Then is Open BSD going to stop using GCC ? I mean, GCC is GPL so it is using GPL software to create their system, right ?
LLVM is a BSD-licensed C/C++ compiler (*) and is generating code which outperforms GCC's on some benchmarks, so at some point, OpenBSD may want to consider using LLVM.
(*) currently using GCC's GPL'd C/C++ parser, until someone wants to write a new one:)
No, this is not a troll, despite what you may have initially assumed; hear me out.
The problem is that I *DO* program SunOS/Sparc systems, by virtue of having a portable project across Linux/x86, AIX & OSX/PPC, SunOS/Solaris, FreeBSD/x86, and Cygwin & Win32/X86. Of those, Sparc is the biggest PITA to support: rebuilding takes FOREVER, so the test/debug/test cycle is just really painful.
Really, the price/performance ratio is just not there, but we support it. Look, for the amount of money we spent on what I consider close to top-of-the-line Sparc servers to use for development, we could've bought a nice car. It does not perform nearly as well as much cheaper but much faster x86 and PowerPC machines! We're talking compile/link times in the span of hours which take minutes on x86 and PowerPC.
Care to tell me why anyone should be programming on Solaris/Sparc? Maybe Solaris/x86, but I don't think that's such a large marketshare to warrant porting serious projects to it.
Seriously, what do people do these days with Solaris programming-wise that they cannot do easier, cheaper, and faster with other architectures/machines/OSes?
The Suns I use are so slow, I would never consider programming on Solaris, although I do make sure the software builds there, too. They just aren't cost-effective given the performance, and the functionality of OS-supplied tools is so low, I think most users/admins install GNU tools on top of it anyway, so it becomes GNU/Solaris anyway. Then, slap on GCC and GNU-compatible headers and maybe even glibc, and you've got a Linux-like system already.
Besides, why Solaris? Linux is much more (freely) available, portable, updated, and doesn't depend on a single corp.
What customer list? Believe it or not, CompUSA does not sample your DNA and track everything you buy. This is not like an ISP where they have a list of customers, at best they'll have a list of the 2% that bothered to register.
You mean you don't use credit cards? Or do you think credit cards are "anonymous" if you don't register the product?
You see, I was very happy with my girlfriend at the time (whom I later married), and I didn't want to mess that up by sleeping with someone she saw every day and whom I didn't trust to keep quiet. So I turned her down.
What's wrong with this is that the only reason for not cheating on your gf is that she might find out about it... One wonders if you cheat on each other with complete strangers and if that's considered OK between the two of you ("hey, (s)he will never know!").
What you're talking about is "support" -- you have problems, they help you fix them.
What I'm talking is what the original poster said -- "legal recourse". By that I presume SUING the vendor for material damages if the problems in their software adversely affect your business.
It's the difference between:
"I can't install your software and integrate it with some other 3rd party program" == you need support.
"Your software corrupted our clients database as well as lost 3 years worth of past transactions!!!" == you want legal recourse to recoup damages.
Legal: Do we want/need legal recourse if something goes wrong with this piece of software?
Is that meant to argue that it's something you HAVE with commercial proprietary software ("after all, you paid $$$ for it!!") vs. NOT having it with OSS ("hey, you paid $0, you get $0 worth of support/guarantee")?
Because that assumption is clearly false; you cannot sue any manufacturer for software problems, because it's clearly stated in many EULAs that the software is for your use "... AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OR ANY GUARANTEE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,..., WITHOUT GUARANTEE OF SUITABILITY FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE" -- meaning, they don't even want to guarantee that it does what they say it does!
Please feel free to prove me wrong by citing an appropriate court case in which someone got money from the vendor of software that did not perform its function suitably and/or appropriately.
If you want regular folk, i.e. not just Freenet/BitTorrent users, to read this, it needs to be in a print publication or an autoritative web publication with a stable URL.
Either of those carries the weight of responsibility and possibility of being sued. Spreading stuff around anonymous p2p networks with no proper name/company attribution just screams "Hey, I made up some numbers!! Look, I won't even sign my name to it!! Woooooo!!!!"
If you cannot put your name with it, it doesn't carry as much (if any) weight. If you do, you will be sued. Lose-lose.
I doubt anyone will want to CITE that material in any publication, BUT if it's so well documented as to be reproducible AND fair, I see no reason why people wouldn't want to spread it by word of mouth and letting others know.
The problem is that no reputable organization could publish those results without getting C&D or worse from the MS law squad. After all, it's "in the EULA".
Save yourself the trouble. Become a Liberal Arts major, and you can manage any of the EE/CS majors anywhere, and get paid more. If the economy sucks, you can move into any other field like sales or marketing. Those folk usually have history or some other degree, anyway.
Why not just use something like LLVM and/or extend it instead of re-inventing the wheel?
LLVM is already made to be low-level (like assembly language) but with high-level types (struct, int, array) like high-level languages. Sounds like just what they would want.
So true! I'm right there with you... Well, in spirit, and probably at another CS grad school, and I'm not close to finishing, but DAMN am I enjoying it compared to my friends who are out there in the "real" world and complain about their 2-3 weeks off per year, when I have a winter break, summer vacation, etc, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
Gigapxl Project, via NYUD.NET mirror. I think the photos there speak for themselves.
LLVM is a BSD-licensed C/C++ compiler (*) and is generating code which outperforms GCC's on some benchmarks, so at some point, OpenBSD may want to consider using LLVM.
(*) currently using GCC's GPL'd C/C++ parser, until someone wants to write a new one :)
That's funny -- CBS doesn't see journalism in blogs, blogs don't see much journalism in the likes of CBS, either!
No, this is not a troll, despite what you may have initially assumed; hear me out.
The problem is that I *DO* program SunOS/Sparc systems, by virtue of having a portable project across Linux/x86, AIX & OSX/PPC, SunOS/Solaris, FreeBSD/x86, and Cygwin & Win32/X86. Of those, Sparc is the biggest PITA to support: rebuilding takes FOREVER, so the test/debug/test cycle is just really painful.
Really, the price/performance ratio is just not there, but we support it. Look, for the amount of money we spent on what I consider close to top-of-the-line Sparc servers to use for development, we could've bought a nice car. It does not perform nearly as well as much cheaper but much faster x86 and PowerPC machines! We're talking compile/link times in the span of hours which take minutes on x86 and PowerPC.
Care to tell me why anyone should be programming on Solaris/Sparc? Maybe Solaris/x86, but I don't think that's such a large marketshare to warrant porting serious projects to it.
Seriously, what do people do these days with Solaris programming-wise that they cannot do easier, cheaper, and faster with other architectures/machines/OSes?
The Suns I use are so slow, I would never consider programming on Solaris, although I do make sure the software builds there, too. They just aren't cost-effective given the performance, and the functionality of OS-supplied tools is so low, I think most users/admins install GNU tools on top of it anyway, so it becomes GNU/Solaris anyway. Then, slap on GCC and GNU-compatible headers and maybe even glibc, and you've got a Linux-like system already.
Besides, why Solaris? Linux is much more (freely) available, portable, updated, and doesn't depend on a single corp.
Either that, or *BSD, perhaps?
Brings new meaning to the term P2P...
US News and World Report (2003 mirror): UIUC is #5.
Not really... speaking from experience here... :)
What you're talking about is "support" -- you have problems, they help you fix them.
What I'm talking is what the original poster said -- "legal recourse". By that I presume SUING the vendor for material damages if the problems in their software adversely affect your business.
It's the difference between:
Is that meant to argue that it's something you HAVE with commercial proprietary software ("after all, you paid $$$ for it!!") vs. NOT having it with OSS ("hey, you paid $0, you get $0 worth of support/guarantee")?
Because that assumption is clearly false; you cannot sue any manufacturer for software problems, because it's clearly stated in many EULAs that the software is for your use "... AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OR ANY GUARANTEE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ..., WITHOUT GUARANTEE OF SUITABILITY FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE" -- meaning, they don't even want to guarantee that it does what they say it does!
Please feel free to prove me wrong by citing an appropriate court case in which someone got money from the vendor of software that did not perform its function suitably and/or appropriately.
If you want regular folk, i.e. not just Freenet/BitTorrent users, to read this, it needs to be in a print publication or an autoritative web publication with a stable URL.
Either of those carries the weight of responsibility and possibility of being sued. Spreading stuff around anonymous p2p networks with no proper name/company attribution just screams "Hey, I made up some numbers!! Look, I won't even sign my name to it!! Woooooo!!!!"
If you cannot put your name with it, it doesn't carry as much (if any) weight. If you do, you will be sued. Lose-lose.
I doubt anyone will want to CITE that material in any publication, BUT if it's so well documented as to be reproducible AND fair, I see no reason why people wouldn't want to spread it by word of mouth and letting others know.
The problem is that no reputable organization could publish those results without getting C&D or worse from the MS law squad. After all, it's "in the EULA".
Various MS EULAs prevent you from publishing any specific benchmarking results. Go read 'em.
Save yourself the trouble. Become a Liberal Arts major, and you can manage any of the EE/CS majors anywhere, and get paid more. If the economy sucks, you can move into any other field like sales or marketing. Those folk usually have history or some other degree, anyway.
Why not just use something like LLVM and/or extend it instead of re-inventing the wheel?
LLVM is already made to be low-level (like assembly language) but with high-level types (struct, int, array) like high-level languages. Sounds like just what they would want.
It's a slow news day, whatcha want. :-)
So true! I'm right there with you... Well, in spirit, and probably at another CS grad school, and I'm not close to finishing, but DAMN am I enjoying it compared to my friends who are out there in the "real" world and complain about their 2-3 weeks off per year, when I have a winter break, summer vacation, etc, etc...