3 ms·

Only if you assume the only choices were 1. using GCC or 2. writing from scratch. Thing is, this assumption obviously doesn't match reality. Absurd assumption

by trasz 8y ago

Only if you assume the only choices were 1. using GCC or 2. writing from scratch. Thing is, this assumption obviously doesn't match reality. Absurd assumptions -> absurd conclusions. And no, BSD has nothing to do with shareware. Shareware was never about sharing sources; meanwhile, BSD-licensed projects are fine with respect to sharing - just take a look at Postgres, LLVM, FreeBSD, X11, or Python. GPL is an attempt to protect from a threat which was never real, and by doing so it makes life harder for everyone.

pjmlp 8y ago
I have plenty of crufty shareware CDs and most likely unreadable floppies with source code on those .zip and .arj files. FreeBSD vs what Linux has achieved, LLVM still lacking many of the hardware targets supported by GCC don't seem to be doing that great in company contributions. The others I don't know well enough to comment on. Lets check again in about 10 years to see how far they managed to develop themselves. Maybe I will be wrong, maybe not.
- trasz 8y ago
  There are many GPL-licensed operating systems. You could as well compare FreeBSD with Hurd and make the opposite conclusion.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Hurd is not a UNIX clone and that plays a big role in adoption.
    - trasz 8y ago
      How so? You mean the microkernel thingy? It somehow didn't hurt adoption of the most successful desktop Unix out there. The main thing that plays a role in adoption is whether something actually works.