FreeBSD 10 To Use Clang Compiler, Deprecate GCC

An anonymous reader writes "Shared in last quarter's FreeBSD status report are developer plans to have LLVM/Clang become the default compiler and to deprecate GCC. Clang can now build most packages and suit well for their BSD needs. They also plan to have a full BSD-licensed C++11 stack in FreeBSD 10." Says the article, too: "Some vendors have also been playing around with the idea of using Clang to build the Linux kernel (it's possible to do with certain kernel configurations, patches, and other headaches)."

Comments

Dropping the GPL ~= worse.

[sethstorm]

While the BSD licensing model allows various hijinks to go around without the requirement of disclosure.

Complaining about the GPL is like complaining that you can't play dirty pool with code licensing(see Tivoization). Then again, you probably would rather throw some ad hominem at me regarding a certain GPL advocate.

Re:Dropping the GPL ~= worse.

[demars]

Many people wants _real_ freedom for their software

No, they don't. If they did, they'd use GNU GPL v3.

But I think you mean the opposite of what you said: people want to be free to do whatever they want with the software, including taking away the software's freedom.

That's the thing. Free software is not about your freedom, it's about the software's freedom. It is not for the benefit of anyone in particular, it is for the benefit of the whole humanity. When you think about where rms came from, and when you read his writings, you realize that his ideal is not an indifferent "here's some code, use as you wish". It is an ideologically grounded "here's some code, it's for everyone to use, and if you build upon it, the result is also for everyone to use".

In other words, he was using the common English meaning of "freedom" rather than Stallman's Orwellian redefinition of the word.

Re:What's wrong with GCC?

[cheesybagel]

The BSD guys are an interesting crowd. Well they can continue to watch Microsoft and Apple pilfer their software stack usually giving nothing in return while they can use GNOME or KDE or whichever other GPL or LGPLed project exists on their system (takes only a recompile) because otherwise they don't have a useable desktop and are stuck with 1980s user interfaces. I have used clang and it was neither faster to compile nor produced faster code than GCC. The only noticeable thing is the ANSI colored error messages... blech. I understand it is supposed to be easy to port because of LLVM but the fact is GCC has already been ported basically to every architecture that matters so it probably wasn't that hard to port GCC either. Apple just wants to clamp down everything to be BSD so they can batter down all hatches eventually for the day when they give nothing back. All it takes is a change of heart or leadership. I still remember in the early days they only released source code much time after they did the release which is counter to the GPL people had to beg to them to get access to the source code or, heaven forbid, actually participate in development (it seems for Apple all developers outside of Apple are a bunch of idiots who can't code or something).

Re:in other words

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty damning when Linus himself no longer refers to Linux as free software because he doesn't like the extremism of the free software movement. And why should he? He's an engineer, not a religious fundamentalist.

Which is hilarious because it is the BSD fundamentalists who are re-implementing huge projects just to avoid a license they don't like for no reason other than poltical correctness. Oh right, of course, when BSD zealots flame everyone else it doesn't count as "religious fundamentalism". You fucking hypocrites.

Re:in other words

[jedidiah]

The "need" to keep a C complier closed is a highly dubious one.

This is about Apple being neurotic and ant-consumer. It isn't about any real limitatoins of GCC or the GPL.

Insightful, not troll.

[turgid]

Corporate shill/anti-Free Software mods.