Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: LLVM 2.8 Released With Feature-Complete Clang C++

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yfrwlf View Post
    ...Until DEBs work with RPM systems, or RPMs work on DEB systems, or quite simply until ONE package format is made universal, I will continue to complain...

    Freedom brings something: the gift/curse of being able to be different. It is one of the corner stones of FOSS. If you think we are all going to do the same just because that's more practical then I have bad news for you: we won't. Go to Apple/Windows for one size fits all.

    Oh and btw, if you don't know what a walletgarden is don't talk about it.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaestroMaus View Post
    Oh and btw, if you don't know what a walletgarden is don't talk about it.
    That's a very appropriate misspelling.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yfrwlf View Post
    How about not having to go through a distro at all? You know, downloading whatever you want from websites? Like Windows? You know, real freedom, not walled gardens.
    Tuomo Valkonen, is that you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yfrwlf View Post
    It's a form of DRM in a sense, and is almost like Steam, because if you decided to change distros and you only had an RPM or DEB for a game you bought, you'd be screwed with a pineapple. Seriously, it's ridiculous.
    Oh come on. No, it's not. DRM is a system to "ensure" that users follow terms of copyright and license. Packaging formats are just that -- they aren't intentionally obfuscated, they don't attempt to ensure only one particular distro can use them (I'm sure Debian would not become up-in-arms and sue if Red Hat ported apt to their distro and made it mesh with their rpm), nothing. Your argument is ridiculous, it's like saying Macintosh programs are like DRM because if you decide to switch to Windows you're screwed. No, not really, it just wasn't designed for anything else. If you want to port it (and the app is open source, analagous to the open package formats), be their guest.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    61

    Default

    Damn 1-minute edit timeout.

    Your complaint interests me though, so I'll muse over it a bit. There is indeed such a format that upstream can put on the Internet and allow anyone to download and use -- source code. I know, I know -- it's not user-friendly, some authors do not wish to publish the source, etc. It is the closest thing GNU/Linux has to a universal format though. The problem is that all the distros vary so much in versions and offerings of core libraries, that source is the only universal format that can exist. Since it's source, a configure script can do a very good job of detecting the host system's setup and compiling for it.

    If you want binary, universal software, then there needs to be a defined standard updating every X amount of time for software including GCC, Python, glibc, Lua, Ruby, GTK+, Qt, Linux, coreutils, Perl -- all the basic foundations of GNU/Linux programming. In other words, a base system. Define this as a standard which all distros should support, convince them to support it, and then you will have a common platform which you can build binary applications on and release for. The Linux Standard Base attempted this, but they aren't doing very well, at least for desktop users.

    So instead of complaining, set about fixing it! Come up with a rough schematic of this base system, and talk with the distros to ask for their support of it. If they don't agree, you could make your own package for each distro that doesn't want on-board yet, containing this base software. Then you release binaries of your own software and say "This will function on any distro which has MySoftwareBase(TM)." It's quite a bit of work, but it could be done.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    There is already such a standard called the LSB; Linux Standard Base.

    So the problem is not Linux; the problem is the very complaining proprietary developpers themselves.

    http://www.linuxfoundation.org/colla...workgroups/lsb

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    There is already such a standard called the LSB; Linux Standard Base.

    So the problem is not Linux; the problem is the very complaining proprietary developpers themselves.

    http://www.linuxfoundation.org/colla...workgroups/lsb
    I did mention the LSB, if you read my post.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranguvar View Post
    I did mention the LSB, if you read my post.
    Then what's you complaint?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,932

    Default

    This is a thread about a C++ compiler which brings some welcome competition into the free software world.

    It took a few short posts before people started going on about playing games and having to conquer the desktop of real users by providing more GAMES! and I can already sense the direction: Steam for delivering GAMES!, DirectX for more GAMES! There is this one thing that is standing between Linux and total worl domination! Then we can have games, and everything will be solved.

    It's hard to take this forum seriously I'll go back to the OSS driver forum

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Nice release, can't notice any optimization improvements (although the whatsnew states that there are loop optimizations) but that's kind of expected since the focus these past releases seems to be on c++ support.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    474

    Default

    Dudes, the fact that repositories are being controlled by the distro kinda defeats the freedom idea of Linux. It's not as bad as the walled gardens of e.g. Apple but it does has similarities, shortcomings goes a wrong way. The situation is improving for deploying binary software only. But there is still a long way to go. The proprietary closed-source products often keep people cling to MS Windows. Let's make it happen that there are versions for Linux, that only use free api's. So that any OS developer can implement those api's, making the programs work. Then at least the platform api's are free. Which is a huge win and more important than having only open-source software. Seriously, free standards and api's make completelly free software (built upon it) possible. Even proprietary programs become more free in the sense that they require less proprietary technologies.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •