I don't use WebKit (anymore), but I fail to see how that is relevant. It started as a KDE project and is only open today thanks to the LGPL. Otherwise, who knows, WebKit probably would have been as open as iTunes.If you don't like “Apple leftovers”, stop using CUPS, WebKit, etc. under Linux.
CUPS is actually nice.
Last edited by pingufunkybeat; 05-14-2012 at 10:58 AM.
No, Linux didn't hate BSD, but BSD hated Linux since the beginning - BSD is much older than Linux - a new player comes and kicks BSD ass and that's the reason to hate it. That's true what you said about Apple and Microsoft, but I don't understand why BSD folks love them too?
BTW, who are you to criticize the performance of LLVM/Clang ? Have you ever used it ? Do you program ? As a developper I'll tell you what : this piece of software produces incredibly helpful warning messages, and is able to do static analysis (something that GCC is unable to do).
Note that GCC is about as concerned as LLVM/Clang about the poorness of the generated code. For example, this guy called "Linus Torvalds" has long been complaining about the output of GCC in common situations
I can't help thinking that people who criticize LLVM/Clang using so stupid arguments are just Gentoo ricer that put the emphasis on a few milliseconds in some critical benchmarks rather than on the robustness of the compiler.
So you think that Clang is, at this moment, the more robust compiler of the two?
Whereas GCC is a big block of code that only some elites can work on and improve, Clang depends upon LLVM, which is a common code generator that can be used by any compiler. The separation of the projects allows for a greatly reduced code base, and less complexity overall.
We can draw a parallel with the Linux kernel. As written here :
If this phenomenon comes to happen even on subsystems of the Linux kernel, why wouldn't it happen on the 1,842,457 LoC of GCC too (generated using David A. Wheeler's 'SLOCCount') ?Torvalds recently stated that Linux has become "too complex" and he was concerned that developers would not be able to find their way through the software anymore. He complained that even subsystems have become very complex and he told the publication that he is "afraid of the day" when there will be an error that "cannot be evaluated anymore."
There are lots of people out there who just can't look past the licence, the licence only matters when it starts to have a practical impact on you as a user. For those of us (the vast majority) simply using GCC and LLVM/Clang as tools it currently has no impact at all, so can we just stop judging them as that of BSD or GPL and instead appreciate their respective qualities.
Personally, I try to kill anything associated with Apple with fire.
I have nothing against FreeBSD or CLang LLVM. But it infuriates me to know that wealthy companies like Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, and Sony take BSD licensed software and incorporate it into their products, and then give comparatively nothing back to the community. Red Hat spends a comparatively huge amount of its annual spending on writing software that it releases under free licenses - usually the GPL. Apple has contributed a lot to some BSD projects, but as a percentage of their revenue it's rounding error.
The FreeBSD community and everyone that uses a BSD license has every right to choose that license, and I bear them no ill will. But I am frustrated that companies that could make free software far better for everyone choose not to do so, and for that reason I'll always prefer the GPL.