3 ms·
>You're comparing an organization consisting of projects headed by different people Originally gnu wasn't what you are describing. It grew into it. Just like w
by _-david-_ 4y ago
>You're comparing an organization consisting of projects headed by different people
Originally gnu wasn't what you are describing. It grew into it. Just like what is happening to systemd now.
>with very few strict inter-dependencies
Systemd has very few interdependencies as well.
>whose primary goal was being compatible with as many Unix systems as possible at the time
As far as I know glibc is strictly for Linux. Maybe Gnu had an intention of creating software that was compatible with multiple systems but not all their stuff is.
>whose utilities are deeply interwoven (can't run a systemd tool, say, resolved, without systemd) and are expressly incompatible with the ecosystem they're trying to replace.
The same thing happens with Gnu stuff. Large chunks of gnu software requires GCC.
- mid-kid 4y ago> As far as I know glibc is strictly for Linux. glibc is one of the few exceptions to the rule, and even that supports Hurd and has historically had patchsets to run on the BSDs. > Large chunks of gnu software requires GCC. This is simply not true. Autoconf, the build generation utility, is so insanely complex and archaic because it had to support wildly different compilers and Unix environments. These days it's just GCC and Clang, both of which are very well supported beyond just the GNU ecosystem, to the point Gentoo now has a clang-only variant.