3 ms·
And it shows how silly the idea is. gcc still sees plenty of forks from vendors who don't upstream, and llvm sees a lot more commercial participation. Unfortuna
by surajrmal 10mo ago
And it shows how silly the idea is. gcc still sees plenty of forks from vendors who don't upstream, and llvm sees a lot more commercial participation. Unfortunately the Linux kernel equivalent doesn't exist.
- hedgehog 10mo agoThere are several open BSDs.
- School-Cotton 10mo agoAFAIK there's no evidence to suggest that permissive vs. copyleft license is the reason for the relative lack of success of the BSDs vs. Linux.
- pjmlp 10mo agoPlayStation and macOS kind of show what happens with upstream. As did all the UNIXes that used to rule before companies started sponsoring Linux kernel development, and were quite happily taking BSD code into them, alongside UNIX System V original code.
- leoc 10mo agoIt's also nakedly hypocritical behaviour on Stallman's part. Hoping (whether in vain or not) that GCC being Too Big to Fork ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6810259 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6810259 ) will keep people from having access to the AST interface really isn't substantially different from saying "why do you need source code, can't you just disassemble the binary hahaha".
- eikenberry 10mo agoI wouldn't call Linux's stance silly. A working OS requires drivers for the hardware it will run on and having all the drivers in the kernel is a big reason we are able to use Linux everywhere we can today. Just like if they had used a more permissive license, we wouldn't have the Linux we do today. Compare the hardware supported by Linux vs the BSDs to see why these things are important.