5 ms·

Didn't Apple buy CUPS specifically so that they could keep parts of it proprietary? They're definitely only funneling money into LLVM so they can drop their de

by tedks 14y ago

Didn't Apple buy CUPS specifically so that they could keep parts of it proprietary? They're definitely only funneling money into LLVM so they can drop their dependencies on GCC, which will probably have a net harmful effect on the free software culture.

tzs 14y ago
> They're definitely only funneling money into LLVM so they can drop their dependencies on GCC Definitely and only? How did you determine this?
- tedks 14y ago
  It's sort of obvious? I can't see any other reason Apple would have for it, other than making compilers researchers have slightly easier lives. It'd certainly make sense after they were forced to open source the frontend for Objective-C.
  - tzs 14y ago
    Apple had two technical needs that GCC could not reasonably satisfy. One was to compile Core Image filters. When you make a chain of filters, they treat it as a single complicated filter which they JIT compile and optimize for your GPU or CPU (I believe they decide at run time which to target based on what will be best for the particular complex filter you have defined). Another technical need they had was for a compiler system that could be easily and tightly integrated with other tools, such as IDEs and debuggers. Either of the above would have required extensive modifications to GCC, and they would not have been able to get those modifications into the upstream. The result would be Apple would have to maintain a fork of GCC. They'd be spending a lot of effort porting things from upstream into their fork.
    - tedks 14y ago
      So would you say that Apple is definitely only funding LLVM so they can drop their dependency on GCC?
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Circular snark is circular.
vor_ 14y ago
> which will probably have a net harmful effect on the free software culture. Mind explaining how funding the development of free software hurts free software?
- riotingpscifis 14y ago
  1) Replace GPL code with BSD code 2) Release a subset of the features to open source community Why would Apple be so allergic to GPL unless they want the ability to close stuff? If really you think Apple would stay open if they dominated the market look at the iPhone.
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    This is only "hurting free software" if you are a complete radical like rms, who believes that any closed source software is an affront to humanity, blah, blah. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what Apple closes, as everything that was Free before, is still Free afterwards. If you don't like Apple's stuff, fork it. If you don't like closed source software, don't use it. I don't see anybody putting a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to use Apple stuff.
    - tedks 14y ago
      This is a shallow view of the situation. Your metric is essentially "no knowledge is lost from the Free world." However, this means that all free software developers could die tomorrow and your metric would be satisfied. A better metric is "the most free software that could be made is made." Switching from a GPLd compiler platform to a non-copyleft "freemium" Apple platform is worse for this. If you don't care about free software as a political goal, there is no purpose to have this discussion in the first place, as you don't care about free software being hurt.
      - mindcrime 14y ago
        I think you're setting up a false dichotomy here. "You care" or "you don't care". Reality is more nuanced than that. Also, the idea of "all free software developers dying tomorrow' is just hyperbole, since the chances of that happening are essentially nil. Yes, we'd all like to maximize the amount of F/OSS software in the world. F/OSS is a Good Thing, and I founded a company based around F/OSS for a reason. But it's not this horrible tragedy / affront to humanity, if Apple (or whoever) takes a step away from a purist "Free" software position. To put it another way: no one owes you (or me, or anybody else) a world full of all the Free software we want. And even more so when plenty of people in the world don't care about software freedom. As long as those of us who do care have the option to fork and continue development of projects, then the actual freedom remains, as far as I'm concerned.

by tedks 14y ago

tzs 14y ago

> They're definitely only funneling money into LLVM so they can drop their dependencies on GCC Definitely and only? How did you determine this?

tedks 14y ago
It's sort of obvious? I can't see any other reason Apple would have for it, other than making compilers researchers have slightly easier lives. It'd certainly make sense after they were forced to open source the frontend for Objective-C.
- tzs 14y ago
  Apple had two technical needs that GCC could not reasonably satisfy. One was to compile Core Image filters. When you make a chain of filters, they treat it as a single complicated filter which they JIT compile and optimize for your GPU or CPU (I believe they decide at run time which to target based on what will be best for the particular complex filter you have defined). Another technical need they had was for a compiler system that could be easily and tightly integrated with other tools, such as IDEs and debuggers. Either of the above would have required extensive modifications to GCC, and they would not have been able to get those modifications into the upstream. The result would be Apple would have to maintain a fork of GCC. They'd be spending a lot of effort porting things from upstream into their fork.
  - tedks 14y ago
    So would you say that Apple is definitely only funding LLVM so they can drop their dependency on GCC?
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Circular snark is circular.

vor_ 14y ago

> which will probably have a net harmful effect on the free software culture. Mind explaining how funding the development of free software hurts free software?

riotingpscifis 14y ago
1) Replace GPL code with BSD code 2) Release a subset of the features to open source community Why would Apple be so allergic to GPL unless they want the ability to close stuff? If really you think Apple would stay open if they dominated the market look at the iPhone.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  This is only "hurting free software" if you are a complete radical like rms, who believes that any closed source software is an affront to humanity, blah, blah. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what Apple closes, as everything that was Free before, is still Free afterwards. If you don't like Apple's stuff, fork it. If you don't like closed source software, don't use it. I don't see anybody putting a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to use Apple stuff.
  - tedks 14y ago
    This is a shallow view of the situation. Your metric is essentially "no knowledge is lost from the Free world." However, this means that all free software developers could die tomorrow and your metric would be satisfied. A better metric is "the most free software that could be made is made." Switching from a GPLd compiler platform to a non-copyleft "freemium" Apple platform is worse for this. If you don't care about free software as a political goal, there is no purpose to have this discussion in the first place, as you don't care about free software being hurt.
    - mindcrime 14y ago
      I think you're setting up a false dichotomy here. "You care" or "you don't care". Reality is more nuanced than that. Also, the idea of "all free software developers dying tomorrow' is just hyperbole, since the chances of that happening are essentially nil. Yes, we'd all like to maximize the amount of F/OSS software in the world. F/OSS is a Good Thing, and I founded a company based around F/OSS for a reason. But it's not this horrible tragedy / affront to humanity, if Apple (or whoever) takes a step away from a purist "Free" software position. To put it another way: no one owes you (or me, or anybody else) a world full of all the Free software we want. And even more so when plenty of people in the world don't care about software freedom. As long as those of us who do care have the option to fork and continue development of projects, then the actual freedom remains, as far as I'm concerned.