25 ms·

What is the use of better compiler technology if you are prevented from modifying your devices and limited to running "approved" applications? I would rather h

by trengrj 11y ago

What is the use of better compiler technology if you are prevented from modifying your devices and limited to running "approved" applications? I would rather have freedom over speed, especially when the standard phone today is far more powerful than the computers onboard the Apollo 11.

rwallace 11y ago
I agree that freedom is important. That's why I like LLVM: it gives me practical freedom to do research on analysis and transformation of actual code. Before, you were legally free to do this, which was a good starting point to be sure, but in practice your options were fork GCC or write and maintain a modern C++ compiler from scratch, either of which would be a high-end project by itself and neither of which would be feasible as a secondary project alongside whatever you were actually trying to do. As for the locking down of devices, I agree this is a problem but I don't believe the causes and potential solutions have anything to do with GCC versus LLVM.
webaholic 11y ago
No license is going to fix your issue if the device vendor is unwilling. Look at the current state of Android devices. It is using gcc as the default compiler. Even if Apple used gcc they would lock their devices the same way. Compiler is not the reason for this.
- trengrj 11y ago
  Agreed but you implied the GPLv3 was useless and I felt compelled to defend it. GPLv3 does help with tivoisation. That is why corporations dislike it.
toast0 11y ago
What is the use of better compiler technology if I can't integrate it into the product I ship?
- sangnoir 11y ago
  And you've reached the heart of the matter - of use to who? GPLv3 tech is of little use to pro-Tivoization organisations & people (hint: it's not the license's fault that your product can't ship it). GPL: more useful to users of the software. BSD: more useful to corporations, especially those that are pro-closed source/pro-Tivoization

by trengrj 11y ago

rwallace 11y ago

I agree that freedom is important. That's why I like LLVM: it gives me practical freedom to do research on analysis and transformation of actual code. Before, you were legally free to do this, which was a good starting point to be sure, but in practice your options were fork GCC or write and maintain a modern C++ compiler from scratch, either of which would be a high-end project by itself and neither of which would be feasible as a secondary project alongside whatever you were actually trying to do. As for the locking down of devices, I agree this is a problem but I don't believe the causes and potential solutions have anything to do with GCC versus LLVM.

webaholic 11y ago

No license is going to fix your issue if the device vendor is unwilling. Look at the current state of Android devices. It is using gcc as the default compiler. Even if Apple used gcc they would lock their devices the same way. Compiler is not the reason for this.

trengrj 11y ago
Agreed but you implied the GPLv3 was useless and I felt compelled to defend it. GPLv3 does help with tivoisation. That is why corporations dislike it.

toast0 11y ago

What is the use of better compiler technology if I can't integrate it into the product I ship?

sangnoir 11y ago
And you've reached the heart of the matter - of use to who? GPLv3 tech is of little use to pro-Tivoization organisations & people (hint: it's not the license's fault that your product can't ship it). GPL: more useful to users of the software. BSD: more useful to corporations, especially those that are pro-closed source/pro-Tivoization