4 ms·

Apple refused to update to any GPL-3 software, including GCC and GDB. Clang/LLVM is great, but it's not a complete replacement given that it's lacking commonly

Apple refused to update to any GPL-3 software, including GCC and GDB. Clang/LLVM is great, but it's not a complete replacement given that it's lacking commonly-needed things like OpenMP, thread-local storage, Fortran, and others. Valgrind chronically does not work properly on OSX because the Valgrind developers don't use it and Apple hasn't invested a modicum of effort in helping. I use BSD-2/MIT for my own work so I have to deal with not depending on libraries that are GPL-encumbered, but I still respect the GPL and think it's poor form for a platform to discriminate against it.

dietrichepp 13y ago
Wait, are you saying that Apple is hostile towards the GPL because it contributed developer resources towards GPLv2 projects and shipped hardware with preinstalled GPLv2 binaries, and refuses to spend developer resources on contributing to GPLv3 projects? And are you blaming Apple for not devoting resources to Valgrind? From my perspective, GCC was becoming a tangled mess of code due to politically-motivated sabotage by the FSF. Nothing like LLVM bitcode would ever have made it into GCC because it would make GCC too modular, and because the FSF not only supports open-source software but opposes closed-source software, it is against modularity (since someone could potentially distribute closed-source frontend to GCC, if it were modular). This is not mere speculation, people have tried to fix architectural issues in GCC in the past and been shot down for explicitly this reason. You could even say this behavior is hostile. But this is nothing special. This is just another iteration of the conflict between BSD and GPL.
LnxPrgr3 13y ago
Apple is no more responsible for contributing to Valgrind than you or I am. I do wish Valgrind worked properly on Mac OS X, but I don't have the right to demand someone make it happen for me, especially for free. Same with GCC and GDB. If the GPLv3 is an unacceptable contract to Apple, they have a right not to agree to it. It's not exactly an uncontroversial license.
dspillett 13y ago
> Apple refused to update to any GPL-3 software, including GCC and GDB. Clang/LLVM is great To be fair the problem with GCC isn't just GPL, v3 or otherwise. Apparently its design is deliberately convoluted to reduce modularity, making it harder for people to use parts rather than the whole, and the architecture also makes dynamic compilation much more difficult to implement than LLVM's tool chain (this was one of the key drivers, rather than the GPL thing).
- lmm 13y ago
  That explains GCC, but why the refusal to use up-to-date versions of Samba?

dietrichepp 13y ago

Wait, are you saying that Apple is hostile towards the GPL because it contributed developer resources towards GPLv2 projects and shipped hardware with preinstalled GPLv2 binaries, and refuses to spend developer resources on contributing to GPLv3 projects? And are you blaming Apple for not devoting resources to Valgrind? From my perspective, GCC was becoming a tangled mess of code due to politically-motivated sabotage by the FSF. Nothing like LLVM bitcode would ever have made it into GCC because it would make GCC too modular, and because the FSF not only supports open-source software but opposes closed-source software, it is against modularity (since someone could potentially distribute closed-source frontend to GCC, if it were modular). This is not mere speculation, people have tried to fix architectural issues in GCC in the past and been shot down for explicitly this reason. You could even say this behavior is hostile. But this is nothing special. This is just another iteration of the conflict between BSD and GPL.

LnxPrgr3 13y ago

Apple is no more responsible for contributing to Valgrind than you or I am. I do wish Valgrind worked properly on Mac OS X, but I don't have the right to demand someone make it happen for me, especially for free. Same with GCC and GDB. If the GPLv3 is an unacceptable contract to Apple, they have a right not to agree to it. It's not exactly an uncontroversial license.

dspillett 13y ago

> Apple refused to update to any GPL-3 software, including GCC and GDB. Clang/LLVM is great To be fair the problem with GCC isn't just GPL, v3 or otherwise. Apparently its design is deliberately convoluted to reduce modularity, making it harder for people to use parts rather than the whole, and the architecture also makes dynamic compilation much more difficult to implement than LLVM's tool chain (this was one of the key drivers, rather than the GPL thing).

lmm 13y ago
That explains GCC, but why the refusal to use up-to-date versions of Samba?