FreeBSD Removes GCC From Default Base System

An anonymous reader writes "With the LLVM/Clang migration, FreeBSD developers have now disabled building GCC and the GNU C++ standard library (libstdc++) as part of the FreeBSD base system. GCC and libstdc++ have been superseded by LLVM's Clang and libc++, respectively, on primary architectures for FreeBSD 10.0." You can still flip a few switches to get GCC, but the system compiler will still be clang. Update: 09/11 14:50 GMT by U L : Reader Noryungi noted that the What's Cooking for FreeBSD 10 page is also worth a look, adding "I have to say, this is shaping up to be a very interesting release. Bhyve [the BSD hypervisor], in particular, sounds very promising."

Re:can it build the linux kernel?

[kthreadd]

The Linux kernel itself is not GNU. Removing all GNU software will not remove the kernel.

Re:Just one question

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but it's you that looks like a douche.

Re:can it build the linux kernel?

[jedidiah]

You are trying to flee the spirit of the FSF in Linux.

It's much like trying to avoid the lingering legacy of DOS in Windows.

If you are a wannabe software Robber Baron, then Linux just isn't for you. Finally after all this time the anti-GPL crowd have their own compiler and they're using it. No big surprise there.

Re:Just one question

[1s44c]

Because GCC is a total mess internally and Clang/LLVM is neat, clean, maintainable, adjustable.

GCC is a dead end. LLVM is the future.

two dictionaries say "no such word"

[raymorris]

The two dictionaries I checked, including Merriam-Webster, don't list "performant" as a word.

Trying so hard to use "big words" that you resort to using non-words that sound big = douche. Of course "douche" is actually a word.

Re:can it build the linux kernel?

[santax]

Which I and probably about every other BSD-style coder respects. However, this debate is really old. I think there is something to be said for both license-models and it is good they both exist. I however do feel that true free code, is well... really free. Also to be used without giving the source. It's a choice I made and I can perfectly understand why people don't want to have Big Ol' Apple stealing their stuff and making heaps of money from it. But, I can also understand why people want to really give the code away. It's all about perspective and there is no right or wrong here. It all depends on the personal views of the coder/owner of the code and what that person/org wants to let others do with their code. BSD has the advantage that it can become closed source. That makes it easier to generate profit, but also (especially in the commercial world) there are other good reasons why people want to protect their product. GPL has the advantage that every time someone uses your code, that code will become available also. Just don't ever think that because your code is GPL'd, no one will dare to use it in close source. As much as I would love such a world, that would be very naive.

Re:two dictionaries say "no such word"

[Lendrick]

Note to self: Using words that aren't words is an excellent way to troll.

I (unknowingly) used something that isn't actually an english word. You took the time to look it up in two separate dictionaries basically just so you could be pedantic. If you're that kind of person, I'm glad I could waste your time. :)

Re:Just one question

[lgw]

OK, really: do you seriously expect BSD not to stick with BSD Licensed code? It's pretty much the point of the exercise. YouBetterSayGNULinux is there if you want it - you can have all the GNUs you want. BSD is not and should not be a Linux distro - it's its own thing, older and with a different mindset.