FreeBSD Throws the Clang/LLVM Switch: Future Releases Use LLVM 360
An anonymous reader writes "Brooks Davis has announced that the FreeBSD Project has now officially switched to Clang/LLVM as C/C++ compiler. This follows several years of preparation, feeding back improvements to the Clang and LLVM source code bases, and nightly builds of FreeBSD using LLVM over two years. Future snapshots and all major FreeBSD releases will ship compiled with LLVM by default!"
speedily compiled post (Score:0, Insightful)
as you can see...
Having a strong competitor to GCC (Score:5, Insightful)
will drive GCC to a far greater degree than without a competitor. This is good for all involved.
Re:Not GPL, and suitable for JIT (Score:4, Insightful)
These are not exactly the terms of GPL and BSD but:
GPL is for people and companies that think "I wrote this software [together with X, Y and Z] and if somebody else makes it better they must share it with all the world, as I did."
BSD is for people and companies that think "I wrote this software [together with X, Y and Z] and I accept the loss that somebody else makes it better and keep it for themselves because I want to have the option of getting somebody's else software, make it better and keep it for me without sharing it back."
I think we can argue forever on the ethic merits of the two approaches (I feel in the GPL camp). Anyway both GPL and BSD make economic sense and we won't be talking about them if they didn't, one or both would be dead long time ago. If a company wants to include some big secret in its code, it must go BSD and occasionally regrets it can't use some GPL code and rant about it. Sometimes the GPL people rant about not being able to include BSD code in their projects.
Re:Grin (Score:4, Insightful)
With BSD software, not only are you giving away the source code, but you are giving it away with even fewer restrictions than with GPL.
What's that you say? You want to take the software that other people have released and use it in your closed source product? Well then of course you like BSD software better. But you can obviously see why many people who write the open software prefer a GPL style.
Re:Not GPL, and suitable for JIT (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually it is much simpler than that;
GPL is designed to protect users' interests
BSD is designed to protect developers' interests
Free software could leak cleartext or keys (Score:4, Insightful)
You even mention why: what would these software packages be without their WAD files, tax definition files and encryption keys.
A video game licensed as free software could be modified to leak the decrypted WAD files. Furthermore, console makers forbid use of a copylefted engine [slashdot.org]. This means a copylefted game can't run on consoles, which means it can't use the large monitor and multiple gamepads that the player already owns for the console but wouldn't consider buying for a PC. (There are some major genres of video games that for economic reasons cannot be released as PC exclusives; I can explain in more detail if you wish.)
A DRM crippled video player licensed as free software could be modified to leak the decryption keys, something that Disney, Fox, Paramount, Sony, Universal, and Warner Bros. forbid.
A tax program licensed as free software could be modified to leak the decrypted tax definition files.
Re:Having a strong competitor to GCC (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, better for some people. I suspect that the first fallout of any industry shift to LLVM will be that the public compiler will be significantly lacking in optimizations while the expensive, proprietary versions will have all the good optimizations.
Not just that.
I remember the bad old days where every venduh and his dog had their own "extra proprietary super awseome dongle controlled extra awesome super cool" compiler.
Vendors of hardware *LOVE* proprietary compilers. And by love, I mean love to break in mysterious and subtle ways.
Once gcc took off in the embedded world, life got a lot better since many of the cheaper vendors would just use as close to stock gcc as possible (though usually with a little bit of extra internal compiler errors added), rather than some extra super proprietary extra messed up version.
This isn't a business issue. There is no sane business case for taking a commercial compiler front end and a commercial compiler back end, filling it with extra bugs and shipping it. But hardware vendors love to believe that they have an awesome proprietary advantage in software for some reason. Even though they sell hardware. They don't, of course. I'd just say "whatever" except that turns rapidly into invective if one is forced to use their "tools".
Once GCC came along, they believed that they no longer had such an advantage (presumably) so they stopped introducing their extra proprietary bugs into compilers, and limited themselves to a few extra miscellaneous bugs. But it was still mostly gcc and still mostly worked.
If LLVM comes to dominate, the hardware vendors will jump right back on that attitude and make the life of the humble developer hell again.
This isn't a religious, or philosophical issue. It's a "hardware vendors are mental" issue.
Re:Having a strong competitor to GCC (Score:4, Insightful)
That's hardly an industry shift and you know it.
So we're going to ignore all of the proprietary, seat-licensed compilers out there?
Quick! Into the name-calling and ad-hominem!
Do they? Unless you're on their compiler team you can't possibly know this.
I believe the phrase "you mad" applies very, very well to your spittle-flecked rant here.
Re:Grin (Score:3, Insightful)
But you're not forced to give all of it away, as you effectively are with the GPL.
If you've created something that you'd like to give back to the community, you can. -And it's very often in your own best interests to do so. If however, you've created something that, at least for now, you'd prefer not to give away, well you're free to do that instead.
The BSD model has proven that you don't need to twist peoples arms to get them to give back generously to the community. It's proven that people can have the freedom to choose whatever business model they feel is best for them, and the community still benefits greatly. Often more so then a GPL model.
GPL... Among many freedoms it takes away, it destroys the freedom to select a business model of your choice. And worse, the few business models that the GPL does allow for are intrinsically very, very bad on the whole. You're either forcing odd hardware/software partnerships like the poster above, or you're relying upon creating sloppy software and weak documentation in order to ensure a market for your "support services". The later, IMHO, is a primary cause behind the quality issues that have forever plagued GPL software quality, design, and documentation.
Re:Grin (Score:0, Insightful)
But you're not forced to give all of it away, as you effectively are with the GPL.
Utterly false.
You can license just part of your own code as GPL and release as much or as little as you want.
You even still retain complete control of your code that you have previously released as GPL, so you can then take it and change it or use it in your closed software, or license it out for a price to someone, or release it as BSD.
The BSD model has proven that you don't need to twist peoples arms
GPL is not twisting anybody's arm. I challenge you to find a single example of a GPL project which has engaged in predatory patent trolling, deliberate compatibility breakage to harm competition, or format or protocol obfuscation to lock in customers. Things which some closed software companies engage in regularly is completely against the nature of open source development, but also open source makes it pretty hard for any of those techniques to be effective.
Not saying it would never happen, but there is nothing about the GPL license that twists anybody's arm.
Oh, you meant "you twisted my arm" as-in, "I want to use your code that you own the rights to, but under the terms I set. Waaahhh.". In that case, fuck you, that's copyright infringement and have fun destroying people's livelihood, hypocrite.
GPL... Among many freedoms it takes away
Stopped reading there. You're either a massive troll or a clueless friggin nincompoop.
Your anti-GPL FUD is inaccurate and unconvincing. (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to me that the ability to "lock up" formerly free software has enabled the worst actors in the global market for computer software to accumulate wealth and power which they have then used to distort the market to the detriment of free software authors. The GPL is a response to this perception.
And frankly, while I support your freedom to release your code under any license you wish (a freedom many BSD people don't seem to like) I find these "GPL tekks away mah freederms" sound bites laughable. You said "it destroys the freedom to select a business model of your choice". What utter tripe.
The copyright laws that empower the GPL (if you choose to use GPL'ed code, instead of doing your own work with the sweat of your own brow) restrict your choices of business model, just like laws against theft, murder and rape do. Comparing restriction of choices to removal of freedom is disingenuous rhetorical grandstanding; do you protest the Earth's gravity restricting your freedom to fly? Do you protest the sun's light restricting your freedom to walk around naked without getting sunburned? Do you protest society restricting your freedom to practice cannibalism and slavery? Your argument is ridiculous; it sounds like you want to steal my work against my will and profit by it, and you're crying because copyright laws will allow me to prosecute you if you try to cheat me.
Use whatever license you choose, but stop pretending anyone ever had a "freedom" to use other people's code in ways the authors have specifically forbidden, and that this fake "freedom" has been taken away. Nothing has been lost except the ability to be an ugly, hypocritical parasite on the hard work of other people - people who are more than willing to share their efforts with the world, as long as the terms are share-and-share-alike, as in the GPL and similar licenses.
Can modify GPL'd code, make money and *not* share (Score:5, Insightful)
GPL is for people and companies that think "I wrote this software [together with X, Y and Z] and if somebody else makes it better they must share it with all the world, as I did."
That is quite misinformed. Organizations can modify and use GPL'd code internally, make a lot of money off of it, and not share with anyone. I believe Google does so.
BSD is for people and companies that think "I wrote this software [together with X, Y and Z] and I accept the loss that somebody else makes it better and keep it for themselves because I want to have the option of getting somebody's else software, make it better and keep it for me without sharing it back."
Beyond misinformed, merely a spouting of FSF spin.
In truth the BSD folks want the widest possible distribution of their software because they believe that will ultimately provide the computing world the greatest benefit. BSD Unix arguably did provide quite a benefit to both hobbyists and corporations.
Perhaps more importantly is that BSD Unix was a product of the University of California, a taxpayer funded entity, and they felt that all taxpayers should have equal access to their work. That the politics of picking good users and bad, approved uses of the software and unapproved, etc was wrong.
Re:Grin (Score:4, Insightful)
Hu? Let say you release a part of your software under GPL and "draw a line" for the rest, I'm entitled to ask you to release the whole thing under GPL, unless you're able to prove that the part you put on the other side of the line is not a derivative work of GPL'd part.
Only if you wrote part of it. If I write a program and release half of it under the GPL, the only person who can sue me over it is me.
The GPL is only an issue if you want to steal other people's code. It doesn't force you to do anything with code you write, unless you mix it with code you didn't write and don't have a license to use (other than the GPL).
Re:Your anti-GPL FUD is inaccurate and unconvincin (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that the ability to "lock up" formerly free software has enabled the worst actors in the global market for computer software to accumulate wealth and power which they have then used to distort the market to the detriment of free software authors. The GPL is a response to this perception.
The software is always free. What they do is not make their changes free, but the original is still free as ever.
An idea cannot be "stolen" or "taken away". The original will always remain.
Personally, I think most people's ability to think breaks down once "infinite" is involved. I have no qualms with GPL, but your argument is full of holes. You are as bad as the RIAA claiming others steal their work and every stolen copy is a lost sale. Please revise your argument, it makes the GPL look like a bunch of zealots use it.
Re:Grin (Score:4, Insightful)
Dummies.
Re:Grin (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, but someone who forks it may not offer source to other people. Now you've got a fork out there that offers less freedom than the original. You can argue that "the original is still there" but that's an assumption - presumably a closed source commercial version might become more polished and more popular. Perhaps the original maintainer dies (oh wait, that is a certainty) and the only one actually distributing it is the commercial version that doesn't come with source. GPL protects the freedom of all users of the software, not just subsequent developers. And don't get confused, it's not the BSD license that offers source to subsequent users of a fork - it's the developers of the fork that often do that, but they don't have to.
The freedom to deny someone the same freedom that you enjoy is... odd.
Re:Grin (Score:2, Insightful)
Common misconceptions at best, blatant lies and FUD at worse. Sounds like you don't understand the GPL or copyright law. If the code isn't yours you don't have any freedom at all to build a business model around it. Period. Except as granted by a license, including the GPL.
What you are basically complaining about is that you can't take (steel) someone else's code and sell it when it's GPL, but you can with the BSD.
If I own the copyright on my own code, I can release it under the GPL *and* sell it as a proprietary, closed-source, product. So really from a business point of view the GPL is the best license to choose. It lets your code have a life of its own, and a community, but you can still sell a proprietary product on the code if you wish. You can license the code however you want since it's yours.
Seems like most people's gripe with the GPL comes from the fact that they aren't free to do anything they want with it just because it was freely downloaded. If you don't like the GPL, write your own code. simple as that.
Re:Grin (Score:4, Insightful)
But you're not forced to give all of it away, as you effectively are with the GPL.
Utterly false.
You can license just part of your own code as GPL and release as much or as little as you want.
You even still retain complete control of your code that you have previously released as GPL, so you can then take it and change it or use it in your closed software, or license it out for a price to someone, or release it as BSD.
Yeah, but this right is denied downstream, ironically under the very copyleft clauses that claim to preserve the 'software freedom'.
The BSD model has proven that you don't need to twist peoples arms
GPL is not twisting anybody's arm. I challenge you to find a single example of a GPL project which has engaged in predatory patent trolling, deliberate compatibility breakage to harm competition, or format or protocol obfuscation to lock in customers. Things which some closed software companies engage in regularly is completely against the nature of open source development, but also open source makes it pretty hard for any of those techniques to be effective.
Not saying it would never happen, but there is nothing about the GPL license that twists anybody's arm.
Oh, you meant "you twisted my arm" as-in, "I want to use your code that you own the rights to, but under the terms I set. Waaahhh.". In that case, fuck you, that's copyright infringement and have fun destroying people's livelihood, hypocrite.
It's not an issue of mere taking the code and changing the terms - let's say I took something that the GP had written and modified it, and then distribute the modified version, that's where the differences start. With GPL, I'm forced to release the source code of my modifications. With BSD, I don't have to - only the original BSD source code has to be given, but I still have the option of keeping the source code of my modifications to myself, even while distributing.
GPL... Among many freedoms it takes away
Stopped reading there. You're either a massive troll or a clueless friggin nincompoop.
Read the 4 freedoms on the home page of the FSF. GPL violates every one of them.