It's not a UNIX if it doesn't ship with a C compiler. End of story.
Does shipping with a command named "gcc" (and others named "clang" and "cc") that, when run, pop up a window that asks if you want to install either 1) the Full Blown Shiny IDE or 2) the command-line compiler tools and, if you choose either of those options (rather than "Cancel"), installs what you asked for, replacing said commands with the compiler driver, count?
I skimmed through your link and I would say that they are pretty lame for claiming to be a communist party.
Their major points appear to be to stop racism and fight for gender equality. No reasonable person argues against those things.
They claim to be revolutionary but the revolution they talk about is that of gathering a large voter base in a democratic republic.
That's the closest thing you get to "far left" here in the US; you probably won't find the Communist Party USA, or the Peace and Freedom Party, to be too far on the left by the standards of the rest of the world, either.
And, yes, the NY Times is well to the right of all three parties, so calling it "far left" is a sign of being so far right that just about anything to your left looks "far left".
Read between the lines. Liberal is a polite word. What else would you call an organization that openly supports far-left causes not only on the editorial page but the news pages?
Has Oracle/Sun also adapted LLVM/Clang for Solaris, or are they staying w/ GCC?
If you mean "as their official compiler", the answer to both questions is "no"; they have, instead, Sun^WOracle Solaris Studio's compilers. If you mean "in their package system", they could offer both, but currently only appear to offer GCC 3 and GCC 4.5.
How about IBM in AIX,
If you mean "as their official compiler", the answer to both questions is "no"; they have, instead, IBM XL C/C++.
or HP in HP/UX?
If you mean "as their official compiler", the answer to both questions is "no"; they have, instead, HP C/aC++.
No, it makes it a combination of GPL'ed and non-GPL'ed code, which may make it "code that's in violation of one or the other license" or, alternatively, "code that's not entirely licensed in a fashion acceptable to the GCC developers".
If you're trying, you're probably doing it slowly and carefully enough that you don't hit the window border drag region. This happens (on occasion, not particularly often, but often enough to be a small irritation) when I'm doing a quick select-and-copy (or, when not on a Mac, a quick select-and-paste-current-selection).
If I ever did that, I'd stop working and have my eyes and brain checked for:
1.Not seeing the cursur icon
Sorry I didn't notice the cursor image change in the few milliseconds between hitting the region where selecting grabs the border and clicking the trackpad.
2.Using mouse when working with a terminal
In which desktop environments can I copy text from a terminal window without using a pointing device?
It's crazy expensive. But it's good. It's the most typical compiler for BlueGene machines, for example. But you can buy a few gcc licenses for the same price.
You can buy an infinite number of GCC licenses for the same price, unless you mean something other than "a right to use the software" by "license". Do you mean "a few GCC support contracts"?
I don't have a mouse, but presumably you meant "mouse or trackpad".
on the window border while trying to select text?
By having the pointer a slight bit to the left of the left-hand edge of the text in the window.
ust hovering over it doesn't do it, just dragging over it doesn't do it... not sure what your problem is but you have to actually click the border to drag it.
Wrong. The cursor changes from the text cursor (meaning it'll select text if you drag it) to the horizontal resize cursor (meaning it'll drag the border) before you hit the border.
I decided not to go beyond 10.6 the moment I saw "Edge Resize" in 10.7:-((
As OS X users finally get the power to unintentionally resize their terminal emulator windows when trying to select text that goes right up to the margin, just as other UN*X users have had for ages.:-)
(Yes, I've done that on a number of times on FreeBSD/Linux/Solaris/etc. inside $PICK_YOUR_TERMINAL_EMULATOR, but didn't feel the joy of doing that on OS X until Lion.)
Price isn't the issue for me. The issue is that with Linux, you can always dig deeper when debugging and hacking. With Windows, OSX, or any other system without full source, the debugging will hit a brick wall at system calls.
Actually, with OS X, you can go below the system call layer (but not down to the device driver layer, as most of those are part of the non-open-source part of the kernel-mode code, and not down to some file systems such as AFP, as the AFP client isn't open-source either). The big problem would be with debugging stuff sufficiently far above the system call layer, such as problems in the Cocoa Framework and AppKit layers.
Also, if Apple is deprecating all GPL3 software that they have, be it GCC, Samba, then why are they offering bash?
mavericks.local$ sw_vers ProductName: Mac OS X ProductVersion: 10.9 BuildVersion: 13A603 mavericks.local$ bash --version GNU bash, version 3.2.51(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin13) Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Does OS X still include GCC, or have they - like FBSD 10 completely deprecated it in favor of LLVM/Clang?
Well, I'm not sure more recent versions of OS X "include" a compiler in the sense that you have the compiler available on the machine as delivered, but, in Mavericks, if you try to run a developer command-line tool, it pops up a window asking if you want to install Xcode or just the command-line developer tools. As of the current version of Xcode (5), they have nothing using GCC's front end, just clang. Xcode 4.2 through 4.6.x included only llvm-gcc (GCC front end, LLVM back end) and clang.
Also, does OS-X include X at all
As of Mountain Lion, no, although if, for example, you try to run xterm from the command line, it pops up a window telling you that you need to install X and offering to open up the Xquartz Web site to download and install it.
I thought that one advantage that they'd have is that they wouldn't be undergoing the X => Wayland/Mir transition?
If you mean an advantage of not basing their GUI on X (it isn't, in fact, based on X; the X server runs on top of the native GUI), yes, that would be an advantage.
I also thought it would have something to just provide terminal & unix shell services if needed.
Presumably something other than a terminal emulator window (which is provided with Terminal.app). You can ssh in if you've enabled it, and, at least on some versions of OS X, you can log in at the login screen with a user name of ">console", at which point it shuts down the window system and puts you at a getty prompt on the system console. No virtual terminals, however.
Incidentally, which shell does OS X come w/?
Shells, plural - bash, tcsh, ksh (starting in, I think, Tiger), zsh. I think bash is the default; it might have been tcsh in earlier releases.
But just to be precise (and this precision matters if you are building some piece of software that relies on the leniency of the GNU compiler collection), gcc (as well as g++) has been a symbolic link to clang for quite some time.
That was not true until Xcode 5.
You don't get the real gcc with Mac OS X out of the box. This is not the worst move because clang has superior error reporting (even making suggestions that are actually helpful)
What you got as "gcc", prior to Xcode 4.2, was GCC. What you got, from Xcode 4.2 to 4.6.3, was llvm-gcc, which had GCC's front end and an LLVM-based back end, so it wasn't fully the real GCC but it also didn't use clang as the front end and didn't give clang's error reporting. What you got, starting with GCC 5.0, was clang.
10.6 to 10.8 was a pretty difficult transition. different X, command line compiler tools hidden in a couple of directories underneath
XCode, signed applications, grudging support for java, different open source package manager.
as someone who should probably be running linux, how difficult is this going to make my life?
X: just like 10.8, you need XQuartz. At least it's not different from 10.8.
Command-line compiler tools: if, for example, you just type "gcc" at the command line just for the lulz, it'll pop up a window (so your command line had better be in a Terminal window on the machine on which you're running your shell) asking whether you want Full Frontal Xcode or just the command-line tools. If you select the latter, it'll plop them in an obscure directory under/Librarybut will plant stuff in/usr/bin that runs those commands. If you select the former, I suspect it'll plop them under/Applications/Xcode.app but will plant stuff in/usr/bin that runs those commands. (Having installed the command-line tools on my Mavericks VM, and then installed Xcode, I don't know what happens if you start by installing Xcode. I do know that if you do both, you get two count 'em two separate copies of, at minimum, the clang program.)
Signed applications, Java: not much, if anything, has changed there from 10.8.
Open source package manager: OS X doesn't come with one, so no change.
Presumably you don't mean "Mac OS X is a desktop operating system, and the operating system in question is (based on) OpenBSD", given that the latter is not true. OS X is based on Mach 3, various flavors of BSD in the kernel and UNIX-layer userland, and a fair bit of Apple-devloped code in the kernel and UNIX-layer userland; most of the BSD in the kernel and UNIX-layer userland comes from FreeBSD and NetBSD, not OpenBSD.
The power management stuff is largely Apple-developed.
And no, I don't experience any lag as things "wake up". So now what do you say? Windows simply doesn't consider power management as a priority. Why does it keep polling every connected hard drive? It's an antiquated core with features continuously layered on. It needs a rewrite from ground up.
If you view modern Windows's NT core, dating back to the early '90's, as "an antiquated core with features continuously layered on", requiring "a rewrite from the ground up", then do you view, say, OS X's core, dating back at least to the late '90's, and back to the late '80's/early '90's if you go all the way back to NeXTStEP, as not being "an antiquated core with features continuously layered on" and not requiring "a rewrite from the ground up"? What about Linux (dating back to the early '90's, again) or the *BSDs (ditto)?
Because it wasn't designed with power management in mind. Duh. The engineers who wrote some of the subsystems probably took shortcuts that they knew would suck up power (indefinite loops or some such) but were easy to implement. It is a desktop OS.
BSD, on the other hand, was built with embedded systems in mind.
No, it wasn't. If we go back to 3 and 4BSD, it was built with VAXes in mind; even if we only go back to {Free,Net}BSD (Open and DragonFly forked off from them), it was built with PeeCee's in mind.
And NeXTStEP/OS X were also originally designed for desktops.
Desktop Linux, I hear, is pretty rough on power too, but not as bad as Windows.
Linux was also originally built with PeeCee's in mind.
So Windows, OS X, Linux, and *BSD were all originally built with personal computers in mind; all the power-saving stuff largely came later, as 1) notebook computers became more popular, 2) some of those OSes were taken into lower-power embedded systems, and 3) some of those OSes were taken into smaller mobile computers.
maybe they thought the pizza printer would be perfected so they could dispense with the poor slobs who bake them and just sit their on their unregulated island heaven and say "computer, make me a thin curst with basil and anchovies."
And then, because they didn't think about where the crust, basil, or anchovies came from, they get PC LOAD THIN rather than a pizza, and take the pizza printer out and smash it.
You're trotting out that link, I suppose, to imply that a benevolent nanny-state is the only protection against quackery, but I think the market has a way of sorting such things out.
So, based on history, which ways of sorting such things out work better at preventing such things before people get sick or die?
Not precisely. The Democrats have moved very far left over recent decades, and are now functionally the same as 60s-70s Republicans. Obama's further right still.
Slashdot Mirror
Did anyone else hear the fox football analyst in their heads while reading this?
I heard "Big Balls" by AC/DC.
It's not a UNIX if it doesn't ship with a C compiler. End of story.
Does shipping with a command named "gcc" (and others named "clang" and "cc") that, when run, pop up a window that asks if you want to install either 1) the Full Blown Shiny IDE or 2) the command-line compiler tools and, if you choose either of those options (rather than "Cancel"), installs what you asked for, replacing said commands with the compiler driver, count?
I skimmed through your link and I would say that they are pretty lame for claiming to be a communist party. Their major points appear to be to stop racism and fight for gender equality. No reasonable person argues against those things. They claim to be revolutionary but the revolution they talk about is that of gathering a large voter base in a democratic republic.
That's the closest thing you get to "far left" here in the US; you probably won't find the Communist Party USA, or the Peace and Freedom Party, to be too far on the left by the standards of the rest of the world, either.
And, yes, the NY Times is well to the right of all three parties, so calling it "far left" is a sign of being so far right that just about anything to your left looks "far left".
Read between the lines. Liberal is a polite word. What else would you call an organization that openly supports far-left causes not only on the editorial page but the news pages?
Far left? Such as, say, the Revolutionary Communist Party?
As distinguished from the New York Times, which supports nothing that any person who's actually aware of reality would call "far-left".
Is the New York Times a liberal newspaper? Of course it is.
Is the new York Times "far left" except in the fever dreams of the far right? Of course it isn't.
Has Oracle/Sun also adapted LLVM/Clang for Solaris, or are they staying w/ GCC?
If you mean "as their official compiler", the answer to both questions is "no"; they have, instead, Sun^WOracle Solaris Studio's compilers. If you mean "in their package system", they could offer both, but currently only appear to offer GCC 3 and GCC 4.5.
How about IBM in AIX,
If you mean "as their official compiler", the answer to both questions is "no"; they have, instead, IBM XL C/C++.
or HP in HP/UX?
If you mean "as their official compiler", the answer to both questions is "no"; they have, instead, HP C/aC++.
Why? Does GCC using it's code make LLVM worse?
No, it makes it a combination of GPL'ed and non-GPL'ed code, which may make it "code that's in violation of one or the other license" or, alternatively, "code that's not entirely licensed in a fashion acceptable to the GCC developers".
Out of curiosity I've just tried
If you're trying, you're probably doing it slowly and carefully enough that you don't hit the window border drag region. This happens (on occasion, not particularly often, but often enough to be a small irritation) when I'm doing a quick select-and-copy (or, when not on a Mac, a quick select-and-paste-current-selection).
If I ever did that, I'd stop working and have my eyes and brain checked for: 1.Not seeing the cursur icon
Sorry I didn't notice the cursor image change in the few milliseconds between hitting the region where selecting grabs the border and clicking the trackpad.
2.Using mouse when working with a terminal
In which desktop environments can I copy text from a terminal window without using a pointing device?
It's crazy expensive. But it's good. It's the most typical compiler for BlueGene machines, for example. But you can buy a few gcc licenses for the same price.
You can buy an infinite number of GCC licenses for the same price, unless you mean something other than "a right to use the software" by "license". Do you mean "a few GCC support contracts"?
How are you unintentionally clicking your mouse
I don't have a mouse, but presumably you meant "mouse or trackpad".
on the window border while trying to select text?
By having the pointer a slight bit to the left of the left-hand edge of the text in the window.
ust hovering over it doesn't do it, just dragging over it doesn't do it ... not sure what your problem is but you have to actually click the border to drag it.
Wrong. The cursor changes from the text cursor (meaning it'll select text if you drag it) to the horizontal resize cursor (meaning it'll drag the border) before you hit the border.
Do you have pulsy or something?
No.
I decided not to go beyond 10.6 the moment I saw "Edge Resize" in 10.7 :-((
As OS X users finally get the power to unintentionally resize their terminal emulator windows when trying to select text that goes right up to the margin, just as other UN*X users have had for ages. :-)
(Yes, I've done that on a number of times on FreeBSD/Linux/Solaris/etc. inside $PICK_YOUR_TERMINAL_EMULATOR, but didn't feel the joy of doing that on OS X until Lion.)
Price isn't the issue for me. The issue is that with Linux, you can always dig deeper when debugging and hacking. With Windows, OSX, or any other system without full source, the debugging will hit a brick wall at system calls.
Actually, with OS X, you can go below the system call layer (but not down to the device driver layer, as most of those are part of the non-open-source part of the kernel-mode code, and not down to some file systems such as AFP, as the AFP client isn't open-source either). The big problem would be with debugging stuff sufficiently far above the system call layer, such as problems in the Cocoa Framework and AppKit layers.
Also, if Apple is deprecating all GPL3 software that they have, be it GCC, Samba, then why are they offering bash?
And that version is GPLv2.
Does OS X still include GCC, or have they - like FBSD 10 completely deprecated it in favor of LLVM/Clang?
Well, I'm not sure more recent versions of OS X "include" a compiler in the sense that you have the compiler available on the machine as delivered, but, in Mavericks, if you try to run a developer command-line tool, it pops up a window asking if you want to install Xcode or just the command-line developer tools. As of the current version of Xcode (5), they have nothing using GCC's front end, just clang. Xcode 4.2 through 4.6.x included only llvm-gcc (GCC front end, LLVM back end) and clang.
Also, does OS-X include X at all
As of Mountain Lion, no, although if, for example, you try to run xterm from the command line, it pops up a window telling you that you need to install X and offering to open up the Xquartz Web site to download and install it.
I thought that one advantage that they'd have is that they wouldn't be undergoing the X => Wayland/Mir transition?
If you mean an advantage of not basing their GUI on X (it isn't, in fact, based on X; the X server runs on top of the native GUI), yes, that would be an advantage.
I also thought it would have something to just provide terminal & unix shell services if needed.
Presumably something other than a terminal emulator window (which is provided with Terminal.app). You can ssh in if you've enabled it, and, at least on some versions of OS X, you can log in at the login screen with a user name of ">console", at which point it shuts down the window system and puts you at a getty prompt on the system console. No virtual terminals, however.
Incidentally, which shell does OS X come w/?
Shells, plural - bash, tcsh, ksh (starting in, I think, Tiger), zsh. I think bash is the default; it might have been tcsh in earlier releases.
But just to be precise (and this precision matters if you are building some piece of software that relies on the leniency of the GNU compiler collection), gcc (as well as g++) has been a symbolic link to clang for quite some time.
That was not true until Xcode 5.
You don't get the real gcc with Mac OS X out of the box. This is not the worst move because clang has superior error reporting (even making suggestions that are actually helpful)
What you got as "gcc", prior to Xcode 4.2, was GCC. What you got, from Xcode 4.2 to 4.6.3, was llvm-gcc, which had GCC's front end and an LLVM-based back end, so it wasn't fully the real GCC but it also didn't use clang as the front end and didn't give clang's error reporting. What you got, starting with GCC 5.0, was clang.
10.6 to 10.8 was a pretty difficult transition. different X, command line compiler tools hidden in a couple of directories underneath XCode, signed applications, grudging support for java, different open source package manager.
as someone who should probably be running linux, how difficult is this going to make my life?
X: just like 10.8, you need XQuartz. At least it's not different from 10.8.
Command-line compiler tools: if, for example, you just type "gcc" at the command line just for the lulz, it'll pop up a window (so your command line had better be in a Terminal window on the machine on which you're running your shell) asking whether you want Full Frontal Xcode or just the command-line tools. If you select the latter, it'll plop them in an obscure directory under /Library but will plant stuff in /usr/bin that runs those commands. If you select the former, I suspect it'll plop them under /Applications/Xcode.app but will plant stuff in /usr/bin that runs those commands. (Having installed the command-line tools on my Mavericks VM, and then installed Xcode, I don't know what happens if you start by installing Xcode. I do know that if you do both, you get two count 'em two separate copies of, at minimum, the clang program.)
Signed applications, Java: not much, if anything, has changed there from 10.8.
Open source package manager: OS X doesn't come with one, so no change.
wouldn't a better name have been "ipod hair"
I really do not want an iPod, or even an iPad, that I have to shave.
Linux is meant to run on lighter hardware, which means it tends to use less CPU.
Yes, it's meant to run on all sorts of lighter hardware.
Srsly, Linux is meant to run on whatever the hell can run Linux. That's it. Any other claim is bullshit.
Mac OS X is a desktop operating system - OpenBSD.
Presumably you don't mean "Mac OS X is a desktop operating system, and the operating system in question is (based on) OpenBSD", given that the latter is not true. OS X is based on Mach 3, various flavors of BSD in the kernel and UNIX-layer userland, and a fair bit of Apple-devloped code in the kernel and UNIX-layer userland; most of the BSD in the kernel and UNIX-layer userland comes from FreeBSD and NetBSD, not OpenBSD.
The power management stuff is largely Apple-developed.
And no, I don't experience any lag as things "wake up". So now what do you say? Windows simply doesn't consider power management as a priority. Why does it keep polling every connected hard drive? It's an antiquated core with features continuously layered on. It needs a rewrite from ground up.
If you view modern Windows's NT core, dating back to the early '90's, as "an antiquated core with features continuously layered on", requiring "a rewrite from the ground up", then do you view, say, OS X's core, dating back at least to the late '90's, and back to the late '80's/early '90's if you go all the way back to NeXTStEP, as not being "an antiquated core with features continuously layered on" and not requiring "a rewrite from the ground up"? What about Linux (dating back to the early '90's, again) or the *BSDs (ditto)?
Because it wasn't designed with power management in mind. Duh. The engineers who wrote some of the subsystems probably took shortcuts that they knew would suck up power (indefinite loops or some such) but were easy to implement. It is a desktop OS.
BSD, on the other hand, was built with embedded systems in mind.
No, it wasn't. If we go back to 3 and 4BSD, it was built with VAXes in mind; even if we only go back to {Free,Net}BSD (Open and DragonFly forked off from them), it was built with PeeCee's in mind.
And NeXTStEP/OS X were also originally designed for desktops.
Desktop Linux, I hear, is pretty rough on power too, but not as bad as Windows.
Linux was also originally built with PeeCee's in mind.
So Windows, OS X, Linux, and *BSD were all originally built with personal computers in mind; all the power-saving stuff largely came later, as 1) notebook computers became more popular, 2) some of those OSes were taken into lower-power embedded systems, and 3) some of those OSes were taken into smaller mobile computers.
who is going to make his clothes?
how will he power his machines?
The young Alexander conquered India. Was he alone?
maybe they thought the pizza printer would be perfected so they could dispense with the poor slobs who bake them and just sit their on their unregulated island heaven and say "computer, make me a thin curst with basil and anchovies."
And then, because they didn't think about where the crust, basil, or anchovies came from, they get PC LOAD THIN rather than a pizza, and take the pizza printer out and smash it.
You're trotting out that link, I suppose, to imply that a benevolent nanny-state is the only protection against quackery, but I think the market has a way of sorting such things out.
So, based on history, which ways of sorting such things out work better at preventing such things before people get sick or die?
Not precisely. The Democrats have moved very far left over recent decades, and are now functionally the same as 60s-70s Republicans. Obama's further right still.
Presumably you meant "very far right over recent decades" (see, for example, this Democratic president's 1949 State Of The Union speech).