bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com
Fri Jun 22 11:05:03 UTC 2012
> From owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 06:07:49 2012
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:06:12 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek at wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
> To: Michel Talon <talon at lpthe.jussieu.fr>
> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions at freebsd.org>, kpneal at pobox.com
> Subject: Re: Why Clang
> > for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself. If FreeBSD appears
> > as a subsidiary of some commercial company (say Juniper) i am not sure this will be good
> I think any project that size is actually a subsidiary and must be.
Which simply proves you don't know what you don't know.
> I just don't like that it isn't stated openly!
No one on the Project would consider lying about such things, "just to make
> instead of personal attacks, messing with my (and others) sentences and
> posting evident lies just to "explain" the decision.
Maybe when you stop lying about what the others say.
> It is a difference between honest people and fools.
You have made it clear that -you- are a name-calling fool.
People have tried to explain, clearly, and politely, the *multiple*
factors that went into the decision. You ignore everything else,
and fixate on the one that seems specious to you.
> There is nothing to prevent giving source with system. Non-Free software
> doesn't have to be binary only.
Nice strawman. But you cannot show where anybody has claimed it did.
> For paying this i would like FreeBSD to be maintained with quality and
> performance being the only reason, not politics.
A demonstrable lie -- the only thing you care about is speed of execution.
> Nothing against Juniper (the make truly good working hardware), but if
> they enforce decision because of their personal likes then it must be
Therefore, _your_ attempts to enforce decisions because of your personal
likes must be stopped.
> GPLv3 based C compiler does not prevent making closed source software like
> JunOS for example.
You don't _know_ that. It is only your -opinion-. How much of a financial
bond are you willing to put up, payable to, say, Juniper, if they "rely" on
your _opinion_, and it turns out to be wrong?`
> It is only "i hate GNU" type decision.
> I hate too, and in spite of this am against removing gcc and replacing it
> with much worse product.
Your closed--mind bias is showing. You think it's ok to get _wrong_ answers
rather than correct answers, if you get the wrong answeers faster and the
correct answers somewhat slower. GCC, even 4.21., is well known for
generating "bad code" -- meaning 'logically incorrect and gives wrong
answers', and sometimes 'code that cannot be successfully executed' -- e.g.
it always segfaults or has some other fatal exception -- under a number of
conditions. The variety of such instances increases with vritually -every-
minor "upgrade' to the compiler. Code that worked under minor release 'x',
not work under x+1, because 'yet another' of these 'features' crept in..
There are "known bugs" of this sort in GCC that have been identified for
over a -decade-. But, the GCC source-code is such a swamp that *nobody*
has been able to figure out, or find, *where* the problem is occurring --
let alone determine what needs to be changed, to fix it.
More information about the freebsd-questions