4 ms·

Just another example of poor leadership from Stallman.

• jhgb 6y ago
  Yep, it should have been GCC, not LLVM, that earned Apple more big bucks. Totally a bad decision.
  • CalChris 6y ago
    Apple used GCC for more than a decade. It wasn’t until LLVM came along that they had a viable choice and they took it.
    • bonzini 6y ago
      Until the GPLv3 came along, really. Apple kept contributing to GCC until 4.2.
    • jhgb 6y ago
      I know they used it. And I'm really glad for GCC's sake that they took that choice.
• klyrs 6y ago
  Yes and no. Stallman's asshattery created the need for a more flexible, scrutible, tool. We have LLVM now, the world is better off for it. Companies are free to extend it privately, and upstream bugfixes and features when it's in their interest. GPLv3 pushed many of us over to Apache or other more permissive licenses. Companies are free to develop software, APIs, and libraries that are free to use, extend, and repair without threatening their patent portfolio. The ecosystem is thriving, thanks to RMS's immovable opinions.
  • staticassertion 6y ago
    This just sounds like "yes" to me.
    • HunterWare 6y ago
      rofl, I was thinking the same thing and also agreeing with the GP and GGP otherwise. =)
    • klyrs 6y ago
      I think it's more complicated than that. He really inspired a lot of people with his passion, drawing us into the movement. But then the same passion pushed us out of his corner, but his previous adherents didn't lose sight of what was actually important to us. I kinda think his attitudes promoted a diversity of ideas in a way that he never intended to. He's currently at the center of conflict between several organizations that are considered keystones of our community. What will become of it? I don't know, but I have faith that we'll route around the damage.