http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=56395415 [slashdot.org]

Discussion of where to go if Beta goes live: http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&type=submission&id=3321441 [slashdot.org]

Alternative Slashdot: http://altslashdot.org [altslashdot.org] (thanks Okian Warrior (537106) [slashdot.org] )

Re: BETA & WINDOWS 8 Developers To Begin Colla (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199621)

I agree with your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. However I am concerned that you will sell your newsletter to Dice who will then write its value down to zero.

Remove GNU egotism and it _might_ work. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199033)

It will work If and Only If: GNU-only developers bury their colossal ass-hat egos. Yes, FUCK YOU Ingo, and Fuck Off, Beta.

What the heck?! (0, Offtopic)

Moridineas (213502) | about 10 months ago | (#46199053)

Upon loading the article page I was confronted with some spam video that started playing and blasting audio unrequested. Is this the next shoe to drop? First beta, next auto playing video ads? I've never disabled ads on slashdot and I disable my adblocker BECAUSE the ads haven't been annoying.

What is going on at slashdot?!?!

I am deeply betafied (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199071)

I thought RMS was going to post here about how awful the Slashdot beta is and instead I read non-beta related comments?! The world is ending.

Build compatibility (4, Interesting)

TheloniousToady (3343045) | about 10 months ago | (#46199079)

Having read TFA, this collaboration appears to be partly about build compatibility. So far, it sounds like LLVM/Clang has been imitating GCC options. But what happens when one or the other of them adds a new option or feature? That might break builds designed for the other one. So, it sounds like the two groups would like to start communicating and coordinating so that both systems can be compatible at a build level in the future. Implicit in this is that both would continue to exist as independent entities and that build compatibility would be a primary goal for both. Perhaps some deeper form of technical collaboration might even be possible in the future.

Then again, I may have that all wrong. I know nothing about it except what I learned from reading TFA. If that causes a problem, I'll try not to do it again.

Bizarre Personal Cult (-1, Troll)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 10 months ago | (#46199093)

Reading through the comments on the Phoronix website, there seem to be people who really think that Richard Stallman is Jesus. Do they think because Jesus washed his disciples' feet, he didn't wash his own?

Re:Bizarre Personal Cult (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199153)

much harder to reach, duh..

Re:Bizarre Personal Cult (4, Interesting)

xororand (860319) | about 10 months ago | (#46199161)

RMS has been one of the most important men of the last 50 years or so.
His contribution to society is immense.
We need more like him to fight for our freedom.

Just imagine a world with only proprietary software.
Locked into golden prisons.
No thanks.

And a new cuisine TOE JELLY (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199503)

Toe Jelly. Hmmmm!

Re:Bizarre Personal Cult (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199613)

RMS has been one of the most important men of the last 50 years or so.

To your chagrin, he'll probably be written up in the history books alongside folks like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, if at all. Then again, since any brief history of the automobile seems to unfairly mention only Henry Ford, Bill Gates will probably be the figure that folks eventually read about in the one-page version.

His contribution to society is immense.

Nearly as immense as his girth.

We need more like him to fight for our freedom.

It fascinates me that anybody thinks the ability to modify software has anything at all to do with "freedom". Even more fascinating is that any significant number of people do.

Just imagine a world with only proprietary software.
Locked into golden prisons.
No thanks.

If software "freedom" is so important, why would you assume that RMS is the one-and-only person who could ever have delivered it to you? Don't you think someone else could have come up with something so significant (to you, at least)? Likewise, we would never have physics without Newton, and we would never have light bulbs without Thomas Edison. Especially florescent and LED light bulbs.

Re:Bizarre Personal Cult (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199665)

Sorry, I just realized that I put RMS in the same category as Newton and Edison. My bad.

Re:Bizarre Personal Cult (1)

Pseudonym (62607) | about 10 months ago | (#46199793)

It takes an extremist to shift the Overton window.

Re:Bizarre Personal Cult (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199333)

Reading through the comments on the Phoronix website, there seem to be people who really think that Richard Stallman is Jesus.

And if you read through the comments on any Slashdot article about RMS or the GPL, you'll find plenty of people who think he's the Anti-Christ, so it all balances out.

Link to past Slashdot story (0, Troll)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 10 months ago | (#46199131)

Why does the link to the last Slashdot story link to beta.slashdot.org?

Here's a better link:

http://fuckbeta.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]

Re:Link to past Slashdot story (0)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 10 months ago | (#46199473)

Whoever modded this troll probably didn't try to follow the link. It works.

More importantly, Beta dead yet? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199185)

Still waiting for the official announcement that Beta is dead. With a proper head-shot to avoid any zombification.

LLVM & GCC Compiler Devs Do NotTo Begin Collab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199271)

Phoronix is a troll infested shithole pushing click bait. Do not click that link.

Real story: Some guy says "Wouldn't it be nice if ...". Discussion ensues. Mostly "no".

I hope that many others projects will do the same (1)

jcdr (178250) | about 10 months ago | (#46199415)

Good move.

While forking is a necessary fact to develop a new idea (even into the original community), merging (at lead idea) is even more necessary long term consequence to avoid fragmentation. The most dangerous thing for open source communities is to start to see others projects and communities as futile and without interesting for learning something.

Desktop related projects should really start to go into that direction now.

This is a good thing. (2)

pouar (2629833) | about 10 months ago | (#46199447)

While I do agree with Stallman over them using a BSD-3 like license. I do like LLVM and Clang. And working together will benefit both LLVM/Clang and GCC which is a good thing.

Re: This is a good thing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46199649)

That would make sense, if the new LLVM beta wasn't so awful. I don't usually agree with Stallman but he might be right this time... programmers should be allowed to keep their classic GCC.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?